Right To Bear Arms
 

The Supreme Court Ruling on the D.C. Handgun Ban came down today. This case was more about whether The Right was an Individual or Collective Right.
They Ruled 5-4 that it is a .....

INDIVIDUAL RIGHT !!!

:):):)

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- In a major backing of gun-ownership rights, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a 32-year-old municipal ban on handguns in Washington D.C., according to media reports. The justices, in a 5-4 ruling, cited the Second Amendment in supporting the right to own guns for self-defense and hunting. The court had not conclusively ruled on the Second Amendment since 1791, according to the Associated Press.
***************

Happy day for all. :)

:)

Yea. I have been waiting for that ruling to come down for several days. Now San Francisco can't not only try to force their ban on owning guns on the rest of the state but will have to get rid of it. Boxer and Feinstein are probably wetting their pants right about now. And they can't even get the state Supreme Court to throw that out. :LOL: :LOL:

Now is we could just throw them out. Maybe send one of them to replace Ted Kennedy!! :D

Edit: Link to decision. http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/SCOTUS/...5037600&page=1

Ron :)

From Scalia...

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.


Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.


The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

I just heard the news as well.

bad guys beware!

This decision is REALLY important in that it removes the militia argument from the mix and states that it is an individual right not collective. BUT seema to allow a fair amount of restrictions and ambiguity. Do we only have a self-defense right while at home? Are they saying I'm fair game in public. When we we have to get a "license" for free speech?

It's good but not great.

Make no mistake, the Supreme Court tries to legislate from the bench whenever they can. Occasionally they get one right.

Kind of like a blind pig finding an acorn, or a liberal telling the truth.:eek:

Mdmull,

Many states have laws regarding the carrying of a gun. In California you can carry one openly without any permit in some areas. But they do want you to get a CCP so they won't be bothered by people calling in to report they saw a person carrying a gun. I don't know how your state law is, but here we can defend ourselves up to and including the use of deadly force if the situation warrants it. And as usual a lot of what happens afterward depends on the police who do the investigation and if you are a friend or not of any of them. We are required to register any gun purchased and that is a law that I think is good. If you saw some of the people that show up wanting to take the class to gt a CCP, you would agree with the background checks and 15 day waiting period. Here we are required to take a safety class every two years that updates any new laws and then go qualify on the range in order to renew the permits. I also like that as it has gotten rid of some people that I would not want to be around if they had a loaded gun with them.

Ron :)

The court decision is RIGHT ON. I just can't believe we are even having to address the issue.

The bigger issue is that there will likely be TWO vacancies on the court during the next presidential term. This should be either the #1 or #2 reason to vote RIGHT. The other being higher taxes.

Great news, better late than never.

:D :D

Hey 392cobra.... Libs have the highest regard for the truth. Thats why they only use it in the most dire emergencies!

Lets all hold our breath. Waiting for the media to tell us that the crime rate has fallen in D.C. We know it will fall but we will have to look long and hard to find that fact.