What do you all think?

[pendog]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html

Just wondered.

[Texan_Til_I_Die]

Thank you God for our Founding Fathers' Wisdom

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, for the first time in the nation's history, that individual Americans have the right to own guns for personal use, and struck down a strict gun control law in the nation's capital.

The landmark 5-4 ruling marked the first time in nearly 70 years that the high court has addressed whether the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, rather than a right tied to service in a state militia.

Freedom still lives in our country.

[Texan_Til_I_Die]

I think this is why it matters who the president is. Just one more liberal on the court and we would all be turning in our 870's and 700's tomorrow.

[terry264]

Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Many thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court for finally deciding that "we the people" do indeed have the right to keep and bear arms! Thanks to the NRA,GOA, SCI, and all other org's. and their members who helped in this decision that came down today 6-26-08 shortly after 10:00 a.m. Yes, we do have the individual right to have firearms, hooray!

[Gator]

WOOOOHOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! I Bet the liberals are having a fit right now!!!!

[pendog]

Yep i just started a thread about this

Freedom and responsibility is acheivable if we all do our part.

I just hate being the only ones regulated against and the criminals are left to their own devices.

[pendog]

It is always crucial whom we elect as president, we all need to remember important things like this when we vote.

[TxAgJeepr]

It is always crucial whom we elect as president, we all need to remember important things like this when we vote.

Amen

[Texan_Til_I_Die]

Shame on Justices Breyer, Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg for flunking United States Constitution 101.

How can those 4 NOT understand "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." ????

[texastrophies]

5-4 is scary close.

[wtnhunt]

I think this is why it matters who the president is. Just one more liberal on the court and we would all be turning in our 870's and 700's tomorrow.

Could not agree more.

[buckee]

"what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."

I really liked hearing that part, even though I'm just a crazy Canuck.

[Dawg]

Thank God we still have at least five people in our government with a head on their shoulders!

[Adjam5]

Shame on Justices Breyer, Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg for flunking United States Constitution 101.

How can those 4 NOT understand "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." ????

Those 4 are THE MOST liberal on that court and are a disgrace to America. Souter and Ginsberg are the worst.

A 5-4 decision is SCARY close.

A big feather in gun owners hats for sure.

[aksheephuntress]

I really liked hearing that part, even though I'm just a crazy Canuck.

...This is so true!...good point,Steve-

-(not specifically the crazy Canuck part...)

[Texan_Til_I_Die]

Quotes from the opinion:

“Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command.”

“We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.”

“the most natural reading of ‘keep Arms’ in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”

“The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.”

“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”

“Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.”

“The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.”

“It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense.”

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

“Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U. S., at 179.”

“Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.”

“In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.”

On the question of the Second Amendment’s application to the States: “23 With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.”

[Hoosierbuck]

Stevens wrote the major dissenting opinion, advancing all the old gun-grabbing arguments, and the majority tore him up! They said things like he was "dead wrong" on this point or that point. Cleared up a lot of that kind of non-sense in the decision. It is definitely a great step in the right direction.

HB

[OJR]

Remember people, if Obama is elected, he will appoint some very liberal judges and then this whole thing could be overturned!

It is not a done issue at all! Just a short breather!

[Gator]

Remember people, if Obama is elected, he will appoint some very liberal judges and then this whole thing could be overturned!

It is not a done issue at all! Just a short breather!

That is SO true!!!! Only time will tell......... and that scares me

[Tominator]

Remember people, if Obama is elected, he will appoint some very liberal judges and then this whole thing could be overturned!

It is not a done issue at all! Just a short breather!

Not always so. Souter was appointed by George H. Sometimes justices don't always vote according to liberal/conservative.

[terry264]

Well, CNN is up to their usual antics. Reporter on there was talking about the Supreme Courts decision on indiv. right to keep and bear arms, etc. He stated that internet sales are edging upwards now (on firearms), and that there is "no rules" for the internet sales of firearms. What a crock. I sent them an e-mail about incorrect reporting on their network, will see what happens.

[stevebeilgard]

it's really a statement on the fragile state of our nation. we have 4 supreme court justices clearly saying that the constitution is against the constitution. what??? what they are really saying is that they want to throw out the constitution, and make the rules of our country from the bench. ie: they are smarter than the signers of the constitution. what a load of garbage....

[buckee]

Well, CNN is up to their usual antics. Reporter on there was talking about the Supreme Courts decision on indiv. right to keep and bear arms, etc. He stated that internet sales are edging upwards now (on firearms), and that there is "no rules" for the internet sales of firearms. What a crock. I sent them an e-mail about incorrect reporting on their network, will see what happens.

Good for you Terry:)

[oldksnarc]

Shouldn't even have been an issue. They won't limit the rights provided by any of the other amendments: freedom of speech, religion, press, self-incrimination, equal rights, unreasonable search and seizure, and so forth. They shouldn't have limited the rights afforded by the founding fathers as the second most important amendment.

[wtnhunt]

Originally Posted by OJR

Remember people, if Obama is elected, he will appoint some very liberal judges and then this whole thing could be overturned!

It is not a done issue at all! Just a short breather!

Not always so. Souter was appointed by George H. Sometimes justices don't always vote according to liberal/conservative.

Obama was noted yesterday as saying that he would uphold the decision by the ruling, however he felt that common sense laws in individual states should have the right to legislate in a way that will keep our children safe. In other words, he supports tighter restrictions on state to state level which goes along with his past record, and I would agree that this is not the end of this if he gets elected. As late as just back in February he still supported the ban, seriously doubt he has had a change of heart.