Supreme Court extends gun rights (5-4 ruling incorporates Second Amendment)

[usregimechange]

JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A, II–B, II–D, III–A, and III–B, concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense.

ALITO, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A, II–B, II–D, III–A, and III–B, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, and THOMAS, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts II–C, IV, and V, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA and KENNEDY, JJ., join. SCALIA, J., filed a concurring opinion. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

[brendan120678]

1. K&R. The typical 5-4 split, but...

this time I agree with the majority.

[SlipperySlope]

74. bump for the majority

The alternative would be to conclude that any majority can decide which rights are protected and which are not.

[indepat]

119. The nefarious and felonious five seem to becoming even more nefariouser and

feloniouser day-by-day. :P

[katandmoon]

2. The U.S. of the NRA. Fuck the NRA, fuck guns, and fuck the Supreme Court.

[n2doc]

7. +1 n/t

[virginia mountainman]

9. Bad day Kat??? ..NT...

[DrDan]

23. +1

[slackmaster]

33. It must be tough going through life so angry about your inability to control other people

:hi:

[Bold Lib]

66. LMAO!!! FUNNY post.

[aikoaiko]

67. :-)))

[PavePusher]

69. You're not a big fan of Civil Rights, are you? n/t

[SteveM]

130. It's hard to be when you rely on prohibitionism & culture war. nt

[proteus_lives]

87. Taking your ball and going home?

:rofl:

[TPaine7]

89. "Fuck, fuck, fuck..."

I hope your frustrations are resolved, "lady."

[TPaine7]

92. Guns won't care one way or the other,

but have you paused to think that neither the NRA nor the Supreme Court may find you attractive?

[guardian]

99. Sounds like

you need some sex addition therapy...you want to fuck everything.

[Iktomiwicasa]

102. That was...

...deep

[X_Digger]

113. Aww, here, have a cookie..

And hey, since you seem to be in such a bad mood..

[rl6214]

114. And just how old are you?

Grow up.

[minavasht]

118. All this love talk

makes one warm and fuzzy ...

[gorfle]

122. Makes me happy to write my dues checks.

The U.S. of the NRA. Fuck the NRA, fuck guns, and fuck the Supreme Court.

I think when I renew my NRA membership on the line of the check where it says "for" I'm going to write "katandmoon". :)

[Statistical]

3. Self defense is a human right. Glad to see the court recognized human rights apply to all 50 states

"concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense."

I am sure this will make gun grabbers gnash their teeth but they are on the wrong side of history.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

10. +1

[DrDan]

4. right-to-own extended to felons next . . . then children . . . .

then mandatory owning . . . then mandatory carry . . .

Plenty of NRA activities on the horizon.

[Statistical]

Always the silly off the mark specualtion.

Many state already have a 2nd amendment like protection in the State Constitution.

How many of those states extend gun ownership to felons, children, mandatory ownership, and mandatory carry?

VA for example has had a 2nd amendment like protection in it's State Constitution for over 200 years. No mandatory carry or felons owning guns yet. Maybe it will happen at 237 years?

[DrDan]

22. even the Mayor is trying to keep guns out of Chicago to maintain some sense of safety

but does the NRA respect that? Nope - guns for all!

[Statistical]

24. Chicago has a gun ban yet has a murder rate 3x the national average.

You can ban civil rights just because it make the job easier (however in this case it is both a injustice AND has no effect on reducing crime/violence/murder).

The only person Daley was keeping guns from was the law abiding like the plantiff in the case.

[DrDan]

31. well then . . . if they are such a deterrent, lets arm the kids, the felons , , ,

and make it mandatory to carry . . . as I initially stated. We will soon be completely crime-free.

[Statistical]

35. From one strawman to another.

The 2nd amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Sometimes rights make things more difficult. Obama could get more done without a free press questioning his every decision. Police could gather evidence much easier without need for warrant. Many times criminals go free in court because of insufficient evidence.

The 2nd amendment exists just like the 1st, the 4th, and the 5th. It is the law of the land and now will be applied equally to every citizen no matter where they live.

[DrDan]

43. then lets just make it simple - guns for felons, guns for children, mandatory carry

if guns are the solution to crime deterrence, everyone should be carrying.

Lets just go completely nuts.

[slackmaster]

44. DrDan, it seems you have no interest in having a serious discussion about the topic

I suggest you turn off your computer and go think about something else.

[DrDan]

50. I disagree with this ruling . . . . . more guns is not the answer - imho

Am I or am I not allowed to hold that position?

I suggest you find someone else to badger.

[slackmaster]

54. Thanks for your opinion. I disagree completely.

This isn't about more guns, it's about more choices.

[TheWraith]

70. You're not allowed to create a strawman to argue against.

The fact that you're being called on the absurdity of your claims is what's making you angry. As slackmaster said, you have no interest in a real discussion based on people's actual opinions or the facts.

[PavePusher]

76. You are allowed to hold any position you want...

but the general idea in debate is to support your position with some evidence based on facts.

If you can't do that, you'll find scant comfort around here.

[DrDan]

93. hmmmm . . . don't remember asking you for "comfort" . . .

perhaps I did - just don't remember

[PavePusher]

104. Quote:

"Am I or am I not allowed to hold that position?

I suggest you find someone else to badger."



Being asked to support your suppositions is not "badgering".

[DrDan]

116. telling someone to turn off their computer and think about something else is badgering

[Statistical]

47. Nobody (except you) said guns are the solution. The 2nd isn't about SOLUTIONS it is about rights.

The solution to substantially reduced crime would be a Police State.
The solution to higher rate of convictions would be forced confessions.
The solution to more easily passing legislation would be govt control of media and limits on free expression, dissent, protesting.
The solution to no religion friction would be a state religion and early age indoctrination.

Rights aren't about solutions. Rights are about rights. I have a RIGHT (not a desire, not a need, not a wish) to keep and bear arms just as much as you have right to never be forced to testify against yourself.

[safeinOhio]

105. Always the exception

"you have right to never be forced to testify against yourself." Except before a Grand Jury or given immunity. Lots of "excepts" on the right to keep and bear arms too. Every right we have has been qualified in some way.

[Madame DuFuey]

120. they already are

The gangs and felons are the only ones armed. I live in Chicago and I applaud the decision.

[SteveM]

132. "Lets just go completely nuts:" Sounds like someone is already there.

[HALO141]

106. Blind paranoia!

Good choice. It's worked out well for Glenn Beck.

[DonP]

79. 80 shootings and 11 deaths in 7 days - with the gun ban

That's more than Afghanistan and Iraq combined for the same time period!

If the gun ban was having any kind of impact on violence it might be worth discussing, but all it succeeds in doing is disarming the law abiding.

We did it the Mayor's way for over two decades with results measured in body counts every weekend.

Now it's time to try another alternative.

[metalbot]

41. Why not toss the 4th and 5th amendments for Chicago then?

Wouldn't that make it a lot easier for police to clean up the city if they could just round up suspected drug dealers, beat the crap out of them, and then jail them indefinitely?

The second amendment is pretty clear, especially after the Heller ruling. If you don't like it, why not change the Amendment instead of trying to pretend that it doesn't exist?

[Bold Lib]

77. SCOTUS addresses that safety argument.

Municipal respondents cite no case in which we have refrained from holding that a provision of the Bill of Rights is binding on the States on the ground that the right at issue has dis-puted public safety implications.

[Abq_Sarah]

107. How's that safety thing

Working out when it comes to disarming criminals?

[PavePusher]

71. Really?

Got any evidence to support those accusations/insinuations?

[safeinOhio]

84. The court addresses that point

39-40
Municipal respondents’ remaining arguments are at war
with our central holding in Heller: that the Second
Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear
arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense
within the home. of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and gov-
ernment buildings, or laws imposing conditions and quali-
fications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___
(slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here.
Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations,
incorporation does not imperil every law regulating
firearms.


Note wording," for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense
within the home. of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and gov-
ernment buildings, or laws imposing conditions and quali-
fications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Extremist on both sides will not like that.

[proteus_lives]

88. Standard silliness.

Keep it up! :rofl:

[safeinOhio]

98. Did you read it?

Makes reasonable restrictions and defense of the home clear as a bell.

[SteveM]

131. ...then rollicking kittycats, balled up at your feet...then flatulent Labradors!

[Doctor_J]

5. Thank god they still respect one amendment

why haven't impeachment procedings begun against these partisan hacks?

[Dappleganger]

6. Good to hear.

People in Chicago have a right to defend themselves.

[virginia mountainman]

8. SCOTUS said UNANIMOUSLY, that the 2nd Amendment applies to the state....

The majority Justices do not support all parts of the Alito opinion, but all five agree that the 2d Amendment applies to state and local government.

They just differ on scope...

....ALL 9....

[Statistical]

13. Care to explain. "All 5" and "unanimously".

"All 5" and "unanimously".

There are 9 justices. I haven't read the dissent yet but unanimous would be all 9 not all 5.

[virginia mountainman]

16. Good Catch... NT

[Statistical]

20. I am interested in readnig the disenting opinion then.

Many don't realize it but all 9 justices agreed the 2nd amendment protects an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT (not any of that collective rights, or state rights BS) in Heller decision.

Many think it was 5 for individual right and 4 for state rights. The reality was all 9 were unanimous on fact that 2nd protects and individual right and only differed in how much control the govt has over that right.

[mr_liberal]

14. Theres 9 justices.

It was 5 to 4, a split decision.

[virginia mountainman]

19. In the details...

ALL 9 JUSTICES agreed that the 2nd Amendment applied to the states....they just differed on reach.

[mr_liberal]

29. Ok that's better then.

Maybe I wont have to be embarrassed by the liberals after all. ill have to read the decision.

I have a feeling Im still going to be embarrassed though. My guess is this is a narrow ruling and I don't see why you would oppose it. But I need to know more.

[Doctor_J]

17. The same 5 who declared that corporations are people

if you're on their side, you also agree with their other anti-american decrees.

[Statistical]

21. That is stupid.

One can agree with a single opinion without agreeing with everything ever decided.

By your logic anyone who agrees with Obama on anything also 100% supports DADT right?

[Doctor_J]

34. What are you talking about?

This court (and the one before it) have handed down one destructive decision after another, starting with Bush v. Gore. Your analogy is stupid. This is more like saying that because Cheney is in favor of gay marriage (coincidentally, his daughter is a lesbian), I am going to start liking him.

[Statistical]

38. No I can like that Cheney is in favor of gay marriage and at the same time not like him.

Just like I can like that Catholic Church does work to help the poor while disagreeing with virtually all of their policies.

[TheWraith]

75. You just made the other person's point.

Just because you agree with Cheney about something doesn't mean that you agree with him about other things, and just because it's Cheney doesn't mean something he says is automatically wrong.

[mr_liberal]

32. The ACLU must be un-american then

because they agreed with that decision; the said it was about free speech.

[AndyA]

11. Oh, goodie! More guns!! Guns always make things better.

Two problems: You don't find out that the freak with the permit to carry is a freak until someone's dead. Then, of course, it's too late.

And, you have to trust EVERYONE. Period. Because you don't know if they have a gun or not. You don't know what their temperament is. If you don't trust a stranger with your 8 year old daughter, you can't trust that stranger with a gun. Period.

[slackmaster]

36. I see it as "More choices"

Not necessarily more guns (not that it matters).

You don't find out that the freak with the permit to carry is a freak until someone's dead.

Today's decision has nothing to do with permits to carry guns.

And, you have to trust EVERYONE.

Which is different from how things are now, how?

[rrneck]

68. I certainly won't trust you with my civil rights.

Can anyone trust you to defend them if they get assaulted? Will you be there to save the day?

[AndyA]

100. Would you? Just because you have a gun?

:rofl:

Wait until you see a loved one shot in the face by someone with a gun. Later, everyone said, "Oh, he was unstable. He really should have never been given a permit."

I guarantee you will change your attitude toward guns. I know, first hand.

[rrneck]

124. If you knew anything first hand

you wouldn't be so ready to use a rofl smiley. This isn't a laughing matter.

