I am curious if you think their opinion will support the 2nd Amendment or diminish the 2nd Amendment. Please vote!
I really doubt that anyone in the .gov today gives 1/2 a sh!t aobut the people's rights. I know that is negative and depressing, but it's one of those days.
I think the Court will rule that the current prohibition on gun ownership and use within private dwellings is unconstitutional. However, that will not necessarily eliminate the other prohibitions on carry and out of the house use. I just do not think the Court will make a broad ruling on the 2nd; they will rule very narrowly and specifically as has been done in the past. More's the pity, but the case as presented is too specific. All the various amicus curiae don't broaden the issue under law.
I think voted yes in that I think they will rule for Heller BUT Im not holding my breath that it will be a clear clean ruleing that the 2A means what it says and means. For one I expect there is very likely to be some kind of 'reasonable restrictions' garbage in the opinions/ruleing but I agree that unfortunatly we dont have SCOTUS justices with the combined balls, brains and integrity to state that the 2A dose in fact mean EXACTLY what it says and that the gov at any level has absolutely ZERO authority to place regulations on who can own arms or what arms they can own.
I am in agreement with Monkeyman, although we should be able to go down to our local gun shop and pick up an HK 415 or new Magpul Masada, I don't think it is going to happen. It would be way too much way too quickly. Could you even imagine what the talking heads would have to say about it in the evening news?
If you apply for one and are denied, then you will have standing to sue. The thing is, the court has to say the right thing to make such a course of action plausable.
agree no sweeping changes plenty of "howevers and reasonable restrictions.." Don't plan on buying the "mp-5" at Charlies' hardware anytime soon.
lol who wants an MP5, Ill just take a AK-47 or M-4 TYVM. Maybe a Grizzly Shotgun, with an OM. Nemesis on the side
After these latest decisions on "detainees" and child rapists don't deserve the death penalty I sure don't have faith in these idiots to overturn anything. Eminent domain my ass.
Well should know for sure in the next few minutes.....then the debate over what the decission means to the rest of us can start. Heres a link to an up to the minute reading if following it http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/
....and the anwser is......drum roll...... 9:14AM 6/26/08 Heller (lower corts decision to overturn) is affirmed. We win! Now comes the real question of WHAT we win bW the opinions are written.
Quoting the syllabus: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Tentativly looks better than I had expected from them.
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer 27 minutes ago WASHINGTON - 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.
SWEEET...Scalia in his opinion kindly RIPS on Stevens and on DC as idiots for trying to strech it to a collective/military meaning with their convoluted definitions.
I agree, it SHOULD have been 9-0 and totaly blunt that its an individual right without restriction and 'shall not be infringed' mean flat out, hands off no restrictions. Given the climate though cant say Im disapointed to much to get what we seem to have gotten. Got the PDF and will try to attach it of the majority opinion. I particularly like this part. W. Blizard, Desultory Reflections on Police 59–60 (1785). Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence. Seems to even recognize its a right to keep them to keep the gov in line.
After reading all 157 pages of the ruling, the case specifically requires the District to "permit" handguns in the home, and "shall issue" permits for the same unless the applicant is a felon or insane. While narrow in specific scope, the Court recognizes that not all issues with gun possession and use are addressed in their opinion, they expect and will address additional questions at a later date. ("---time enough exists --") By sidelong mention, "sensitive" areas can still prohibit carry, courts and governmental buildings as examples. Schools are not mentioned that I saw, but presumably could be included. What is interesting to me is how the majority opinion absolutely blasts the dissension for errors in logic and application of law against the backdrop of history. "Flat wrong" and "irrelevant" come up more than once. Close call or not, this is precedent setting. It is a win for the good guys, and because of that, some of the bad guys may someday benefit because there was a sheepdog in the mob.
Spinmeisters. Really trying to make a silk purse of a sow's ear to keep the contributions coming in. All the same, they have a point about holes that can be probed in the registration and regulation areas.
