|
|
|
|
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 7:26:17 AM | Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Thursday, June 26th, 2008 10:14 am | Lyle Denniston | Comments Off |
Email this • Share on Facebook • Digg This!
Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession.
Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the majority stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, or laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, or laws putting conditions on gun sales.
In District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), the Court nullified two provisions of the city of Washington’s strict 1976 gun control law: a flat ban on possessing a gun in one’s home, and a requirement that any gun — except one kept at a business — must be unloaded and disassembled or have a trigger lock in place. The Court said it was not passing on a part of the law requiring that guns be licensed.
============================================================
Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right
AP - 5 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.
| |
|
| |
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 8:24:51 AM | It's about time. The USSC should have cleared this up long ago.
I agree, though it had already been done in an indirect fashion earlier. For example, the Miller case that anti-gunners like to bring up actually supports gun rights, even though it upheld a law banning sawed off shotguns. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 8:26:01 AM | Yeah !!!! 
The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, for the first time in U.S. history, that individual Americans have the right to own guns for personal use, and struck down a strict gun control law in the nation's capital.
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.
The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.
 | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 11:31:38 AM | House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says that despite the Supreme Court decision to strike down its gun ban, the District of Columbia will still be able to regulate firearms.
"I think it still allows the District of Columbia to come forward with a law that’s less pervasive," Pelosi said at her weekly briefing Thursday. "I think the court left a lot of room to run in terms of concealed weapons and guns near schools." | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 11:38:37 AM | Once again, the SCOTUS demonstrated its lack of Constitutional awareness or integrity. This is what we get for having republican presidents for 24/32 years.
I am not a gun control freak. I care about the Constitution above all else. This reverses 220 years of precedent. It is another sad day for Constitutional Advocates. | |
|
| |
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 12:51:03 PM |
Posted By: exodusi1
Once again, the SCOTUS demonstrated its lack of Constitutional awareness or integrity. This is what we get for having republican presidents for 24/32 years.
I am not a gun control freak. I care about the Constitution above all else. This reverses 220 years of precedent. It is another sad day for Constitutional Advocates.
You are?
Then read the constitution and the Federalist Papers.
The purpose of the 2nd ammendment "right to bear arms" was:
To allow the people to be CAPABLE of REVOLT against an OPPRESSIVE govenment.
Taken LITERALLY... EVERYONE should be allowed to buy an M1 Abrams, fully operational tank, if they want it.
And the Constitution should be taken litterally.
Sorry... the Supreme Court did it right this time.
Roe V Wade... they goofed.
The answer should have been:
Your state ruled. It is not within the Federal government's authority to intervene.
The Constitution PURPOSEFULLY limits the federal government.
Any power not SPECIFICLY granted to the federal government in the constitution is NOT within the Federal government's authority to act upon.
Instead of spouting that you are a constitutionalist... try reading it before you abuse it.
 | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 1:54:10 PM | | ^^^^^Couldnt have said it better myself. It amazes me that people under the guise of the constitution try t0 intereperate it themselves to mean whatever they have on their agenda instead of taking it literally they then start by saying something usually t0o the effect of what they think the original founding fathers meant to say. In that case as with any other constitutional clause they then try to intereperate the meaning of what was written instead of the written words themselves. The Supreme court did not do anything but interperate the law which is what they are supposed to do. They do not make law nor are they supposed to ammend law to what they themselves believe it should be. You talk about how in one fell swoop the SCOTUS had destroyed 200 years of precedent yet you fail to realize that precedent is not law and that precedent is in fact only an interpretation of the law by a court and that interpretation can be undone if proven to be false. Same here as the SCOTUS has just now intereprated the law to mean that we do have that right thereby making precedent to the contrary null and void . | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 2:03:16 PM | Once again, the SCOTUS demonstrated its lack of Constitutional awareness or integrity. This is what we get for having republican presidents for 24/32 years.
I am not a gun control freak. I care about the Constitution above all else. This reverses 220 years of precedent. It is another sad day for Constitutional Advocates.
I nominate this for oxymoron quote of the month. Its stuff like this why Im usually embarrased to admit Im a Democrat. I collectively apologize. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 2:10:58 PM | Once again, the SCOTUS demonstrated its lack of Constitutional awareness or integrity.
How so? Have you bothered to read the 2nd and 10th Amendments?
I am not a gun control freak. I care about the Constitution above all else. This reverses 220 years of precedent. It is another sad day for Constitutional Advocates.
What precedent? Where has SCOTUS previously ruled that individuals don't have a right to keep and bear arms? | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 2:22:28 PM | A Few quotes from our founding "Fathers"
"I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the Federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances." Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788.
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776
"Fear the government that fears your guns." -- Thomas Jefferson
"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." Thomas Jefferson 1803
"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
Samuel Adams of Massachusetts -- U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." James Madison, The Federalist Number 46
"[Tyranny cannot be safe] without a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace." James Madison, In his autobiography
"Arms in the hands of individual citizens [may] be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense..."
John Adams, A Defense of the Constitution of Government of the United States of America, 1788
"The right of self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals." President James Monroe (November 16, 1818)
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
George Washington
Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth." ~George Washington
"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of
destruction." Blackstone's 1768 "Commentaries on the Laws of England"
"The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of the liberties of the republic, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." Joseph Story, United States Supreme Court Justice, 1833
"The danger (where there is any) from armed citizens, is only to the 'government', not to 'society'; and as long as they have nothing to revenge in the government (which they cannot have while it is in their own hands) there are many advantages in their being accustomed to the use of arms, and no possible disadvantage."
Joel Barlow, Advice to the Privileged Orders, 1792-93
"[The disarming of citizens] has a double effect, it palsies the hand and brutalizes the mind: a habitual disuse of physical forces totally destroys the moral [force]; and men lose at once the power of protecting themselves, and of discerning the cause of their oppression." Joel Barlow, Advice to the Privileged Orders, 1792-93
"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..."
Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788
| |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 2:24:43 PM | The Second Amendment States;
A well regulated militia, being necessary for the proper defense of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Bear Arms, in the context of 1791 meant in a military sense.
This meant the State had a right to determine its course, not civilians.
Article 1, section 8 clause 15 and 16 define a militia.
This was NOT a significant "right" to the founding fathers. They wrote very little on it, which is why it has been left open for so long. And no, it doesn't give you the "right" to own a m1-a1 Abrahms Tank.
Yes, I believe in the Constitution, No I don't believe in complete gun control. I am a hunter. I can out shoot most people I know (or don't know). The SCOTUS has become a joke. History will remember them as fondly as Dubya! | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 2:31:37 PM | I find it disturbing that this has even been in question!
There is no such thing as a collective right, or states' rights, or the concept that government has any rights at all. The Constitution never refers to, and never conveys rights to, any part of government at any level. Government entities are either prevented from exercising power, or that power is specifically delegated to it.
- All rights are individual in nature.
- People (individuals) have Rights, Power, and Authority.
- People delegate some of their power and authority to government so it may function.
- Rights, like responsibility, cannot be delegated
Today is a good day for freedom and liberty. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 2:36:45 PM | ^^^^^^Exodus
This was NOT a significant "right" to the founding fathers. They wrote very little on it
Please refer to the post above yours for just a few of our founding fathers thoughts on the subject.
And the following for a definition of militia as our founding fathers defined it ...
The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.
An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defense, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.
I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.
See the rest here .... http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
And here for our modern definition ....
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
 | |
|
| |
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 2:53:50 PM | Yeah, too bad everyone disarmed and slaughtered by Mao, Hitler, and every other infamous mass-murderer in history isn't around to celebrate, either.
The irony and MADDENING illogic of the opposition is that, were guns outlawed, folks like the perpetrators of Columbine and Virginia tech wouldn't have ignored the laws and gotten guns anyway, cuz we all know thugs and criminals obey the law along with everyone else, amirite? | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 3:00:49 PM | It can be so frustrating trying to converse with Neocons!
I am NOT for complete gun control!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!
Is that frigging clear enough?
This is a question of Constitutionality.
Does the state have a right to protect its citizens from suprefluous guns?
Does the state have a right to protect police officers from armor piercing bullets?
Do you understand WHO the "state" is?
Few liberals are out to take everyone's guns. That is rhetoric of the ignorant! | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 3:03:41 PM |
exodusi1 said:
The Second Amendment States;
A well regulated militia, being necessary for the proper defense of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Oops! You didn't even quote it right.
"Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. " (emphasis added)
Bear Arms, in the context of 1791 meant in a military sense. Again, read what it says. "Militia" is defined in US code. You live in AZ, and I'm guessing you are a US citizen. Welcome to the Militia, Sir:
United States Code > TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
This meant the State had a right to determine its course, not civilians. No, states do not have a right to determine their own course. No part of government, at any level, has any right to do anything.
Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States, or in any state constitution, is any right conveyed to any government body. Our government doesn't even have the right to exist! It exists because we delegate some of our own power and authority to it, and we can un-delegate that power and authority. We even have the DUTY to do so if the government becomes despotic.
Article 1, section 8 clause 15 and 16 define a militia. Of what document?
This was NOT a significant "right" to the founding fathers. They wrote very little on it, which is why it has been left open for so long. Breathing was not written about much, either. I bet it was critically important to them, though!
And no, it doesn't give you the "right" to own a m1-a1 Abrahms Tank.
Read Amendment IX of the Constitution and try the same argument.
Also, the Constitution does not GIVE rights.
The Constitution does two things
1. It defines our federal government.
2. It limits the power of of our federal government, and our state government via the 14th amendment: "...No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..."
Yes, I believe in the Constitution
Not the way I see it!
, No I don't believe in complete gun control. Just a little licensing here, a nominal fee there...
That was tried with the poll tax, and found to be unConstitutional. Charging a fee or requiring a license to exercise a RIGHT is a clear infringement.
I am a hunter. I can out shoot most people I know (or don't know). The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting or shooting accurately. Lame argument!
The SCOTUS has become a joke. History will remember them as fondly as Dubya! Ah.... True colors show!
I'm not much of a W fan, and the SCOTUS has pulled a few decisions directly out of their ass of late, though this particular decision is (mostly) a good one. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 3:04:27 PM |
Yeah, too bad everyone disarmed and slaughtered by Mao, Hitler,
Not to get involved with this issue, but Hitler didn't disarm the populace, he actually was disarmed by the populace, when the german gun control act under the weinmar Republic took his and the communist weapons away. Which is one of the reasons his beer hall pucht fell apart so miserably.
He got ELECTED. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 3:15:37 PM | I'd be interested to see whether D.C. will accept CCW permits from VA as legal or not, in the future.
Well at least the anti-gun freaks who wanted an all out ban on guns can kindly shut the F' up now. Yea, I know, they will still whine about it and blame guns for all the bad in the country. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 3:16:34 PM |
It can be so frustrating trying to converse with Neocons!
Not nearly as frustrating as talking to folks that call everyone who disagrees with them a neocon. I think the Trotskyite neocons are just as worthless as the Marxocrats.
Anyway, ad hominem attacks don't do much to prove your point, and calling someone (who isn't) a neocon qualifies as an ad-hom in just about anyone's book, I would imagine.
This is a question of Constitutionality.
Does the state have a right to protect its citizens from suprefluous guns?
Not sure I've seen that in the constitution....
Does the state have a right to protect police officers from armor piercing bullets?
Do the people have the right to protect themselves from unlawful government agents? | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 3:18:00 PM | exodusi1 said:
It can be so frustrating trying to converse with Neocons! At my age, there's not much "neo" about me.
I am NOT for complete gun control!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!! Some infringement is OK, though.... even though the government is specifically prevented from doing that.
Is that frigging clear enough? Yup. I understand what you are saying.
Does what you say match what you mean?
This is a question of Constitutionality.
Does the state have a right to protect its citizens from suprefluous guns? NO.
Does the state have a right to protect police officers from armor piercing bullets? NO.
Do you understand WHO the "state" is? Yes.
My country is not my government.
The people are not the government.
The government is an entity that uses (and abuses) power and authority. Over time, a government gathers & uses more & more power and authority. Look at our own government. Look at the SCOTUS! Nearly half of the Justices say that we do NOT have a right to keep & bear arms!
The state is subordinate to the rights of people, yet you keep talking about government having rights.
Few liberals are out to take everyone's guns. That is rhetoric of the ignorant! Taking the advice of our founding fathers, I carefully guard the freedom and liberty I have. I recommend you think carefully about what you are saying. I hear you saying that government has rights, and can do as it it wishes wit those 'rights'. | |
|
| |
| |
|
| Page 1 of 13
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 |
|
Home
login 
