supreme court sides with the constitution and freedom!

[marauder]

from the link:

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Constitution's "right to keep and bear arms" applies nationwide as a restraint on the ability of the federal, state and local governments to substantially limit its reach.

In doing so, the justices, by a narrow 5-4 margin, signaled that less severe restrictions could survive legal challenges.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court, said 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 the four liberals, opposed.

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.

That ruling applied only to federal laws. It struck down a ban on handguns and a trigger lock requirement for other guns in the District of Columbia, a federal city with a unique legal standing. At the same time, the court was careful not to cast doubt on other regulations of firearms here.

Gun rights proponents almost immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging gun control laws in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill, where handguns have been banned for nearly 30 years. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence says those laws appear to be the last two remaining outright bans.

Lower federal courts upheld the two laws, noting that judges on those benches were bound by Supreme Court precedent and that it would be up to the high court justices to ultimately rule on the true reach of the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court already has said that most of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights serve as a check on state and local, as well as federal, laws.



happy Monday!

[jarhead]

+1 for the good guys. If they (libs) ever get a majority on the Supreme Court, we have had it!

[fl0at]

It is simply amazing that interpretation of the Constitution can fall along party lines. I suppose reading comprehension is taught differently based on your political leaning?

I guess that explains my SAT score back in HS... must have taken the liberal version...

[RobertNashville]

States and cities that don't want the populace to enjoy their rights will always keep trying to find ways to quash those rights and that's true whether we are talking about the Second Amendment or the First or any other.

I would suggest that the pendulum swung so far to the "anti-gun" side because the people elected politicians who ultimately don't like the freedoms enumerated in the Constitution and who, therefore, passed anti-gun legislation (sometimes with the support of well meaning but nevertheless totally wrong conservative/moderate politicians) and who also put left-wing "I know better than you do" judges into place which liberal/socialist/communist/dirt people groups have used to try and re-make the United States into "Russia light" with lawsuits that did what they couldn't get the legislators to do for them directly.

These groups took many decades to get us to what I fervently hope was the "low point" for gun rights and we aren't going to swing the pendulum back with one or two Supreme Court decisions...we have some momentum now but it's going to take electing politicians who actually DO believe in the Constitution who will dismantle some the the onerous legislation currently in place and who will start to put judges in place who also think the Constitution means what it says and says what it means and then groups who believe as we do will have to continue to file lawsuits and continue to push back against any who would seek to take away any of our rights.

[johnharris]

[macville]

[redbarron06]

When are we going to sue and get a definition of "infringe" so we can keep them from doing that.

[johnharris]

[tkdmavrick]

As per the question whether or not the NFA or the 1986 machine gun ban will be overturned ..... don't hold your breath. The Heller decision and its oral arguments mentioned machine guns and Alan Gura was very careful to sidestep the machine gun issue. According to Gura's argument and Scalia's decision, machine guns are not covered under the 2nd amendment because they are arms that simply are not common enough.

[C. Richard Archie]

Under Miller, was it not a situation where arms commonly used by the military, hence the short barreled shotgun issue, but the argument was that normally used arms were covered, or so I thought.

[rheppert]

Alright, the SCOUS has been ask twice to narrowly rule on the individuals right to KEEP arms and they have done that, and only narrowly that. There will now be dozens of lower court battles to further define the limits (totally forgetting the not be infringed part). Of course SCOUS didn't even touch on the AND BEAR ARMS part, nor did they touch on just what are ARMS. (ie: my expandable baton should be included, but not according to most state laws. I won't get into full auto, etc).
Me thinkest a good strategy would be to head them off at the pass, find a Region where there are strong limits to BEARING arms, BUT also has a key judge or court known to follow the letter of the law, and thus the Supreme Court rulings, and file a suit there, thus setting the first president.

Since the SCOUS has already decided it IS an individual right to KEEP arms, it SHOULD be easy for any court to say the the BEAR and NOT INFRINGE have to go with the KEEP part.

[fl0at]