OH HELL YES!

[kastein]

Mods, edit the title if you feel it's necessary...

BUT the first good news in a while! Oil's still pouring into the gulf, we're still headed face-first into an economic disaster, etc... BUT the Supreme Court has upheld the Second Amendment!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703964104575334701513109426.html

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court ruled for the first time that gun possession is fundamental to American freedom, giving federal judges power to strike down state and local weapons laws for violating the Second Amendment.
In a 5-4 ruling, the court held that the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right that binds states.





arty:arty:atriot:arty:arty:

 

[XJEEPER]

atriot:

 

[DrMoab]

Glad to see they haven't lost their minds yet.

It could all change after the next round of confirmation hearings though.

 

[XJEEPER]

Here are the results according to the SCOTUS blog:

• Alito announces McDonald v. Chicago: reversed and remanded
• Gun rights prevail
• The opinion concludes that the 14th Amendment does incorporate the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller to keep and bear arms in self defense
• Stevens dissents for himself. Breyer dissents, joined by Ginsburg and Sotomayor.
• The majority seems divided, presumably on the precise standard
• The majority Justices do not support all parts of the Alito opinion, but all five agree that the 2d Amendment applies to state and local government.
• Alito, in the part of the opinion joined by three Justices, concludes that the 2d Amendment is incorporated through the Due Process Clause.
• Thomas thinks the Amendment is incorporated, but not under Due Process. He appears to base incorporation on Privileges or Immunities.
• The difference between the majority and Justice Thomas doesn’t affect the fact that the Second Amendment now applies to state and local regulation.
• Full Opinion is here.
• It should be noted that, in the guns case, the Court says explicitly in Alito’s opinion that it would not reconsider the Slaughterhouse cases, which almost completely deprive the Privileges or Immunities Clause of any constitutional meaning.
• The opinion leaves the fate of the Chicago gun ordinance in the hands of the 7th Circuit on remand.

 

[kastein]

Glad to see they haven't lost their minds yet.

It could all change after the next round of confirmation hearings though.

yeah. From what I've seen Kagan isn't all that terrible as possible justices go, she seems more middle of the road than hard left-winger, and somewhat amenable to discussion and fairness. That obviously could change after the fact, it's happened before.

 

[tharlanjr]

So who decided what guns are legal and which ones aren't?

Here in CA there are many guns that aren't legal, but are legal in other states. Does the type of gun apply to this ruling?

 

[DrMoab]

So who decided what guns are legal and which ones aren't?

Here in CA there are many guns that aren't legal, but are legal in other states. Does the type of gun apply to this ruling?

I don't think so. I think this was only on the law that in Chicago you couldn't keep a handgun to protect yourself in your own home. It had nothing to do with what kind of hand gun.

 

[FlexdXJ]

Good, Don't have to bury my guns.

 

[RichP]

Good, Don't have to bury my guns.

That should be 'Don't have to worry about my guns sinking on my boat in the great lakes'...

 

[Darky]

Stevens refers to this as granting a new liberty even though it's in the Constitution...

 

[Sniggs]

Guns? What guns?

 

[WB9YZU]

That opinion XJEEPER posted is very enlightening. It covers the history of the application of the Bill of Rights as regards to whether the States actually had to allow their citizens those rights.

There should be no disparity between the Fed and the States regarding the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. I applaud those Judges who rightly interpreted the Constitution as applying to ALL Citizens , and solidly say "SHAME ON YOU!" to those four judges who dissented and would selectively apply the Freedoms that so many have paid the ultimate price to uphold.

But you know... That's just my opinion...

Ron

 

[GSequoia]

So who decided what guns are legal and which ones aren't?

Here in CA there are many guns that aren't legal, but are legal in other states. Does the type of gun apply to this ruling?

Baby steps, baby steps.

Baring any screw ups we are winning this one, it's a slow win though. If we try to move too fast the reaction will be bad.

 

[tbburg]

So who decided what guns are legal and which ones aren't?

Here in CA there are many guns that aren't legal, but are legal in other states. Does the type of gun apply to this ruling?

Well, it's kind of funny,...
The Supreme Court did make a ruling a few years ago(in 1939, I think)about what kind of guns could be regulated. It's commonly referred to as the "Miller' case. In short, the subject of that particular case was weather or not the feds could regulate a short barreled shotgun. They(the Supreme Court) came to the conclusion that regulation was possible because short barreled shotguns have no military use, and therefor couldn't be used by members of the "militia". So, in theory, the only firearms that they couldn't regulate would be firearms that have 'military value" and could be used by a "militia". You know, like an M-16, M-4, -60, -240: In other words, the firearms that have the most federal regulations attached to them. :looney: Seriously, read up on the Miller case. It's a riot!(or possibly a farce)

 

[FlexdXJ]

That should be 'Don't have to worry about my guns sinking on my boat in the great lakes'...

Of course, Isn't that what I said? :dunno:

 

[hubs97xj]

Reading an article on this in one of the local papers. One guy's take on things....

The end is near. Next thing you know a gun will be a requirement to live here.

:dunno: Some people...

 

[XJEEPER]

Re: OH @#!*% YES!

Reading an article on this in one of the local papers. One guy's take on things....

"The end is near. Next thing you know a gun will be a requirement to live here."

:dunno: Some people...

Too bad a basic knowledge of the US Constitution isn't required to live here.

 

[kastein]

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=7527250
The court only upheld their misguided right to bear arms, it said nothing about ammunition. How about banning the bullets or at least limiting the quantity of bullets a person may possess and carry at any given time. - one of the comments on that article

I really can't understand some people.

 

[GSequoia]

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=7527250
The court only upheld their misguided right to bear arms, it said nothing about ammunition. How about banning the bullets or at least limiting the quantity of bullets a person may possess and carry at any given time. - one of the comments on that article

I really can't understand some people.

That's been happening and is a fight that we (California) are fighting in the form of a lead shot ban and mail-order ammunition ban.

 

[eyebeatbadgers]

Wasn't it Sotomayor who, during confirmation hearings, said something about how she supported the second amendment, and had a nephew in the NRA or some such? Now that she's in for life, the viewpoints have changed! It's really sad that this ruling was only 5-4, you'd think it would be a no-brainer.

Edit: Her words:

SOTOMAYOR: Like you, I understand that how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans. In fact, one of my godchildren is a member of the NRA. And I have friends who hunt. I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller.

SOTOMAYOR: As you pointed out, Senator, in the Heller decision, the Supreme Court was addressing a very narrow issue, which was whether an individual right under the Second Amendment applied to limit the federal government's rights to regulate the possession of firearms. The court expressly -- Justice Scalia in a footnote -- identified that there was Supreme Court precedent that has said that that right is not incorporated against the states. What that term of incorporation means in the law is that that right doesn't apply to the states in its regulation of its relationship with its citizens.