You are speaking from a position of blistering ignorance. Ignorance of me, ignorance of what I may or may not own, ignorance of my life experiences and my reactions to those experiences, and ignorance of the real world.

There is a question pending. Do you have a self defense solution for someone who is assaulted by another not using a gun but instead using a knife, club, fists or feet?

[AndyA]

127. You don't know me, so you aren't in a positon to judge what I do or do not know first hand.

That tells me your judgement is flawed, since you're so quick to make decisions about others.

Add a gun to the mix, and people like you are dangerous.

As to your question, Judo works pretty well. I've tossed some pretty big guys flat on their butts.

Enough, though. I find people who think their right to have a gun trumps all the other rights of all the other people to be pathetic. :eyes:

[X_Digger]

128. Judo! *snort*

Tell that to the 85yo retiree facing a 19yo thug.

"Supah-Ninja Grandma for the winz!"

[rrneck]

129. Enough indeed

since you seem to be tired of running. I guess you're out of shape. Better hit the dojo.

The question you continue to dodge is: Do you have a self defense solution for someone who is assaulted by another not using a gun but rather using a knife, club, fists or feet?

I'm going to give you credit for dodging the question because your solution is clearly insufficient for the vast majority of people. Almost nobody in this country has the time, money, or physical ability to train effectively in hand to hand combat. For that matter, how would you fare against multiple attackers? The "solution" you offer is utter and complete bullshit.

If you want all guns to go away, fine. You have to offer those whom you would disarm some remedy. Otherwise you're just farting in the wind. Now, that might in itself be just fine. You're entitled to your opinion. But as a matter of public policy such inane suggestions as martial arts training display an attitude completely detached from the lives of people in this country. It displays an arrogance and a devotion to blinkered ideology that gets Republicans elected.

I only know you by what you say on this board. So far, what you are saying is that people don't merit any serious consideration about the realities of a disparity of force from you. So far, all you've said is you don't give a shit about anybody but you.

[safeinOhio]

85. It deals with guns in the home

and leaves restrictions, if not discriminatory, on CCWs intact.

[TPaine7]

96. That is all the Court was asked to decide.

What you are saying is equivalent to saying that Heller left states free to deny people the right to keep handguns in their homes. It did. But not by saying that states were free to forbid handguns, but by refusing to forbid it prematurely.

The court has not addressed restrictions on CCWs; THE COURT WAS NOT ASKED TO ADDRESS RESTRICTIONS ON CCW.

[safeinOhio]

103. You may not like what they

may rule as they have stated " We repeat those assurances here.
Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations,
incorporation does not imperil every law regulating
firearms."
With that statement from the majority, I'd think you may not want them to address restrictions on CCWs.

[TPaine7]

109. Actually, you don't understand my position on CCW.

If the Court were to address CCW, it could properly find that it has no intrinsic constitutional protection. I have said so repeatedly on this site. That opinion is based in history.

What it cannot do, legitimately, is limit the right to keep and bear arms OPENLY. States must allow open carry at a minimum, constitutionally speaking. Locales like New York City LA and Chicago should not be allowed to hand out concealed weapons permits as political favors and special privileges; either all sane, law abiding citizens should be able to carry concealed, or none should.

The branch of government that can most legitimately enforce nationwide concealed carry--as a remedy for decades of lies, abuse, and defiance of the Constitution--is Congress. They have that authority, IMO, per the 14th Amendment itself.

The Court will probably not support concealed carry nationwide (though it could, just as it ordered busing to try to undo long-standing defiance of the Constitution). But I hasten to point out that "incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms" does not mean the same thing as "every possible restriction that gun rights opponents can dream up (or have dreamed up and gotten on the books) will be deemed constitutional."

The dissent made a huge deal of laws against discharging firearms in city limits. I support such laws (with the obvious exceptions of defensive gun uses and shooting at ranges). I agree that such laws are, and should be, safe from constitutional challenge.

[X_Digger]

115. She does that a lot, I've noticed..

One frequent refrain is: "Because nobody's challenged handgun registration, it's 100% constitutional!!"

*sigh* nuance is lost on some.

