Supreme Court gets it right!

Roy

Moderator
Messages
7,446
LAST EDITED ON Jun-26-08 AT 08:56AM (MST)[p]Well - you can say what you want about Bush - but at least he did establish a great Supreme Court!

It's about time this issue got some precedence!

BIG LEGAL VICTORY FOR ALL AMERICANS!

MSNBC.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Court says individuals have right to own guns
Decision is justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history
BREAKING NEWS
The Associated Press
updated 9:51 a.m. CT, Thurs., June. 26, 2008
WASHINGTON - 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.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

Capital's strict gun law
The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.

##### Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.

The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President ##### Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.


Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.

Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.

Please check back for details on this breaking story.


? 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25390404/

UTROY
Proverbs 21:19 (why I hunt!)
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-26-08 AT 09:27AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jun-26-08 AT 09:26?AM (MST)

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf





Held:
1. 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.
Pp. 2?53.


They also ruled that trigger locks are unconstitutional.
 
I don't know about a great Supreme Court, some of their decisions of late are a little suspect, but this was the big one and they got it right. Truthfully, I was sweating this one. If they had gone the other way something drastic was going to have to be done.

Today is a good day, we dodged a bullet, pun intended.

Wade
www.HardcoreOutdoor.com
 
Yah, the only thing you hear about Bush is complaints. I for one am very happy with his appointment of Roberts and Alitto to the US Supreme Court. I am also happy that -- due to a robust Bush economy -- I was able to refinance my home from a 7.5% fixed interest rate to a 5.5% fixed interest rate in 2003. I don't believe US presidents have the economy locked up in their pockets, but since folks are blaming Bush for the economy in 2008 (not sure I see the big problem, but others evidently do) I figure it is only fair to give him credit for that great interest rate in 2003.
 
The high court did get this one right, as they almost always do.


The economy is bad and according to Buffet it's going to get worse, DOW down another 250 today on a batch of bad economic news. Bush is only partly to blame but it doesn't matter, he got credit for the good now he and McBush are going to pay for the bad, that's just the way it works.
 
Not excited about McCain, but, the ruling today is the reason that we cannot have Democrats nominating liberal judges.
 
>Not excited about McCain, but, the
>ruling today is the reason
>that we cannot have Democrats
>nominating liberal judges.

Amen!

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
Great news!

I was sweating it after their decision on yesterdays issue with child rapists not getting the death penalty.

From what I understand, two judges are due to retire soon. We CANNOT afford to have new ones appointed by a liberal President!

4678aec03a21ae00.jpg
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-26-08 AT 02:07PM (MST)[p]If you want to read something scary go read the dissenting opinions. The liberals on the court state that there is absolutely not constitutional basis for private ownership of firearms and that the 2nd amendment was never intended to allow for it. One vote away does not make for a very secure future, this is not "settled law" as they like to say as the court has a long history of reversing course on closely decided opinions.

Here is an example:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., PETITIONERS v.
##### ANTHONY HELLER

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of
appeals for the district of columbia circuit

[June 26, 2008]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.

-The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a "collective right" or an "individual right." Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.


-The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature's authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

- This reading is confirmed by the fact that the clause protects only one right, rather than two. It does not describe a right "to keep arms" and a separate right "to bear arms." Rather, the single right that it does describe is both a duty and a right to have arms available and ready for military service, and to use them for military purposes when necessary.13 Different language surely would have been used to protect nonmilitary use and possession of weapons from regulation if such an intent had played any role in the drafting of the Amendment.

-The majority's conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by Justice Stevens--namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th-century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment's concern.

- Although I adopt for present purposes the majority's position that the Second Amendment embodies a general concern about self-defense, I shall not assume that the Amendment contains a specific untouchable right to keep guns in the house to shoot burglars. The majority, which presents evidence in favor of the former proposition, does not, because it cannot, convincingly show that the Second Amendment seeks to maintain the latter in pristine, unregulated form.

-The reason there is no clearly superior, less restrictive alternative to the District's handgun ban is that the ban's very objective is to reduce significantly the number of handguns in the District, say, for example, by allowing a law enforcement officer immediately to assume that any handgun he sees is an illegal handgun. And there is no plausible way to achieve that objective other than to ban the guns.



and so on. One vote in the other direction and the court would have nullified an individual right to keep and bear arms. The liberals on the court cannot find such a right in the 2nd Amendment.

