Court says individuals have right to own guns

[Gunners762]

Decision is justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history ..
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/images/icons/slideshow.gif (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25392635/displaymode/1176/rstry/25390404/) View related photos (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25392635/displaymode/1176/rstry/25390404/)

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.
The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.
The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "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."
The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
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.

Click for related content
Vote: Your take on gun control? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25391991/)
Discuss the ruling on Newsvine (http://killfile.newsvine.com/_news/2008/06/26/1612885-court-says-individuals-have-right-to-own-guns)


In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."
'Landmark victory'
The ruling quickly became fodder for the presidential race. Sen. John McCain lauded the decision in a written statement, calling it a "landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States."
The Republican presidential hopeful criticized his rival Barack Obama's stance (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/26/1169956.aspx) on the issue, saying the Democrat had refused to sign a statement calling for Thursday's ruling.
"Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right — sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly," McCain said.
Senator Obama said the decision "will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country."
"As president, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters and sportsmen ... We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals," Obama stated.

.Reactions to Supreme Court striking down D.C. gun ban"This opinion should usher in a new era in which the constitutionality of government regulations of firearms are reviewed against the backdrop of this important right."
- Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.
"The right to bear arms is a fundamental right we enjoy as citizens of the United States. From individuals being able to protect their family and their home to sportsmen venturing into the outdoors, this is an important and historic day for all citizens of this great country."
- Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn.
"I am profoundly disappointed in Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, both of whom assured us of their respect for precedent. With this decision, 70 years of precedent has gone out the window. And I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it."
- Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
"Today's ruling is a major victory for the rights of all Americans to protect themselves and their families. The Supreme Court sent a clear message to local, state, and federal governments that this individual right cannot be unreasonably infringed."
- Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas
"I think this is a long overdue decision; I don't think the precedent has been seriously reaffirmed in decades."
- Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis.
"The nation's top court made the correct decision by reaffirming one of our founding principles, the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. This historic ruling has implications far beyond the District of Columbia."
- Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas
"Today, President Bush's radical Supreme Court justices put rigid ideology ahead of the safety of communities in New Jersey and across the country. This decision illustrates why I have strongly opposed extremist judicial nominees and will continue to do so in the future."
- Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.
"In the most significant victory for the Second Amendment in recent memory, the Supreme Court today reaffirmed our citizens' constitutional right to keep and bear arms...This decision should send a clear message to opponents of the Second Amendment. The Constitution plainly guarantees the solemn right to keep and bear arms, and the whims of politically correct bureaucrats cannot take it away."
- House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio
"The Supreme Court's decision underscores our country's commitment to protecting the fundamental rights on which America was founded. Today, America has reaffirmed its promise to the right to bear arms."
- Rep. Nick Lampson, D-Texas
"While this is a clear victory for those who live in Washington, D.C., it's my hope what was decided here today projects a powerful new precedent for judges to follow across the country."
- Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo.
"Today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country."
- Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. "This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms."
- Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. "Eighty people a day die at the hands of guns. We have got to stop that. The court clearly ruled that reasonable regulations are permitted under that decision."
- New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg



• Print this (http://javascript<b></b>:OPW('gunbrill_080626','printVer');)
The White House praised the ruling.
"We are pleased by the Court's decision upholding Americans right to bear arms. We look forward to reading the ruling in detail," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said.
The issue had caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.
CONTINUED: Dissenters vs. supporters (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25390404/page/2/) 1 | 2 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25390404/page/2/) | Next > (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25390404/page/2/)

[Jorge_Banner]

It’s a good day on Earth. And an important day. At least in one place, there’s a semblance of sanity. In danger? For sure. In doubt? Yes. But it is a push in the right direction and in the logical place: America. Good for you. Your friends all around the planet are applauding.

:bow01: :beer: :wavey: :bow01: :beer: :wavey: :bow01: :beer: :wavey:

[cutter]

IMO, SCOTUS sold us halfway up the river. Yes, they ruled, 5-4, that individuals have a right to keep and bear arms. Then they went on to say that some regulations are in order. I have mixed opinions about the issues of felons and the mentally ill posessing firearms. On the one hand, the Constitution does not place such a restriction in or on the 2nd. On the other hand, there is a possibility for unwarrented violence at the hands of such individuals.

What I see as the greatest injustice of the ruling is the part about some regulation is permissible. Now it is legal for DC residents to own handguns and keep them in their homes. Of course there is the question of legally transporting them from the place of purchase to their homes. There is also the matter of registration of those weapons. "Sure, you can legally own a pistol but you have to register it." At that point, all the DC government has to do is make the registration process too difficult or cost too high for most to meet. If the Chicago ban is overturned, then all that must be done is to make a FOID nigh impossible to obtain. "You can legally own a gun, but you must posess a valid FOID to do so. You can't afford it? You don't meet one of the 249 new requirements to obtain it? Too bad for you. You can't own a gun."

I suppose that this ruling is better than nothing and gives us a place to start; but we have a long, long way to go. All this over one damn comma. What a shame.

[Jorge_Banner]

Would the alternative have been better? You guys built the country. You let it go to rot. You fix it. Otherwise, come over here and I’ll show a country with problems. In fact, come over here and I’ll show you what America will be like after the full-of-****nicks like the husseins, the ahpelosijads, the feinsteins, the schumers, the clintons, the kennedys and all the liberal c#&p, finish their work.

You know where you’re going. Stop it. You should be the more consistent ones. The more consistent wins. C’mon! Don’t let the poor worms around the world with nothing to aspire to.

[gripper]

Thanks, Jorge! Your'e right;we have an unfortunate tendency in this country as of late to cooperate in our own destruction.

[cutter]

You know Jorge, if it weren't for the facts that I like and respect you, you are partly right, and that I apparently didn't properly convey my complaint; you would have pissed me off with that last post.

As it is, you did not at all. You are correct that We the People of the United States allowed things to become as they are in our Nation. We should have put the liberal sell outs in their place when they started their stupidity, but that would have violated their Constitutional rights. Now, they have given us just cause to correct the problem.

As to the alternative, well, the proper alternative would have been a ruling that the 2nd is an individual right and that it is absolute. There is no room nor provision for "reasonable restrictions". The language and meaning of the 2nd is about as ambiguous as a kick in the groin. While I don't relish the idea of convicted felons, the insane, potential or actual terrorists, or criminals of any flavor having guns, I have to submit that we must take the good with the bad if we are to have the freedoms we so desire in the form that we so desire them. The idea is that we can contain the situation and set things right if we are equipped to do so.

Jorge, if you put as much passion into changing your own government as you do in cheerleading us (which I appreciate, BTW), you would have your Constitution re-written and would be the President or Prime Minister of your country inside a month. Go ahead, start a freedom revolution with our blessing.

[Rich Z]

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."


No, you damned dumbass (Justice John Paul Stevens), the Framers made a choice to limit the government they CREATED by giving us the Second Amendment to enforce that goal, instead. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were NOT about limiting us, they were about limiting the government those documents were creating as a protection for us, "we the people". How the HELL can you sit on the SCOTUS and not understand that basic principle under which this country was founded?

[Old Snort]

While much gratified by the ruling I am not at all gratified by the five to four thiness of it. Be aware of how that decision would have turned had a liberal appointed the last one or to justices. Respectfully.---OS

[cutter]

Snort, you have correctly identified what may be a real problem for us in the future. Should we find ourselves with a 5-4 liberal bent to the SCOTUS at some later time, this rulling could be successfully challenged.

[DblTap]

Cutter has a good point. While this decision was a major victory for freedom, the right to license is the right to deny. We still have a fight on our hands and this was only step 1. The antis will never stop and so neither should we. Apparently some of the American people don't believe in freedom either otherwise people like Bloomberg, Feinstein and Schumer would never have been elected.

No, you damned dumbass (Justice John Paul Stevens), the Framers made a choice to limit the government they CREATED by giving us the Second Amendment to enforce that goal, instead. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were NOT about limiting us, they were about limiting the government those documents were creating as a protection for us, "we the people". How the HELL can you sit on the SCOTUS and not understand that basic principle under which this country was founded?

