"WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that 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 struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went 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.
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by 'the historical narrative' both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.
So the solution is to let the criminals and other lowlifes have the weapons and law abiding citizens in high crime areas to lie there with unloaded weapons or locked while the scum do their will. Wake up. I have said here before, I have a firearms permit, and had to go through the hoops to get it. It mostly stays in a drawer by my bed, sometimes I take it with me when I travel. The permit also gives me permission to carry it concealed or not, wherever I go. I do not. But if I have to go into a dangerous area, believe me I will. You can pass all the gun laws and restrictions you want, but those that shouldn't be allowed to be near any firearm of any type will get them. First and foremost is the District of Columbia, where the law in question has been in effect since 1976, and the District of Columbia has consistently had one of the highest crime and murder rates in the US. Why don't y'all come up with some statistics showing how many legal gun owners commit murders and crimes involving firearms. You can't, because it does not fit your template.
Well, this leads to a pretty interesting social science experiment. Over the next few years lots of folks will be tracking the number of gun-related crimes and household accidental shootings. Will we be like Japan, with almost no guns and almost no gun deaths, or will we be like Guatemala, where guns are everywhere and the murder rate is among the highest in the Americas? I have absolutely no faith in the notion that more poison makes us safer.
With guns involved, little scuffles over bent fenders and minor insults at bars will lead to mortal combat rather than a bloody nose.
We'll the conservatives have gotten what they want. Let's see how it all comes out, if nobody happens to shoot us by mistake.
By the way, if we apply the Court's reasoning to drug laws, they cannot stand. I suspect you will see an evaporation of the controlled substance Act as it applies to street drugs in the next year or so. Similarly, the strong finding of "individual rights" here undercuts future attempts to limit abortion. What we saw today was a bold step in the direction of a libertarian democracy. In such a libertarian environment regulation of all sorts, from zoning to ownership of pornography, tbuilding inspection to motorcycle helmet laws, will be reevaluated and struck down ad nauseum. It's not a slippery slope, it's just a new way of looking at the constitution, via old dictionaries.
The Supreme Court likely killed thousands of innocent children and adults today. But they certainly created a full-employment clause for attorneys. We will never lack for work sorting out this major change in Constitutional law and the method of "analysis" (mostly based upon old dictionaries and slave state cases) that "supported" it. This decision is a flimsy in its reasoning as Roe v. Wade is in it's ad hoc "trimester" analysis. As such, it will be an endless source of litigation in all areas of personal rights.
Interesting political implications are beginning to develop:
Quote:
"Reacting to the decision, Obama aimed for the center, putting out a statement of his own that said he agreed there was an individual right to own guns, but that 'crime-ravaged communities' should be able to pass 'common-sense, effective' laws restricting guns. 'As president, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen,' Obama said. 'I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne.' (His response also signaled that he's not likely to use District of Columbia vs. Heller as an example of why he, and not McCain, should be appointing the next Supreme Court justices; many American voters likely agreed with the decision Thursday.)
Even if the GOP wanted to target Obama as an anti-gun crusader, McCain isn't exactly its best poster boy on the subject. The NRA gave him a 'C+' lifetime rating four years ago, and he admitted at a debate in November that he doesn't own any guns. The Republican National Committee accused Obama of flip-flopping Thursday, playing up his previous support for D.C.'s gun-ban law and for similar legislation in Illinois. But Obama's position, which steers clear of the radical edges of a debate that can get extreme on both sides, might make sense to swing voters who like to hunt but who are dismayed with gun violence in the nation's schools and urban streets.
And it may even be easier for him to get those voters to listen to him now. 'I don't think [Obama] has to wink and nod; I don't think he has to don an L.L Bean cammo outfit and a Ruger 12-gauge shotgun to go shoot a goose,' said Steve Jarding, a Democratic strategist who managed Jim Webb's Senate campaign in Virginia two years ago. 'But I think he has to show America that he respects [rural hunting] culture and that he's not going to do anything to impede it. He can use this court decision and say, 'Even the courts have determined that [a right to bear arms] exists.''
'
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Traverlaw, Traver Law, Traver Law Offices, S.C., Traver & Traver, S.C.,
Traverlaw.com, SSAConnect,
Attorneys for the disabled and disadvantaged in all areas of Social Security
disability law, http://traverlaw.com,
http://ssaconnect.com, Connect, SSA Connect, Think Bigger,
Social Security Advice Connect, Social Security Disability Advice Connect,
"Social Security Disability Advocacy, Debate, and Professional News,"
the yellow and orange swoosh image, and the square favicon.ico image,
are trademarks and service marks of Attorney David F. Traver.
For information the about use of this copyrighted and trademarked material call
262-594-2096.
CONNECT
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
So the solution is to let the criminals and other lowlifes have the weapons and law abiding citizens in high crime areas to lie there with unloaded weapons or locked while the scum do their will. Wake up. I have said here before, I have a firearms permit, and had to go through the hoops to get it. It mostly stays in a drawer by my bed, sometimes I take it with me when I travel. The permit also gives me permission to carry it concealed or not, wherever I go. I do not. But if I have to go into a dangerous area, believe me I will. You can pass all the gun laws and restrictions you want, but those that shouldn't be allowed to be near any firearm of any type will get them. First and foremost is the District of Columbia, where the law in question has been in effect since 1976, and the District of Columbia has consistently had one of the highest crime and murder rates in the US. Why don't y'all come up with some statistics showing how many legal gun owners commit murders and crimes involving firearms. You can't, because it does not fit your template.