[proteus_lives]

90. More rights and choices make things better.

There I fixed it for you.

[GreenStormCloud]

110. In most states, citizens with CCW permits have been extensively screened.

Statistics show that you are many times more likely to be struck by lightning than to be illegally killed by a CCW permit holders. Crimes by permit holders are extremely rare. Before I could get my permit, I had to submit to an FBI background investigation, be fingerprinted and photographed, take and pass a course and demonstrate proficiency with a handgun.

That process has an excellent track record of screening out the freaks.

[gorfle]

123. I've debunked that argument before.

Two problems: You don't find out that the freak with the permit to carry is a freak until someone's dead. Then, of course, it's too late.

The problem here is that statistically we know for a fact that the vast majority, well over 90%, of firearm homicides are committed by people with extensive criminal records, including, on average, four felonies:

http://site297.mysite4now.com/clrwebsite/Joomla1.5/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:kates201086&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=20

Such people can't acquire carry permits, let alone even legally possess a firearm.

Do concealed carry permit holders sometimes commit firearm crimes? Certainly. But it is an extraordinarily rare event.

And, you have to trust EVERYONE. Period. Because you don't know if they have a gun or not. You don't know what their temperament is. If you don't trust a stranger with your 8 year old daughter, you can't trust that stranger with a gun. Period.

The fact of the matter is that an 8-year-old girl could be trusted with the vast majority of strangers. Yes, there are a few strangers that can not be trusted with an 8-year-old girl. Because we can't tell the good guys from the bad guys, and because it doesn't affect anyone one way or the other, we don't allow 8-year-old girls to go off with random strangers.

Likewise, the vast majority of citizens can be trusted with firearms. Yes, there are a few citizens that cannot be trusted with firearms, and we disallow those that we know cannot be trusted from owning them by law. What we don't do, however, is disallow the Constitutional rights of everyone else for the sake of the few criminals.

[SteveM]

133. And defenders of the Second are accused of paranoia? nt

[mr_liberal]

12. Im glad for the decision.

2nd Amend is a fundamental right that, just like any other right, should apply to the whole country.

5 to 4. Im embarrassed by the liberals, but Ill have to read the decision.

[Hosnon]

15. Good move. Alito discusses Justice Black's "total incorporation" theory in the opinion.

I think Black's position is best.

[Atlatl]

18. Mayor Daley can cry in his Cheerios now...

while freedom lovers rejoice!

[usregimechange]

25. Lets hope that this freedom doesn't result in thousands of dead people

the evidence on gun regulation isn't clear cut.

[Statistical]

28. The evidence on gun bans is completely clear.

They never have and never will work.

They simply keep law abiding from owning firearms, like the plaintiff in this case.


Murder rate in DC has declined since Heller v DC determined that the DC gun ban infringed upon the 2nd.

[usregimechange]

39. That wasn't my conclusion after reading all scientific findings out there

[Statistical]

40. Well then you didn't look very hard.

The violent crime and homicide rates are at a 30 year low and fell again in 2009 despite the bad economy.

This despite 30 years of progressive gun rights legislation.

[usregimechange]

59. How have you isolated gun law among other factors? Sounds like science w/o the hard work

[Statistical]

62. How have you proven that gun bans lower crime?

I don't think more guns in the hands of law abiding decrease crime but it certainly doesn't increase it.
Gun bans (like one in Chicago and DC) only affect the law abiding. Criminals simply break the law and still possess firearms.

[usregimechange]

64. I made no affirmative assertion, you did. I said the research was unclear

[Statistical]

65. Well then you support the ruling?

I mean without clear evidence the idea of banning (or severely restricting civil liberties) is appalling concept.

I mean imagine if there is no clear evidence that torture leads to successful convictions. Well there is no clear evidence it doesn't right? So pretend the 5th amendment doesn't exist and torture confessions out of people right?

[safeinOhio]

91. As in DC it leaves previously

"reasonable" restrictions in place. Even with those restrictions, crime is down in DC.

[PavePusher]

81. It hasn't happened elsewhere...

and while that doesn't mean it can't happen, I expect the trend to continue.

