Supreme Court Decision
 

Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in oneâ??s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession. Although times have changed since 1791, Justice Antonin Scalia said for the majority, â??it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.â?�

Examining the words of the Amendment, the Court concluded â??we find they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weaons in case of confrontationâ?� â?? in other words, for self-defense. â??This meaning,â?� it added, â??is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment,â?� going back to 17th Century England.

What Congress did in drafting the Amendment, the Court said, was â??to codify a pre-existing right, rather than to fashion a new one.â?�

We won the big one!

Tom A

Hoorrah!!!!!! Thanks Tom! I have been isolated the last couple of hours and needed that good news!

With any luck, this should put the "Spud in the Tailpipe"!!

Ron, you can bet the anti's are already gearing up to overturn the ruling somehow.....but this is good news today, even for us in Kalifornia.

Supreme Court; there is NO overturning of this ruling. The only way it can be overturned is by the same or new Supreme Court ruling that they were previously wrong in their assumptions. This almost never happens.


I read most of the ruling, pro and con, and they VERY much stated it is an individual right to own guns (within limitations), to carry loaded at home and that the DC laws are struck down.

Very interesting, I was not expecting such a resounding victory for us gun owners.


ed

Hand gun news!!!
 

http://ktla.trb.com/news/ktla-scotus,0,5770066.story

thank you sam 2111....:cheers:

yeah, but watch those (disguised expletives deleted)... in DC, they will make licenses a mandatory provision and stringently limit the number of licenses given to the public, so we will be back to Joe Citizen being essentially unarmed and (unsavory types) packin' illegal heat.

Tom A

My understanding is they cannot refuse a citizen the right to a gun permit if they meet all legal qualifications. It is similar to the "shall issue" CCL laws that were recently passed in many states.

What I am wondering is what creative spin the libs will attempt when the inevitable drop in DC crime, especially violent crime, occurs.

Easy Tom! We Won this round!

Yes, we won this round, but don't ever discount the will and funding for the scum, villany and knavery that are determined to disarm us prior turning the country into a Peoples Republic of Socialist Pan America, complete with open borders, UN mandates and "fairness' in all Government -provided programs: medicine, schools, gas rationing, carbon monoxide taxes, etc.

I do not trust anyone in DC. As long as the donks have Soros $$ and the Pelosi/Reid shills, your guns, money and your freedom are not safe.

Tom A

The text of the entire opinion is 157 pges long. And more than half of that is devoted to the four dissenting judges' opinions. Here is only the final paragraph of the majority decision:

"We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this
country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the
many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun
ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the
District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that
problem, including some measures regulating handguns,
see supra, at 54â??55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of
constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy
choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition
of handguns held and used for self-defense in the
home.Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment
is outmoded in a society where our standing army is
the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces
provide personal security, and where gun violence is a
serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is
not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to
pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
It is so ordered."

Mauser720 Ron

(Emphasis added by Admin -JS)

Good news indeed.

We too on this side of the Pacific pond are cheering !! :cheers:

Its very exciting they found that what the second ammendment did was
â??to codify a pre-existing right, rather than to fashion a new one.â?�

and â??is strongly confirmed by the historical background going back to 17th Century England."

This has some implications for us as we have inherited the same English
common Law . We have argued this point long and hard - unsuccessfully , but now one of the most prestigious courts in the world [ruling on common law] has confirmed it.

:)

tac,

It all started back 40 years ago during the "Summer of Love" in '68, when there was a "perfect storm" from the confluence of LBJ's wandering into socialism, the enobling of the so called "free Speech" movement at U.C.Berkley, the enactment of massive welfare programs that, in effect, denied personal accountability for the results of decisions all held together by the swelling tide of illegal drug use becoming the "in" thing.

That had a great impact on us here in the former colonies, effectively dividing the country down the middle. The devide still remains and, at present, those who enjoyed the '60's and the decadence that was so pervasive, have the very thinnest of majorities in our government. Unfortunately, far too many on the other side have been willing to "go along to get along" and have, in doing so, compromised any moral authority to which they may have laid claim.

Its just another version of the "barrel of wine, tea spoon of sewage" adage,

Cheers,

Tom A

If you want a model for how a Supreme Court ruling of this magnitude works its way through the years, I recommend reviewing the actual historic record since the Court's 1973 ruling on abortion. What lawyers call "stare decisis" will keep the Supreme Court's latest ruling in place for the foreseeable future, no matter how many anti-gun judges might get on the Court. And unlike abortion, there are long standing legal precedents for firearms ownership and use in America. (Personally, I'm not afraid for my guns, not for now, or even for when they'll be my grandchildren's.) We've not even begun to see the power this latest ruling will have at rolling back existing anti-gun laws! Neither have those members of Congress who may be inclined to pander to the anti-gun lobby. We'll all have to wait and see, but I'm an optimist. I think we've just begun to turn the corner and are about to go the other way on a path that Lee Harvey Oswald led us to in 1963.