Nemont
 
As you say, scary as hell. Who knows what else is in the minority opinion, but I must say the "there is no support whatsoever" statement leaves me feeling there was considerable selectivity employed to arrive at this perspective. No support? The fact that the other 9 of the first 10 amendments address individual rights isn't of any weight or consideration? The fact that preambles are not deemed binding in legal language (the language regarding militias is a preamble) isn't of any weight?

I guess I'll just accept the majority opinion and continue to vote Republican. What more can I do?
 
In my mind, as lousy a president as GWB has been, his appointments made this possible and in the BIG picture overshadow all else he has done. History will be kind to him for this.

JB
 
I agree with Nemont on this. Scary as hell.
What sadens me is that this should not have even been an issue the courts should have to rule on. The second amendment is as plain as the nose on your face. It is a shame that it takes the courts to rule on a NO BRAINER!!!! This is truley horrifying. The courts are ruling on political issues and not the Constitution. This is friggin rediculous.





"Thanks climate PhD 202" - TFinalshot Feb-05-08, 02:16 PM (MST)
 
This decision is EVERYTHING.

The SC Justices have TOTALLY screwed up
the last two they've decided.

This is why who you vote for for President
means something boys and girls.

Everything else, is so much chicken feed.

There were FOUR of your/mine SCJ that voted
AGAINST this !!!!!!

EXCUSE ME!!!! WE HAVE A PROBLEM HERE!!!!

You Dem voters need to look hard in the mirror
next time you shave.
L
 
I think the high courts track record is very good, and it's because we do have a balance of ideals on it. too much conservative thinking is as bad as too much liberal thinking.

The only decision I question is the one on the child rape issue, on the surface it sounds great but putting someone to death on what might be the word of a 6 year old for the most part makes me worry. child abuse is one of those cases where you're guilty until proven innocent and even then its assumed you just got away with it. it happened to my cousin who's a police detective and even after his step daughter confessed 5 years later to lying he'll never shake the rap or regain his position on the force.

In any case it doesn't matter what I think the supreme court has the last word and this is the way it is. I can live with it, just like the anti gun nuts will have to. our system works.
 
Nemont and 202 are right on. Although they finally got one right the scary thing is that 4 of these liberal idiot's didn't agree. This decision should have been a no brainer for all of them.

Thank you GWB for appointing judges who interpret the constitution!

Although I am by no means a mccainiac this decision illustrates exactly why I will support him. Any judge nominated by obama will be as liberal as they come. Obama pretends that he supports this decision however once you check his record you see he has been PRO gun control for years. In fact he is on record supporting this very same gun ban that was overturned.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-27-08 AT 02:36PM (MST)[p]While the dissenting opinion is scary to me, the more frightening part of the make up of the court is that only two of the Justice's were appointed by a Democrat; Ginsburg and Beyer. Of the Dissenters, Justice Stevens (Appointed by Ford) and Justice Souter (Appointed by GHWB) also could not find an individual right to bear arms.

So I think it is dangerous, sometimes to vote for a President on the premise of Supreme Court Nominee's. Ford, Reagan and GHWB have picked some real liberal justices. Reagan appointed Kennedy and he bats about 20% conservative and 80% liberal. Souter is a liberal and was appointed by GHWB.

Nemont
 
No one got it right 100% of the time. Even reagan made a poor choice. However in this election you have a candidate who has vowed to nominate conservatives....... and then theres obama.

Mccain has promised many times to appoint judges like alito and roberts. Both conservatives.

Obama will appoint more ginsberg's.......

Judges IMHO should be a huge part of this election.
 
Judges should be a big part of the election, very big part.

There are some issues where I'd much prefer Ginsberg, some I wouldn't. if the NRA doesn't go overboard as tick a lot of people off I think we can say the anti gunners are going to be a while figuring out another angle. the Supreme Court doesn't like to reverse or hear cases simalar to what they've already ruled on, so this decision will have long lasting effects.

It's all about moderation, if Obama only gets to nominate 1 judge things will be in order, if he gets 2 which he very well may then we could see a court to worry about. in time a conservative president will balance it out again, our system has worked well this long one president isn't going to break it. if it could be broken that easy Bush would have destroyed it like a monkey tuning a Ferrari, he proved beyond a doubt we have a Mexican proof political machine. that not only gives me hope but even more respect for the wisdom of our founding fathers. it's all good
 
So does this one good deed make up for all the other countless disasters this administration is responsible for? Just curious.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom