Supreme Court Extends Rights Of Gun Owners Across The Country

MARK SHERMAN | 06/28/10 10:46 AM |

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court held Monday that the Constitution's Second Amendment restrains government's ability to significantly limit "the right to keep and bear arms," advancing a recent trend by the John Roberts-led bench to embrace gun rights.

By a narrow, 5-4 vote, the justices also signaled, however, that some limitations on the right could survive legal challenges.

Writing for the court in a case involving restrictive laws in Chicago and one of its suburbs, Justice Samuel Alito said that the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states."

The court was split along familiar ideological lines, with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and four liberals opposed. Chief Justice Roberts voted with the majority.

Two years ago, the court declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess guns, at least for purposes of self-defense in the home.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37972148/ns/us...ime_and_courts/

This decision pretty much seals it for the anti-gun groups. Given that the facts on gun deaths in this country are against them and now 48 states have conceal carry laws up and running, the gun nuts have lost.

Let's also note that the four lefties on the court voted to repeal the second amendment via judicial fiat. Leftists using the courts to cancel out your clearly annuniciated rights is how our next civil war will start.

And your source for that claim is where?

What? Are you some kind of an idiot?? The vote WAS 5 to 4! The four lefties on the court voted against the 2nd amendment right of the INDIVIDUAL to keep and bear arms outside of Washington DC.

This is breaking news! Turn on a radio, TV or read a fricken paper. I do NOT provide links on breaking news!!! If you're too lazy to look it up in your search block I don't care.

The vote, and the 5-4 decision, is not indicative of any justice seeking to repeal the 2nd Amendment, so you can quit your hysterics.

Ha,ha,ha,ha...just realized! Once again we have a leftie posting on a topic that she/he knows nothing about...Chicago gun case! Why does the left insist on making fools out of themselves by posting nothing but rank BS.

In this case, this leftie clearly knows nothing about the issues surrounding the Chicago gun law case! That is why it is asking me for a source for my statement about the four leftists on the supreme court ruling against the 2nd amendment....SHE...DOES...NOT...KNOW...THE...ISSUES...BEFORE...THE...COURT!

Here...click on the cato link of the link...issues spelled out for you;


http://www.chicagoguncase.com/case-filings/

This decision was to recognize the law across the country, and not just Chicago.

Didn't you read the decision?

Cato is not a news agency, as it is only a think tank.

I've read both decisions! The DC v Heller USSC decision from which this decision was born. That you clearly did not understand the facts in either decision is typical for a leftie. That you would stupidly deny that the four hate-america leftist justices who tried to deny americans the INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to own and carry guns in the Heller decision are the same four leftist justices who just tried to deny, again, americans the individual right to own and carry guns in the chicago decision are not trying to effectively repeal the 2nd amendment is beyond hilarious.l



I know who Cato is! The link I provided gave the entire history(list of links) on this case and the cato link has a clear printed copy of the Supreme Court decision. Doubt you'll be able to read it and understand it so that is why you never clicked on the link, huh?

The decision today is a decision where the Court decided that the 2nd Amendment as the justices interpretted it today, is that the rights of all gun owners shall be extended to all states, cities, and communities. That is what today's decision is all about.

You need not continue to go into hysterics and, when all else fails on your part, reverting to insults.

You've never spent time on a debate board like this before, have you?

I already explained that point to you three times above starting with my post #5...quoting...."The vote WAS 5 to 4! The four lefties on the court voted against the 2nd amendment right of the INDIVIDUAL to keep and bear arms outside of Washington DC."

What part of that is NOT me saying this decision extends individual 2nd amendment rights beyond DC???? You really need to take a remedial reading class.




I am master at it! And can defeat any leftie anytime! The difference between you and me is that you do not have my knowledge base nor my research abilities and, most probably, not even close to my education level.

You don't even know that you have been mauled repeatedly point by piont and thread by thread...typical leftist. My suggestion to you is to get yourself to the nearest community college and take as many remedial reading courses as you can.

Nobody voted against the 2nd Amendment. That is a very simple mistake very simple people always make.

Yes they did! The second amendment is short and sweat...INDIVIDUAL right to carry and own arms. Chicago tried to take that away via leftist-nazi regs/laws and the USSC put a stop to it! The four leftist idiots voted against the 2nd amendment indvidual rights feature of the issue. Ever read the comments the Chicago Mayor has made about taking guns from everyone??? Keep showing everyone what a fool you are!

The 2nd Amendment is sweat?