P.S. The American flirtation with socialism began with FDR in the 1930s, not with LBJ in the 1960s. The Summer of Love was 1967, not 1968.

P.P.S. I thought the "culture wars" of the '60s ended in the '80s. I don't know how much of a divide there may have been in other parts of the US, but I never saw that much of one in these parts (Ohio, Indiana & Kentucky), and what little there might have been left ended on September 11, 2001. There are still a lot of differences of opinion on a lot of things, but that's what makes for horse races and politics.

I was afraid that we would have to sell our Lugers for the scrap metal in them !

And . . . . . 5/4 is close. Just one more liberal idiot on the court and this great Nation will be in the tank.

Think in November ! ! ! !

I had a CCW in California for 30 years, very hard to get. I surrendered it a couple of years ago when there were too many hoops to pass through at renewal time, which comes up every two years. In order to renew you had to attend a two-day safety class, then to a range and demonstrate your shooting prowess. You are allowed up to three guns on your permit, and you better not be carrying one that is not recorded on the CCW. Next you have to requalify on the range all over again, and they will choose the pistol from your CCW for you to qualify with, so that kind of rules out a .25 auto, unless you can hit a silhouette target at 40 feet. By the time you pay all the fees and drive to a number of places which may be very far from home, you can have spent $200 on your bi-annual renewal. To much hassel for me! So what good is a CCW if keeping it is a full time job?

I have had a Ca. CCW for years, and renewal is again coming up, while it is a bit expensive, the renew class is only a few hours, use any gun on your licence, there is room for more then 3 if you use the back side, and it beats the alternative, not being armed legal....keep it going, you could be sorry....

Let's elect a president who sides with the majority on the supreme court.

Mike

If Osama; excuse me Obama wins, odds are that Justices Stevens, Souder and Ginzberg ( In respect to their office, I hope I spelled their names right ) will retire and Obama will appoint liberal judges. Net gain/loss for us 0. But if Mr McCain wins; he might appoint some conservitive judges. We could have a conservitive Court, which would good for us and the country!

Mike:D

It is indeed disturbing that four members of the Supreme Court do not understand, or worse, choose not to see, what the 2nd Amendment is all about.
Tac used the operative word in his post: 'traitors'!
Our government is full of traitors and fools. I'm not sure which is worse, but we can absolutely count on both to do whatever they believe necessary, regardless of the Constitution, law or equity, to get their way. Though we may have finally won one after decades of loss after loss, the fight is hardly over. This is definitely one time where we had damned well better kick them while they're down!

Freedom is very fragile. "never was so much owed by so many to so few."

As I understand the Court's opinion, the Second Amendment guarantees that a citizen has the right to "own a gun in the home for self protection." The majority opinion also stated that "reasonable" restrictions could be imposed by governments.

If we get a Democrat congress and a Democrat president, it seems it might be possible to pass a federal law that outlaws all automatic and semi-automatic weapons while allowing revolvers, for example, in the home. Such a law would prohibit the ownership of Lugers ! ! !

yes, I find it mildly amusing that some justices can read the constitution and find a right to abortion and a virtual prohibition on religious expression in public but have great difficulty is understanding the literal interpretation of the Second Amendment.

We now have, based on recent rulings, a new tyrany of the Judiciary; unelected, tenuered for life and totally unaccountable to the people, unlike the other two branches. Maybe this bears a relook?

Tom A

I'm sorry, I just can't join in with those gloomy guys trying to figure out how to conceptually wrestle a defeat out of the jaws of the greatest victory gun owners have had in nearly 80 years. The tide has turned, get use to it. We're more likely to see Californians once again able to purchase magazines with the same capacity that gun owners can in other states, than see any new "unreasonable" restrictions passed anywheres. (BTW, I think the restricting of handgun ownership by a municipal government to only revolvers has already been thrown out by the Ohio Supreme Court.) I wouldn't count on any politician, regardless of political party or past history, to do anything with any certainty other than try to get and keep political power.

P.S. Californians, don't go reaching for your Brownells' catalog just yet. You're not gonna be able to purchase those high capacity magazines for a while longer. The law is conservative in nature, it grinds out things slowly but surely.

OK, here are just a few of the California regulations in force at present:
1. One gun purchase a month.
2. You must purchase a new approved lock with each gun purchased.
3. No mags over ten rounds.
4. Ten day wait
5. Excessive DOJ fees.
Do these fall under the description of "reasonable restrictions"? And who determines what is "reasonable"? Are we going to have a court case over how reasonable is each restrictive law ever passed or proposed in this state?

Its always been this way; in previous adminsitrations there were complaints the court was too conservative; that is why there are nine, it usually works out. Just not always.


