The decision came out today.

If anyone wants to read the opinion here is the linky: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

If you don't want to read 157 pages here is a story from the AP:

WASHINGTON Associated Press- The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

 

Great news!!

The decision was 5-4 and underscores the importance of having constructionist judges on the SCOTUS. Progressive judges clearly don't like the 2nd amendment and had there been even one more on the bench, the 2nd amendment may have been struck down or severely compromised.

Any gun owner supporting Obama must be very conflicted right now.

 

This is just great news!

And it is an opportunity to call an activist Judge, John Paul Stevens and idiot. He is logically deficient in that in ruling against the people right to arms, he would be saying that the 2nd amendment was the only amendment intended to give power back to the government. The intent of that document was to ensure the people rights, and influence OVER government, not the other way around.

Furthermore, in military history abound, a "militia" was known to be civilian men between the ages of 18 and 50 (I think it was 50...). The "militia" was not military. Writings are also abound detailing the notion of the people to remind the federal government that it works for the people, not the other way around.

The Bill of Rights and the Constitution was intended to limit governments ability to become tyrannical over its citizenry. It is sad to think that some people in this country think that it is a silly notion that the government would not try to become tyrannical in this day and age. It can, and will if we let it; and it is making those moves now. It creates law after law, as opposed to removing laws. I firmly believe the intent to create a means by which politicians of both parties, and all stripes ensure their ability to assume control of our population.

If we have a nation of law abiding citizens, there is little use for politicians; and I firmly believe that the poli's get that. They need laws and created criminals to hold sway. And that notion is in part why I think the second amendment is critical for them to trash. They need to make the most independent in our midst subject to their anti-liberty mindset. There is no reason to restrict law abiding gun owners! The laws affect only those who obey the laws, they have no affect on criminals; but they do create criminals out of people who are not criminals. They completely overlook the reality that law abiding citizens defend themselves far more often, than a criminal using a gun in the commission of a crime. If it is weapons that they seek to ban, and limit because criminals use them; they then need to ban fists, ropes, clubs, cars, knives; before they ban guns, those are objects that are used more than a firearm in committing a crime.

Yet they choose to go after law abiding gun owners because it is the most independent group in our midst, and an easy target for politicians; which allows them to manipulate the weakest among us into believing that law abiding gun owners are scary, criminals and radicals.

A gun is an inanimate object. Never has a gun loaded itself, charged itself, sat itself up, aimed itself, squeezed the trigger. It was an individual human that has done such things. Yet, politicians choose to remove the notion of individual accountability and punishment from our system, and focus on an inanimate object that is easy to vilify. Ironically, the same people that typically take a stand against law abiding gun owners on the gun issue, are the same that are all for "rehab" for violent criminals, and are usually part of the reason that are justice system is a mess. Our politicians create criminals out of us, and make the true criminals the victims.

Congress needs to be re-booted. Totally.
I say this only half humorously... I think that they are all criminals, and should be investigated as such. Congress has been acting in a criminal manner for a lot of years now, and it needs to end.

See the quote about the "Tree of Liberty", and what it needs to refresh itself...

 

Only 5-4 is a scary disappointment

David Souter is a freak

 

That is a really profound point that people do need to realize.

 

I have also read, that the NRA is planning on filing suits over the ban in Chicago too!

It is a good day for those of us that believe in the right to self defense!.

Wilson

 

I hate to say it, but I think this is a hollow victory. As MexicoBlue points out, the win was by the skin of our teeth, and as long as states feel it is their right to over-rule federal law w/out any sort of repercussion, this victory is mere lip service.

 

Lawsuits have been filed as of today in Chicago and San Francisco.

 

Those of you gun owners who are voting for Obamessiah, think about this for a second.

The only reason this ruling was favorable was because of Alito and Roberts, appointed by Bush.

If they had been justices appointed by Kerry or Gore, we will all be surrendering our guns right about now.

 

I've decided that my biggest issue with the ruling is that one of the Supremes openly mocked the premise that the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights specifically was intended to limit the power of government.

"The majority would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons." -- Associate Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens


That is just plain scary. The entire intent of the our foundations was to limit federal power, to prevent professional politicians, and tyranny over our population.

Stevens, is... well, that would be a nice thing to call someone.