Nobody voted against the 2nd Amendment today, but if it makes you feel better to think that, you just think that to yourself.

That's exactly what they did! I've read the decisions, you have not! I know the history...you do not! You aren't even aware how the first decision(DC v Heller) was researched by the Roberts court..I am. I know what documents they looked at to make their ruling. Same law and same documents applied to this case. Think Federalist papers...think first edition of Noah Websters dictionary.

The left has been attacking the 2nd amendment since the 1930s. If the lefties would have prevailed, we would not have the individual right to own and carry arms. THAT IS WHAT THESE FOUR LEFTIST IDIOTS RULED AGAINST.

Now go read the damn decisions or shut the hell up.

No one is attacking the 2nd Amendment, and should you continue to throw out the insults I will start pushing the report button and the mods can take care of you.

They would like nothing more than a smooth running debate forum, and they probably do not take kindly to Liberals being insulted when a Liberal has tried to do nothing but debate with you.

That's exactly what they did, know-nothing! READ the damn decisions! I gave you a link to the entire case with pleadings and the decision!! You keep posting nothing! All you say is no they didn't and bring NO data or links to support your outrageous lie!! WHERE IS YOUR DATA??? WHERE ARE YOUR LINKS.?? Mine are front and center for all to see!



Drop dead! If that's all you got then hit the damn report button! It's your only hope of winning this debate.



So you getting your butt kicked makes it not a smooth running forum, ha,ha,ha,ha,ha....folks this is why leftist are hated so much by this nation.

So this is all you have for debating skills?

Reported.

This poster is a thread spammer...a person who after being mauled on the facts can only type in one-liner nonsense showing herself to be utterly incapable of further debate.

If you could debate, you wouldn't use the lame excuse that I'm a spammer. You would debate the issue, and you haven't been able to do that yet. The only thing you have exceeded in is hysterically screaming that the "lefties want to do away with the 2nd Amendment". I guess it never crossed your mind that even lefties believe in "the right to bear arms".

Novel, huh?

This poster is a thread spammer...a person who after being mauled on the facts can only type in one-liner nonsense showing herself to be utterly incapable of further debate. She has no clue what she is talking about. At least one other poster has now identified her as a thread spammer.

And the 2nd Amendment is still part of the Constitution, isn't it?

An interesting editorial in today's Wash.Post;
------------------------------------------------------

Judges shouldn't use Supreme Court decision to overturn all gun-control laws

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

The city of Chicago bans private citizens from keeping handguns in their homes. So, too, did the District of Columbia, before the Supreme Court's 2008 ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that the District law violated the Second Amendment guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms. Should the Chicago law be treated any differently, as a constitutional matter, than the District ban, because of the District's unique status as a federal enclave? Or, to put the question in legal terms: Is the Second Amendment among the protections in the Bill of Rights that also constrain state and local governments? Acting on the final day of the 2009 term and splitting 5 to 4, the Supreme Court said Monday that it is.

The court's decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago is both correct and potentially troubling. It is correct because the general tendency of the court has been to find that the amendments in the Bill of Rights -- guarantees of free speech and freedom of religion, protections against unreasonable search and seizure, prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishment -- apply to state and local governments through the 14th Amendment's due process clause. Some scattered and relatively minor provisions in the Bill of Rights -- such as requiring a jury trial in civil cases or prohibiting excessive fines -- are not deemed to have been "incorporated" by the 14th Amendment, but most are. Having decided that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, it would have been odd for the court to determine that state governments can infringe on that right.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...nav=hcmoduletmv

Thanks only to five REAL americans! The other four tried to kill it! The central core of the 2nd amendment is the INDIVIDUAL right to own and carry. The leftists have been attacking the INDIVIDUAL right for decades which has culminated in their last two desparate attempts to kill that right and thus gut the 2nd amendment.

That you are denying this makes you one of the lowest of the low...

You are going into hysterics, again.

Maybe you are totally unaware of the procedure of repealing an amendment?

More outrageous leftist BS from the Washington Post. Nowhere in either decision (Heller or Chicago) does the supreme court even hint at overturning all gun control laws. This leftist idiot author has set up a straw argument for his worhtless leftist politics.

The chicago decision did two things: (1) told the america-hating leftist empire that the 2nd amendment means THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to own guns in all states and local jurisdictions and (2) any attempt to undermind that right with onerous regs and rules will not be tolerated.

That's it! Of course, YOU still haven't read the decision but are flapping your gums about it...just like Obama and the Arizona immigration law.

