Supreme Court rules on gun ownership

[Streck-Fu]

LINK....Details to follow

Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide
Jun 28 10:13 AM US/Eastern
By MARK SHERMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court says the Constitution's "right to keep and bear arms" applies nationwide as a restraint on the ability of government to limit its application.

The justices on Monday cast doubt on a Chicago area handgun ban, but also signaled in their 5-4 decision that less severe restrictions could survive legal challenges.

As a result, Chicago Mayor seeks registry.

LINK

Supreme Court strikes down Chicago gun ban
June 28, 2010 9:11 AM | No Comments
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court struck down Chicago's ban on hand guns today and extended the reach of the 2nd Amendment as a nationwide protection against laws that infringe the "right to keep and bear arms."

The 5-4 decision voids the 1982 ordinance, one of the nation's strictest, which barred city residents from having handguns for their own use, even at home. The ruling has both local and national implications.

Two years ago, the high court ruled in a case from Washington, D.C. that the 2nd Amendment protects the rights of individuals to have a gun for self-defense. Since the District is a federal city and not a state, the court did not decide then whether the 2nd Amendment could be used to challenge other municipal ordinances or state laws.

In today's decision, the court said the constitutional protection of the 2nd Amendment extends to city and state laws, not just federal measures.

Gun-rights advocates have been closely following the Chicago case. They said a victory for the 2nd Amendment would clear the way for constitutional challenges to restrictions on firearms to be heard in federal courts nationwide.

The ruling against Chicago's ban had been widely anticipated.

The City Council could consider new gun-control measures as soon as Wednesday, Mayor Richard Daley said last week.

City Hall has been drawing up plans after the justices heard arguments in McDonald v. Chicago in early March and appeared to indicate they would rule against the city.

In an interview with the Tribune, the mayor said his primary goal would be to protect police officers, paramedics and emergency workers from being shot when responding to an incident at a home. He said he also wants to save taxpayers from the financial cost of lawsuits if police shoot someone in the house because the officer felt threatened.

"If the ban is overturned, we will see a lot of common-sense approaches in the city aimed at protecting first responders," Daley said. "We have to have some type of registry. If a first responder goes to an apartment, they need to know if that individual has a gun."

[Green Light]

But the mayor's proposal only applies to those who will follow the law. Registration will neither cut crime nor make it easier for citizens to defend themselves. The only reason for it is repression of rights. This is just another example of leftist tyranny.

[J8127]

I am glad that the court ruled in the 2As favor, but it's really, really terrifying that it was 5-4.

I can normally set emotion aside and objectivly accept the other sides case on most issues, but gun control I simply can not. I just can't process it through my brain how somebody can think gun control works.

[Streck-Fu]

Opinion: LINK

I am glad that the court ruled in the 2As favor, but it's really, really terrifying that it was 5-4.

A little scary indeed.....

[dr. mabuse]

*

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

Opinion: LINK



A little scary indeed.....

You let one of the conservatives get sick or leave during the next 2 1/2 years, you will see a lot of decisions going the other way, 4-5.

TR

[Streck-Fu]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

You let one of the conservatives get sick or leave during the next 2 1/2 years, you will see a lot of decisions going the other way, 4-5.

TR

Or a conservative judge retires to be replaced by a liberal appointee....

[Utah Bob]

Note the dissenting opinions by Breyer (with Ginsberg and Sotomayor) and Stephens.
They don't get it. They never will. And their are plenty of people with the same mind set. It'll never be over. Remain vigilant.

[Streck-Fu]

Originally Posted by Utah Bob

Note the dissenting opinions by Breyer (with Ginsberg and Sotomayor) and Stephens.
They don't get it. They never will. And their are plenty of people with the same mind set. It'll never be over. Remain vigilant.

I think the dissenters missed some of the supporting information on the Constitution:

Madison:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country.

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

And most prescient:

Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.

and Jefferson:

Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."

Originally Posted by -- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

And where the People have failed to hold their elected officials accountable:

On every unauthoritative exercise of power by the legislature must the people rise in rebellion or their silence be construed into a surrender of that power to them? If so, how many rebellions should we have had already?
Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, Query 12, 1782

[wch84]

Justice Scalia absolutely demolished Stevens in his opinion. If you haven't read it, it's worth the time.

Also, the main court opinion section had great background info with regards to the historical precedence of the 2nd Amendment.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

And most prescient:

Madison:

Were I a supporter of the second amendment and if I had some knowledge of the developing scholarship on the background of the constitution, I'd be exceedingly reluctant to suggest to my political opponents on the left side of the aisle that they look into the historical background of the constitution.

That is, unless I wanted to point them in the direction of works on that historical background that they could use to dismantle my political position not only on gun ownership but a number of other issues as well.

But that's just me.

[blue02hd]

Sig, Do you really talk like this in person? I had to reread your post twice, then finally gave up.

If it weren't for this Bible and handgun I am clutching, I'd be totally lost!

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by blue02hd

Sig, Do you really talk like this in person? I had to reread your post twice, then finally gave up.

If it weren't for this Bible and handgun I am clutching, I'd be totally lost!

blue02hd--

Yes--- but often on three topics at a time. (And I'm known to use profanity from time to time.)

To restate my point for clarity's sake (and at snark's expense). Those of us who hold right of center political views should be increasingly careful about using history to support our positions.


My $0.02.

[rdret1]

For the life of me, I cannot figure out what was/is so hard to understand about plain english. It took them long enough to figure it out.

Sig, I know there was much debate when the SA was drafted, along both sides, even then, but the main work the antis rely on; Arming America, by Michael Bellisiles, was found to be totally unreliable. He was even stripped of the Bancroft Prize he was awarded, as well as resigning his tenured professorship.

As for efficacy, there is no debate that gun bans are counter-productive, while the knowledge of an armed citizenry prevents crime.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by rdret1

For the life of me, I cannot figure out what was/is so hard to understand about plain english. It took them long enough to figure it out.

Sig, I know there was much debate when the SA was drafted, along both sides, even then, but the main work the antis rely on; Arming America, by Michael Bellisiles, was found to be totally unreliable. He was even stripped of the Bancroft Prize he was awarded, as well as resigning his tenured professorship.

As for efficacy, there is no debate that gun bans are counter-productive, while the knowledge of an armed citizenry prevents crime.

Rdret1--

I augur that the kinds of historical arguments the anti second amendment crowd will be using in the next ten to twenty years will go far beyond the particulars of the second amendment itself. If these arguments are managed with civility (a long shot if historians are involved), our fundamental understanding of what it means to be Americans may change. If we as a people are up to the challenge, we may be in store for profound political realignment.*

IMO, until some of the historiographical dust settles we may be better off politically by focusing on what works.
__________________________________________
* Never trust a historian's crystal ball, but I project this realignment will lead to the growth and diversification of the Republican party, a resurgence of nationalism, and the regeneration of American liberalism (i.e. the repudiation of Clintonian opportunism).