Unless, of course, you have evidence that would support your insinuation... Perhaps Chicagoans really are too unreliable to have the same Civil Rights as the rest of the nation?

[GreenStormCloud]

111. Look at the other states to see how well gun freedom has worked.

For over twenty years the antis have cried, "thousand of dead people" or "blood in the streets" as state after state has removed restrictions on guns. And the crime rate has dropped. The return to the fictional old west didn't happen. Blood didn't run in the streets.

Don't you antis get tired of being wrong?

[NHLrocks]

121. So we should ban freedom if some people act stupidly with their freedom?

[DrDan]

27. oh brother . . . .

so those that prefer safety and sanity are not "freedom lovers".

sounds like another inSanity fan.

[eqfan592]

73. You do NOT support safety and sanity.

You support ignorance, pure and simple.

[virginia mountainman]

49. I half expect the Mayor to bulldoze McDonald's house...

To send Bulldozers to Mr McDonald's house, and bulldoze it before he gets back home...He has a history, of "late night bulldozering" if you know what I mean..

In 2001, a compromise was reached between Chicago, the State of Illinois, and others to keep the airport open for the next twenty-five years. However, the federal legislation component of the deal did not pass the United States Senate. In a controversial move on March 31, 2003, Mayor Daley ordered private crews to destroy the runway in the middle of the night, bulldozing large X-shaped gouges into the runway surface.<7> The required notice was not given to the Federal Aviation Administration or the owners of airplanes tied down at the field, and as a result sixteen planes were left stranded at an airport with no operating runway, and an incoming flight was diverted. The stranded aircraft were later allowed to depart from Meigs' 3,000-foot (910 m) taxiway.<8>

Mayor Daley defended his actions, described as "appalling" by general aviation interest groups, by claiming it would save the City of Chicago the effort of further court battles before the airport could close. He claimed that safety concerns required the closure, due to the post-September 11 risk of terrorist-controlled aircraft attacking the downtown waterfront near Meigs Field.<9> In reality, closing the airport made the airspace less restrictive. When the airport was open, downtown Chicago was within Meigs Field's Class D airspace, requiring two-way radio communication with the tower.<10> The buildings in downtown Chicago are now in Class E/G airspace, which allows any airplane to legally fly as close as 1,000 feet (300 m) from these buildings with no radio communication at all.<11>

Editorials in the Chicago Tribune pointed out that "the issue is Daley's increasingly authoritarian style that brooks no disagreements, legal challenges, negotiations, compromise or any of that messy give-and-take normally associated with democratic government." <12> Daley himself played the populist against the general aviation pilots who had previously used the airport because of its ideal location.<9>

Interest groups, led by the Friends of Meigs Field, attempted to use the courts to reopen Meigs Field over the following months, but because the airport was owned by the City of Chicago and had paid back its federal aviation grants, the courts ruled that Chicago was allowed to close the field. The FAA fined the city US$33,000 for closing an airport with a charted instrument approach without giving the required 30-day notice. This was the maximum fine the law allowed at the time. In the aftermath, the "Meigs Legacy provision" was passed into law, increasing the maximum fine per day from US$1,100 to US$10,000.<13>

On September 17, 2006, the city dropped all legal appeals and agreed to pay the $33,000 fine as well as repay $1 million in misappropriated FAA Airport Improvement Program funds that it used to destroy the airfield and build the Northerly Island park.<14[br />

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meigs_Field#Closure

[joeybee12]

26. Ludicrous...absolutely fucking ludicrous...takes a twisted mind to come

up with this "logic"...abnoslutely fucking ludicrous.

[Statistical]

30. What twisted logic.

1) The 2nd amendment protects an individual right
2) The 14th amendment incorporates rights against the states for the protection of the individual universally.

The 2nd is incorporated against the states.

It takes a bunch of twisted legal gymnastics to reach any OTHER conclusion.

[slackmaster]

37. Please explain why you disagree with it

:hi:

[usregimechange]

42. What happened to the state's rights crowd, activism much?

[mr_liberal]

45. What happened to the activism (incorporation) crowd,

states rights much?

[slackmaster]

46. States don't have rights. States have powers. People have rights.

:hi:

[Statistical]

51. States don't have rights.

They never have and never will.