Ed

While I am very aware of the constitutional history surrounding the court and its status, I think thet one could reasonably apply some of the liberal justices written opinions and rationale for their decisions by applying "emerging standards of....(Accountability?)" or "Prevailing international custom and prescident...(On limited tenure??).

Just sayin'...

Tom A

The ever observant IowaHawk nails it...

Washington DC - In a sweeping 4 1/2 to 3.14159 decision with 1.35841 abstaining, the United States Supreme Court handed down a ruling this morning in the landmark Abdul the Party Clown v. U.S case, recognizing the individual rights to gun ownership by child rapists and Guantanamo detainees. The decision was immediately hailed by international human rights activists and child rape organizations.

"This is a great day for the Constitution," said Sunshine Liebowitz of the American Civil Liberties Union, who had filed an amicus brief in the case. She said the group would petition the court to order shipments of handguns to needy prisoners at the US military's notorious Camp X-Ray detention camp.

"This ruling helps reconcile and clarify several seemingly conflicted opinions coming from the court," said longtime court watcher Nina Tottenberg of National Public Radio. "Thank God it doesn't apply to Texans."

The petitioner in the case, Abdul Hamid Atwah, was a well known Taliban child entertainer and rapist who was detained by U.S. Marines after a 2005 sweep on an Afghanistan playground and has been held at Guantanamo ever since. In 2007 the court agreed to hear his case suing the government for restricting his Second Amendment rights to keep court-appointed handguns and explosives in his detention cell.

Writing for the majority, Justice William Kennedy said that "as an enthusiastic child rapist and terrorist, petitioner has a reasonable expectation of threats of harm. This court recognize his proportional right to self-defense under the sweet, elusive penumbra of our ever-mutating Constitution."

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia said "I totally give up."

Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsberg partially abstained from the decision, Souter citing a conflict of interest due to "an interest in clowning, and ambivalent feelings about children." Ginsberg left the bench in the middle of the hearing to wander in the hallway, announcing she was going to "arrest that lumberjack man who keep hiding my gavel."

While creating a sweeping expansion of gun ownership rights, the ruling specified it would be limited to individuals "whose day to day activities create a compelling need for self protection from angry mobs or the US military," such as "serial child rapists, foreign terrorists, or Supreme Court justices." In order to qualify for free federal weapons under the ruling, applicants would be required to provide proof of eligibility.

The court is expected to rule later this week on separate case involving Atwa, where he is seeking the right to court appointed children.

President
 

Hi Mike:

Just who would that be?

Sieger

OK, here are just a few of the California regulations in force at present:
1. One gun purchase a month.
2. You must purchase a new approved lock with each gun purchased.
3. No mags over ten rounds.
4. Ten day wait
5. Excessive DOJ fees.
Do these fall under the description of "reasonable restrictions"? And who determines what is "reasonable"? Are we going to have a court case over how reasonable is each restrictive law ever passed or proposed in this state?



I am not, or have I ever been, an attorney. But it's my understanding that each one of those may have to be a separate legal case. As someone from the Libertarian Party has recently written about this landmark Second Amendment case ruling and how it will lead to rolling back anti-gun laws, "Rome wasn't built in a day."

P.S. I am not, or have I ever been a member of the Libertarian Party (or any political party for that matter). But I do like a lot of what they stand for, and I appreciate the help they were on this case. We might expect that the Libertarian Party may do a lot of good things for our nation, as long as they don't ever get too much political power. I wouldn't want to see the presidency and both houses of congress controlled by the Libertarian Party any more than I would the twiddle dumb and twiddle dee parties that have already. But I would like to see some Libertarians get elected to congress. (And I'd admire Ron Paul even more than I do already, if he'd quit the Republicans and announce himself a Libertarian.)

States have the right to make their laws more restrictive than Federal laws. That is one of the benefit of having a Federalist system. States however do not have the right to make laws differently from the Federal statutes.

If you look at the California law, it in itself, no way limits a person's right under the new interpretation from the Supreme Court under Heller, restrict ownership of a gun for home defense. California just applied a more stricter standard to home ownership but individuals are still able to own a gun despite restrictions. Heller only clarify that ownership of a 'handgun' is allowed for home defense.

Disclaimer: Just my personal opinion as a law student

Yes, but one could argue that obstruction of ownership of a gun is a defacto way of preventing gun ownership. California has made it impossible to buy a cheap, affordable gun by indiscriminately labeling many serviceable firearms as "Saturday night specials." It has also imposed unaffordable fees on gun purchases and transfers. The state has and continues to impose unreasonable restrictions on manufacturers which has significantly reduced the selection of guns available. Paying $35 or more to transfer a $50 .22 rifle is tantamount to prohibiting such a transfer, thus very possibly depriving a low income individual from acquiring a cheap weapon for home defense. Such laws can only be deemed "unreasonable."