anonomoose
New member
This has both alarming and reassuring properties!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_supreme_court_guns
What do YOU think??
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_supreme_court_guns
What do YOU think??
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Supreme Court sides NARROWLY with right to own (2nd ammendment)
- Thread starter anonomoose
- Start date
they voted 4-5 to abolish the 2nd ammendment, thankfully they lost, this time!
X2!
they voted 4-5 to abolish the 2nd ammendment, thankfully they lost, this time!
No, they voted 5-4 to determine that:
"local governments are fully subject to the Second Amendment "limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values." The position echoed a decision two years ago regarding District of Columbia gun laws."
If you remember your civics class, there are 3 branches to the government, the Legislative, which creates laws, the Executive, which ensures laws are followed, and the Judicial, which interprets the laws and Constitution.
The Judicial clearly does not have the power to abolish a constitutional amendment, that would be a legislative function, abolishing the 2nd amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the Supreme Court's ruling today, nor could the Supreme Court do anything about it.
The ruling upheld a June 2008 ruling in [District of Columbia vs. Heller] that held that an absolute firearm ban was unconstitutional. This was in reference to the Washington DC handgun ban. Essentially, in 2008 the Court held that citizens have the right to possess guns in their own home for their own safety, thus essentially striking down the DC handgun ban. Today's ruling also said that local governments can enact reasonable laws to control guns, but an outright ban is unconstitutional.
Since DC is a federal city run by the federal government, the DC vs. Heller decision applied only to DC. Todays ruling was in the case of [McDonald vs. Chicago] which contested the constitutionality of Chicago and Oak Park's outright handgun ban. Again, as with Heller, the Court ruled that an outright ban like Chicago's is unconstitutional, but laws:
"such as those "prohibit[ing]...the possession of firearms by felons or mentally ill," as well as "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" are all permissible."
Thus, the citizens of Chicago's rights to have hand guns to protect themselves in their own homes is reinforced, as the existing hand gun ban is no longer enforceable. The City can establish new ordinances with specific conditions, but cannot legislate the away the 2nd Amendment rights of its citizens to keep and bear arms.
Last edited:
anonomoose
New member
Nice job, DC....
But isn't anyone concerned that the vote was as close as it was? Another words, had just one more judge voted no...the horse would be out of the barn....and there is no getting it back.
But isn't anyone concerned that the vote was as close as it was? Another words, had just one more judge voted no...the horse would be out of the barn....and there is no getting it back.
Nice job, DC....
But isn't anyone concerned that the vote was as close as it was? Another words, had just one more judge voted no...the horse would be out of the barn....and there is no getting it back.
that is kind of what I was getting at, it is all in how you look at a situation.
Nice job, DC....
But isn't anyone concerned that the vote was as close as it was? Another words, had just one more judge voted no...the horse would be out of the barn....and there is no getting it back.
Interestingly, the horse was already out of the barn as the Chicago hand gun ban was in effect for 28 years. This was a reinstatement of second amendment rights for the citizens of Chicago and Oak Park. Had the Court voted the other way life would have continued on just as it has for 3 decades
Also, the Court said:
In its decision Monday on handgun laws imposed by Chicago and Oak Park, the U.S. Supreme Court included the Second Amendment "right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."
By using the term "fundamental" the Court has elevated a citizen's right to keep and bear arms (have guns in their own house for their own protection) to the same fundamental right as freedom of speech, due process, assembly, etc.
However, communities still have the right to impose restrictions, what they cannot do is legislate all hand guns out of existence. So now, Chicago is working on the conditions to own a handgun in the city. Washington DC's conditions are already being challenged in the courts as too restrictive.
This is a very interesting ruling, as both sides "won". No, a municipality cannot take away your fundamental right to keep and bear arms, but they can impose reasonable restrictions.
It is particularly interesting in Chicago where 76 people have been shot and 11 killed over just the last two weekends.
And moose, thanks for the compliment, appreciate it!
anonomoose
New member
I think my largest concern is that 4 of the justices did NOT see this as a basic right aka, to own a gun.
In other words, had the vote gone the other way, a flood of gun ownership contests would be headed to the big court. There are more ways than you can shake a stick at to make it hard for people to get guns. One way is to ban making them. Another is to restrict where and when they can be used. And still another is a form of taxation....aka, check to make sure the gun can be fired "safely", certification from a gun smith annually, the list is long.
While "reasonable" restrictions have always been part of ownership, the fact that nearly half of the justices didn't see this the same way, is alarming.
Couple this with the fact that we are about to appoint an activist to the bench....I am putting two and two together here and not liking the sum of things.
I don't consider myself as an alarmist....but
In other words, had the vote gone the other way, a flood of gun ownership contests would be headed to the big court. There are more ways than you can shake a stick at to make it hard for people to get guns. One way is to ban making them. Another is to restrict where and when they can be used. And still another is a form of taxation....aka, check to make sure the gun can be fired "safely", certification from a gun smith annually, the list is long.
While "reasonable" restrictions have always been part of ownership, the fact that nearly half of the justices didn't see this the same way, is alarming.
Couple this with the fact that we are about to appoint an activist to the bench....I am putting two and two together here and not liking the sum of things.
I don't consider myself as an alarmist....but
booondocker
New member
Watching some of the hearings on the Supreme Court appointment and aside from not much info coming out of them, (gee whizz, don't yah know...I can't answer that because >>fill in the blank<<)
One other thing that has come out in those hearings is that the Senators from Minnesota....well let's just say, I feel sorry for yous guys....nuff said.
Course, just to show we are not immune to this here in Meechigan...we too have some wonderfully brilliant people as Senate representatives....
Is there any wonder people don't bother to vote because they are so disenchanted with those running for office??
Michigan is going to get rid of it's governor....and looking the field over, doesn't make one want to click heals with joy!
One other thing that has come out in those hearings is that the Senators from Minnesota....well let's just say, I feel sorry for yous guys....nuff said.
Course, just to show we are not immune to this here in Meechigan...we too have some wonderfully brilliant people as Senate representatives....
Is there any wonder people don't bother to vote because they are so disenchanted with those running for office??
Michigan is going to get rid of it's governor....and looking the field over, doesn't make one want to click heals with joy!