SCOTUS rules on Second Amendment

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

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.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-a-const...right-to-a-gun/

[Kevin and 10]

[Sister Fracas 5]

big surprise...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

From Drudge:

SECOND AMENDMENT LIVES... SHOT HEARD ROUND THE WORLD ... 5-4... Scalia wrote opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg...

[Sister Fracas 5]

From Drudge:

SECOND AMENDMENT LIVES... SHOT HEARD ROUND THE WORLD ... 5-4... Scalia wrote opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg...

yee-haw!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

From Scotusblog:

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.

So requiring that guns be licensed is "ok".

[natty bumppo 297]

So requiring that guns be licensed is "ok".

and it's ok to not license them. there was no ruling

Edited June 26, 2008 by Natty Bumppo

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/up.../06/07-2901.pdf

Edited June 26, 2008 by VJ Troll

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

From Drudge:

SECOND AMENDMENT LIVES... SHOT HEARD ROUND THE WORLD ... 5-4... Scalia wrote opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg...

yee-haw!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

[almaty 19]

supreme court....ftw!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional ... Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

[HAL 9000 96]

Awesome. We can keep killing each other on purpose and by accident. Sweet, now we know its protected self-defense.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Awesome. We can keep killing each other on purpose and by accident. Sweet, now we know its protected self-defense.

From the ruling:

Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

It sounds to me like SCOTUS is telling the Legislature to go ahead and amend the Constitution if they feel the 2nd Amendment is no longer necessary.

Edited June 26, 2008 by VJ Troll

[SteveLaura 0]

Is this the part of the thread where it mutates into gun porn?