RRC Archives

Second amendment upheld.

the one where the court "shot down" the gun ban?

Yep. This time it was the Supreme court of the U.S. They held that our gun rights are individual rights, not collective rights, and that's what's significant.

Tom Goldstein says: "Individuals have a constitutional right to possess a basic firearm (the line drawn is unclear, but does not extend to automatic weapons) and to use it in self-defense. The government can prohibit possession of firearms by, for example, felons and the mentally ill. And it can also regulate the sale of firearms, presumably through background checks.

The opinion leaves open the question whether the Second Amendment is incorporated against the States, but strongly suggests it is. So today’s ruling likely applies equally to State regulation."

The decision runs 157 pages, so there will undoubtedly be much to digest and discuss.

The same court that put those criminals in office?

Touche'. The voters decided the outcome of the presidential election. The Supreme Court simply put an end to Gore's endless gyrations.

Thank you Supreme Court because the police can't protect you.

L Day wrote:Second amendment upheld.

you mean the right to nude appendages?
(sorry, I couldn't resist. you can kick me now )

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.

I'll try to make time to read through Scalia's opinion, but it certainly seems odd to me that Mr. "strict constructionist" himself appears to have taken a fat sharpie and crossed out the first thirteen words of the amendment. If it isn't a conditional clause, why did the framers put it in there?

I'll be interested to see in the opinions how it is that while banning machine guns is OK, but banning handguns (easily concealed, frequently stolen, exclusively designed for shooting people, widely used in crimes) is not OK. (Clearly the framers in their day of single-shot, muzzle loading, unreliable guns could not have imagined what a nut with a couple of semi-automatic handguns could do in a school...)

I don't know much about guns in particular, but I've talked with people who prefer shotguns for home protection (in the city) - wide blast of shot makes "aim" less important, shot less likely to pass through multiple walls and hit bystanders (like their kids), etc. It seems odd that there's some sort of "need" that outweighs all the problems with handguns.

Given that there are millions of guns floating around in the US, and lots of people illegally carry concealed guns, I don't see this ruling making much of a difference. Maybe, with this ruling supposedly creating a clear cut right to gun ownership, we can get reasonable gun licensing and registration in place.

Also, now that this bad idea is enshrined as a "right", maybe the day will come sooner that we get our collective head out of our collective ass and amend the constitution to fix the mess that the second amendment created.

Does it mean anything to you that this is really good news for Obama's presidential campaign? You know it takes off the table the number one reason that many would vote against him, that is fear that He would take away their gun rights.

tomdarch wrote:

Also, now that this bad idea is enshrined as a "right", maybe the day will come sooner that we get our collective head out of our collective ass and amend the constitution to fix the mess that the second amendment created.

So you don't enjoy your freedom? How do you think we became free? No cop will be there for you in the time of need either. Trust me they won't even do a decent job with the crime scene. You are on your own and a gun creates respect like nothing else. The way the world is becoming it may be necessary pretty soon. And with the economy the way it is people are getting more and more desperate.