What hysterics??? Another word you don't understand and have misused.



Any time you'd like to discuss civics bring it on. Plus you are totally out of your mind if you think 75% of 50 states would approve the repeal of the second amendment, ha,ha,ha,ha

You're going into hysterics again. You really should learn to temper yourself, I would hate to think that you might find yourself on blood pressure medication in the very near future.

And I have reduced this leftist to blathering and thread spamming as all can clearly see...

Have you become a broken record, dearie?

I assume the owner of this site will toss you for spaming threads! You posts have no value other than to spam this site.

Considering that I authored this thread, and have tried to keep it on topic, you might be right, and you best be worried.

You authored nothing! You brought a writeup on a decision you did not read and could not discuss. You're notw reduced to a blathering idiot because you know nothing about this topic.

Are we talking irony, again?

Again, note folks this troll brings nothing to this site but one-liner nonsense. Has not read the USSC opinon he has been yaking about...knows nothing of the judicial history and its best effort to date has been to regurgitate part of the article.

Never give news to an idiot...see what happens.

Yeah, I saw that last night;

http://liberal-pride.org/forums/index.php?...&#entry9374

Play that Jeopardy tune.......................

Again, note folks this troll brings nothing to this site but one-liner nonsense. Has not read the USSC opinon he has been yaking about...knows nothing of the judicial history and its best effort to date has been to regurgitate part of the article.

Who are the "folks" you seem to think you are talking to?

Again, note folks this troll brings nothing to this site but one-liner nonsense. Has not read the USSC opinon he has been yaking about...knows nothing of the judicial history and its best effort to date has been to regurgitate part of the article.

I guess you can't answer my question...............

Aren't you glad that Jon was able to show you how wrong you were? He's a good friend of mine, too.

I'm the mumblings of a whipped troll...

Don't be so hard on yourself.

I have to go. Do pick up a "Dick and Jane" reader and get mommy to help you learn how to read english. Hopefully this will reduce the number of explanatory posts I and others have to make due to your poor reading skills.

Isn't the word English proper, with a cap. E?

Let's not insult The Queen.

Just to point out a few FACTS......

first I have not had time to read the decision have only glossed over it quickly....suppose says about same as heller


from my understanding and correct me if I'm wrong......... as I'm more than glad to do for you DL
the supreme court did not strike down the chicago gun ban, they declared the bans such as it unconstitutional on partial grounds of the 14th amend ment...... they did not have the balls to totally incorporsate it into the 14 as they should have...as if they would have it would have struck down all gun laws as unconstitutional

the sent it back to the lower court to actually declare it the chicago ban unconstitutional


if the decent ruled much like heller
The 4 in the 5-4 decion did not try to repeal the 2nd admnedment they had a different interpetation of the 2nd... a collective interputation....I personally think they know not of which they speak(kinda like DL).... but they are interpeting as liberal scolars have been trying to for a number of yrs now........ a bs interpetation but an interpatation.....(maybe one of these days I learn to spell that...not)


(insert more jeporday music)

I need to learn to type

Jon

Interpretation

Jeopardy

You're welcome, Jon.

Maybe it is quibbling over semantics, but how is the Supreme Court extending rights that had already been acknowledged in the Constitution? What new (or existing) rights have been extended to gun owners?

Striking down laws as unconstitutional is not really "extending rights" to gun owners, as much as it is restoring rights that have been unconstitutionally revoked and/or restricted.

We haven't been given anything new, just had rights already established, restored.

Supreme Court Gun-Rights Ruling Likely To Face Legal Challenges Across The Country

MARK SHERMAN | 06/29/10 09:21 PM |

WASHINGTON — State or local gun laws that prohibit people from carrying firearms outside the home and onerous registration requirements are the most likely to be struck down by judges following the Supreme Court's latest decision supporting the right to keep and bear arms.

An explosion of cases will keep courts busy for years defining gun control's new limits now that the high court has ruled that wherever they live, Americans have a right to possess guns, at least for self-defense in the home.

Justice Samuel Alito, author of the majority opinion Monday, dismissed "doomsday proclamations" that all gun laws would be struck down. Alito essentially repeated the formulation used by Justice Antonin Scalia two years ago that the court was not calling into question "long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

But the justices left a lot of ground for other courts to cover in determining the constitutional limits on gun laws. Legal challenges already are pending against several state and big-city gun laws.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/29/s...s_n_629946.html

Which is how it should be.