Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Guns Court Rules in Favor of Second Amendment Gun Right

Washingtonpost.com

Yea!

Los Angeles Times

It is unclear just what the impact of the ruling will be. It may be that the biggest impact is to take an issue away from the November elections for the NRA folks.

This is a huge victory for law and order. It is a victory for every inner city resident who lives in fear when the sun goes down and trembles with fear everytime they walk down the street to the store.

The second amendment was written to counter balance the Federal Government, and while that doesn't apply today it doesn't mean it should not be enforced.

Some on the court should go live in inner city DC for a while and then revisit their opinions:

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

Talk about being out of touch with America? He is the epitomy of being a limozine liberal!

It's not a blanket ruling. The opinion is carefully crafted to state bluntly that the right to keep and bear arms is NOT unlimited.

Our right to own firearms is now limited to the type of kit that was available at the time the Second Amendment was written...handguns and rifles, and the gun grabbers will enact laws that will surely try to limit even that to the point where they may get away with outlawing everything except a rusty old flintlock and a one shot pistol that you load with a powder horn and a ramrod.

In addition, the states might now try to outlaw anything that isn't "type accepted". We're not out of the woods yet by a long shot.

When the Communications Act of 1934 was passed, which stated that the airwaves belonged "to the people", did it secure our rights to the public airwaves?
Seen any "people owned" television networks or even local stations lately?

Even radio amateurs are being told what they can use on the spectrum, with "type acceptance" rules limiting what they can build and use on certain frequencies and under what type of signal format they can be used on.

So while you can still build your own six meter AM rig, you're not allowed to construct your own 70cm OCDM transceiver because type acceptance rules won't allow it.

The point I am getting at is, if you decide you're going to craft your own firearms you MIGHT run up against some obscure state or local law that says "yeah sure we allow you to own firearms...THIS KIND ONLY"

(Rusty flintlock and old derringer with a powder horn)

They might also try an end run by outlawing most forms of ammunition too.

Five to four. That says an awful lot about the moral makeup of this country.
An awful lot of folks think that we need a nanny state that tells us what we can and cannot do, and a smaller but way more powerful group believes that they can undercut today's ruling by chipping away at the sides and bottom of it till it becomes a ruling in name only, just like the Fourth Amendment.

Vigilance and determination, and a never-ending resolve to flesh out and clearly define, by whatever means is necessary, the very fiber and core of our rights, not only in the letter of the law but in the spirit of it too.

It ain't over. We've won for now but it still ain't over.

Jeff H in Occupied TX

While I am thankful that the SCOTUS made it clear the 2nd amendment is not absolute, I am curious how the decision is not "judicial legislation." I keep looking at the language of the amendment, and wonder how "shall not be infringed" can be read to permit regulation and other limits.

What a complete hypocrite Scalia is.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the right of Americans to own a gun.

Gun: A portable firearm (as a rifle or handgun) Merriam-Wesbster

A "gun" is not:

• A semi-automatic
• An assault weapon

The NRA likens licensing, etc restrictive and against the spirit of the 2nd Admentment.

Americans have the "right" to own cars - but the government sets restrictions on how it can be driven, the necessary requirements to drive, and the necessary financial reserve needed in case of an accident (aka Insurance)

Guns are no different than a car - sure you can have one, but its perfectly 'ok' for the government to set guidelines to having one.

...so take THAT NRA!

But those people with those rights had better not bring guns into his courtroom cuz that'd be downright uncivil, scary & beyond the right of those same law abiding, rights entitled citizens...

I need to read the decision itself to know how they decided it before I comment. It's long. D.C. v. Heller

--I actually agree with your logic Rick.
It's the actual application that I worry about.

Although I bark and whine a lot (above) about how "the battle isn't over" I can see why there is a need for regulation and common sense. My rational side tells me it's crazy to let anyone just go buy an AK-47, but here's an example of what irks me about the folks who like to do the "regulating".
Let's use the car analogy, and go to the state of Maryland.

When I last visited my home state (grew up in Bethesda)
the highway patrol and county mounties were pulling people over for "pop inspections" and issuing massively priced citations for things like:

"bumper one and one half inches above stock height"

"inspection sticker fourteen millimeters too far to the right on windshield"

"faded taillight lens"

"exhaust tips protruding two inches beyond allowable distance
from rear of vehicle"

I could go on and on, but the point I'm making is that Maryland has turned into the poster child for overly aggressive en-FORCE-ment with aggro cops bristling with hair-trigger
mentalities and anyone who has lived and commuted there will tell you that owning a car in The Old Line state is almost as easy as owning a gun in the District of Columbia.
The abuses are well beyond what can be termed ridiculous and they're no longer just "isolated cases", any more than Doug Thompson's recounting of the over-amped LEO's on Blue Ridge Parkway in Virginia.

I'm just not real anxious to watch a new era ushered in where
any and all excuses are used to regulate guns literally to the point where the gun owner simply turns them in out of frustration at a never-ending series of abuses designed to drain them financially for merely owning a firearm.

What if the states start deciding that all gun owners should be required to purchase annual "firearm insurance" at a cost in the tens of thousands of dollars?

Suuuuuure sonny boy, we don't want to infringe upon your
kon-stit-too-shunnal raghts, we jis wanna make shur yew all
gots yer gun insurance is all in case yew killz yer-self a child.

I'm so sure something like this will be piggybacked on something called....ummmm....let's see..."Billy's Law", in memory of little Billy Fartsenberger, who was senselessly killed while snooping through the closet of his playmate's Dad when he found an unloaded pistol, then found the ammunition, then loaded the gun and turned it on himself as a joke in front of his friend.