Maybe there is some sort of secret handshake that we don't know about. Either that or my observation of elected and appointed officials is correct. And that is most of them seem to suffer from mental deficiencies. "Such evidence is nowhere to be found". How about the second amendment to the US Constitution? I would say that is evidence. "Shall not be infringed" sure seems to me to be a limit on elected officials. Of course I am not a Justice on the Supreme Court so I must confess my obvious ignorance on such matters.

[Jorge_Banner]

You know Jorge, if it weren't for the facts that I like and respect you, you are partly right, and that I apparently didn't properly convey my complaint; you would have pissed me off with that last post.

As it is, you did not at all. You are correct that We the People of the United States allowed things to become as they are in our Nation. We should have put the liberal sell outs in their place when they started their stupidity, but that would have violated their Constitutional rights. Now, they have given us just cause to correct the problem.

As to the alternative, well, the proper alternative would have been a ruling that the 2nd is an individual right and that it is absolute. There is no room nor provision for "reasonable restrictions". The language and meaning of the 2nd is about as ambiguous as a kick in the groin. While I don't relish the idea of convicted felons, the insane, potential or actual terrorists, or criminals of any flavor having guns, I have to submit that we must take the good with the bad if we are to have the freedoms we so desire in the form that we so desire them. The idea is that we can contain the situation and set things right if we are equipped to do so.

Jorge, if you put as much passion into changing your own government as you do in cheerleading us (which I appreciate, BTW), you would have your Constitution re-written and would be the President or Prime Minister of your country inside a month. Go ahead, start a freedom revolution with our blessing.


I’m glad I didn’t piss you off with my post. Getting pissed off at people who are on your side is really a poor management of resources. I can see, nonetheless, I have set something off there but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

I understood completely what you meant and I think I understand the situation. Still, you have a 2ndA., you have a SCOTUS and it doesn’t work half as bad as it could considering that the country is in the situation that it could choose such a flawed specimen as hussein as the next President. It could have turned into “nobody has ANY right to own a gun and all those who have one, turn it in to the State by tomorrow”. Well, it didn’t. I take it as a small step in the right direction. When things are really bad, a step in the right direction should be appreciated. A friend of mine was telling me yesterday “what a pity Charlton Heston didn’t live to see this”. I think he would have appreciated it.

You know, I think I’ve done a little more than cheerleading although I have to admit that the term gave me a good laugh. I am a member and modest contributor to a few organizations that I think are instrumental in keeping America free. Very modestly, mind you, according to my means, but I’m there within a very small group of people both Americans and non Americans like me, that value America dearly and endeavor to do something about it besides cheerleading. And I know I have helped to change a few individual minds from being anti American to seeing things the right way.

As to starting a revolution in my own country, although I realize that I have touched a nerve there, I don’t resent it. In fact, I have started a revolution in my own country by having been one of the two individuals that started the Argentinean Objectivist Movement. The real revolution is one of the mind and the works of Ayn Rand have been translated to Spanish and published here and they are even been exported to other Spanish speaking countries and I like to think that one day, this will give fruit and Argentina and maybe the rest of Latin America might begin to emerge from the socialist quagmire they are currently part of. It took a lot of effort and a lot of money but it’s done. These philosophical revolutions take time and I may not see the fruits. But an individual can do so much and that much he should do.

Resources being limited, I would much rather help to start a revolution in America and help keep America free. You see, if Argentina burns in the hell fires of socialism that counts for little in the grand scheme of things. Freedom does not depend on Argentina. America is another matter altogether. America is the leader of the free world. That’s not just a phrase. It is a whole, big and important truth. I suspect that most Americans are oblivious to this fact. As the joke goes, you are not even aware that there is a “rest of the world”. But you ARE the leaders of the free world. And what happens in America is of crucial importance to the future of the human species. You may not know it and you may not take it seriously if told about it and you may not even understand this but the sacred light of Freedom shines ONLY in America and is only reflected in other countries. I suspect most Americans think of America as just another country amongst many. You are the only ones to see it that way. For the rest of the world, even for you enemies, America is like another planet. And morally, it is. That’s what’s worth keeping and fighting for. I hope you don’t mind if I’m in such a place in my life that I’m more interested in America than in Argentina.

