Supreme Court Decision

[Navy]

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

[John Sabato]

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

[Ron Smith]

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

[policeluger]

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.

[Edward Tinker]

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

[supersamn]

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

thank you sam 2111....

[Navy]

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

[alanint]

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.

[John Sabato]

Easy Tom! We Won this round!

[Navy]

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

[Mauser720]

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)

[tenbears]

Good news indeed.

[raygun]

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

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.

[Navy]

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

[HerbZ]

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.

[Luke]

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 ! ! ! !

[Aaron]

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?

[policeluger]

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....

[Mike B]

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

Mike

[BogeyB]

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