So, I’ll continue on this position of mine and many a time I’ll piss people off. Most of the time I don’t even mean to, it just happens. I’m used to it.

[Sundancekid]

I wanted it to be 9-0- and the Feinstein, Bloomberg, Schumer and Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsberg (all members of the Jewish Faith) sure are piss-poor students of their own history from the lessons of the last Century- Just so no one thinks I am anti-Semitic (my good buddy Lennie Teitlebaum and I golf together) If all the Jews that Hitler had killed in his "Final Solution" had been like the Polish Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto and seized German weapon and fought back- ditto the brave "inmates' of the Sobibor Death Camp who did the same-and what was the first think Herr Adolph did in 1933 when he became Chancellor of Germany- seized all the civilian weapons-And what Mideastern Country is the one you don't want to *&^% with today- Bingo- Israel- "Never Again" ain't just a bumper sticker- I'll also "pick on a WASP member of the Supreme Court here- David Souter- who said in his dissenting vote- having a handgun in the home allows a man to defend his home, but it also allows him to either commit suicide or kill a family member- Hey Davey Boy- you are pre-judging an uncommitted or even unplanned event- didn't you learn in Law School about the presumption of innocence that is the cornerstone of our Judicial system- what a joke- this idiot deserves to be on the Supreme Court like Stevie Wonder should be Head Umpire in the World Series!!

[Old Snort]

Jorge---As usual your riposte is eloquent, beyond beautiful. You waste your considerable abilities on the likes of us. Thank you.---OS

[Jorge_Banner]

I wanted it to be 9-0- and the Feinstein, Bloomberg, Schumer and Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsberg (all members of the Jewish Faith) sure are piss-poor students of their own history from the lessons of the last Century- Just so no one thinks I am anti-Semitic (my good buddy Lennie Teitlebaum and I golf together) If all the Jews that Hitler had killed in his "Final Solution" had been like the Polish Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto and seized German weapon and fought back- ditto the brave "inmates' of the Sobibor Death Camp who did the same-and what was the first think Herr Adolph did in 1933 when he became Chancellor of Germany- seized all the civilian weapons-And what Mideastern Country is the one you don't want to *&^% with today- Bingo- Israel- "Never Again" ain't just a bumper sticker- I'll also "pick on a WASP member of the Supreme Court here- David Souter- who said in his dissenting vote- having a handgun in the home allows a man to defend his home, but it also allows him to either commit suicide or kill a family member- Hey Davey Boy- you are pre-judging an uncommitted or even unplanned event- didn't you learn in Law School about the presumption of innocence that is the cornerstone of our Judicial system- what a joke- this idiot deserves to be on the Supreme Court like Stevie Wonder should be Head Umpire in the World Series!!


It is very true that there’s a lot of Jewish Americans that are on the left. Hell, there’s a lot of Jews all around the world that are on the left. Otherwise, for instance, Israel would not be in the sorry position it is.

You are right, Sundancekid, all those are piss poor students of their own history. There’s a couple of mitigating circumstances, though. One is the fact that the right is not usually made from people that are welcoming to Jews. Another fact is the centuries of persecutions that have made Jews wary of using violence to defend themselves having been a brutally persecuted minority for more than two thousand years. Almost every time Jews attempted to use violence to defend themselves, then ended up massacred. The centuries have taught Jews that the safest route was to run. So it is understandable that many would embrace the only apparent party, loosely speaking, that would embrace them wholeheartedly, the left. And that with the left, they would be against a way of living that has been alien to them for thousands of years, the life of the citizen-warrior. They were warriors once and Massada stands as witness. But also as a reminder that many, many times, when Jews turned to fight, there’s was nothing left of them. It is a condition that is being fought against, but it takes time. Two thousand years of a ton of bricks falling on your head every time you turn around to face your persecutors take a deleterious effect on your morals.

[Jorge_Banner]

And you know who agrees with us:

9775

----------

9776

----------

JPFO (http://www.jpfo.org/)