States have powers. Any powers not delegated to federal govt nor prohibited by the Constitution are reserved by the states.

"prohibited by the Constitution". The 2nd amendment would prohibit a gun ban thus it is a prohibited power.

States still have powers they just don't have unlimited power. Much like an individual state couldn't adopt a mandatory state religion or bring back slavery.

Their powers have been (and always will be) limited by the Constitution.

[GreenStormCloud]

112. All states have to abide by the constitution, all of it. N/T

[usregimechange]

48. Justice Stevens on Judge made law:

"The net result of JUSTICE SCALIA’s supposedly objective analysis is to vest federal judges—ultimately a majority of the judges on this Court—with unprecedented lawmaking powers in an area in which they have no special qualifications, and in which the give-and-take of the political process has functioned effectively for decades."

[old guy]

52. Fantastic news!

For gun manufacturers

[DonP]

101. Gun manufacturers - Not so much

Gun manufacturers are already well on their way to their third year of record sales. 48 states now allow concealed carry and one allows only open carry. According to gun control people we should be in the middle of a bloodbath by now.

Instead we are enjoying the lowest crime rate in over 25 years.

Just a coincidence I'm sure.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

53. The solution is obvious: repeal the 2nd ammendment.

Replace it with something along the lines of "Armed militias being the worst possible threat to the security of a free state, the federal and state governments shall pass such laws as they deem necessary to regulate the ownership of weapons to protect their citizens".

[Statistical]

56. Except majority of Americans support right to keep and bear arms.

That whole pesky 3/4th vote in both houses and then ratification of 2/3rds of states thing.

Kinda hard to get 3/4ths of Congress and 2/3rd of states to approve something only a shrinking minority want.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

63. Oh, it's completely impossible, I freely acknowledge that.

There is not a snowball's chance in hell of it happening, and advocating it would be political suicide, which is not something I want the Democrats to commit. I'm merely saying that it would be a good thing if it *did* happen.

[eqfan592]

78. Based on what evidence, exactly...

..would that be a "good" thing?

[TheWraith]

82. Do you even know what the constitutional definition of "militia" is?

Hint: it's not a dozen guys in camo in the backwoods of Montana.

Under US law, there is the "organized militia" and the "unorganized milita." The organized militia is the National Guard. The unorganized militia is all able-bodied males age 17 to 45.

Furthermore, the protection of the second amendment is not in any way linked to or dependent on being associated with a militia, any more than the right to free speech is dependent on being associated with a newspaper. It protects an individual right.

[SteveM]

134. I see nothing good about it. And have yet to hear why it would be "good."

I might be open to removing the "militia clause" as unnecessary. But the rest? It stays. And that is good.

[safeinOhio]

95. Gallup shows that

the majority of Americans are for the 2nd Amendment, along with reasonable restrictions. Looks like the court supports that view with the wording.

[slackmaster]

57. If you think you can get 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of state legislatures to agree

Go for it.

[oneshooter]

125. So we can be as "safe" as the subjects of the Crown? n/t

[cowman]

126. Yeah

good luck with that.

[mmonk]

55. Bit of a stretch. An ideological decision.

[slackmaster]

58. Not that there's anything wrong with that

[mmonk]

60. Except they will deny 14th amendment rights to citizens on other issues

while enshrining the only amendment with a qualifier as an absolute.

[slackmaster]

61. The Second Amendment has no qualifier

The prefatory clause simply explains why the right is enumerated.

[mmonk]

72. That's interpretive at best and without the history

of the time whereby mention of the people was equated to the states. And by that enumerated statement as to regulated militias an intent.

[Statistical]

97. People was never equated with states. They simply said STATES.

If the right to keep and bear arms was limited to states (not individual right) then why would states ALSO provide RKBA protections in their state constitutions? The collective rights argument has been utterly defeated. Not a single one of the nine justices bought into that legal garbage. The 2nd protects an individual right and that protection now applies equally againsr the states.

We can look at State Constitutions at the same time and get a good idea of what they intended when they said "people".

"That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." - Kentucky 1792

"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned" - Pennsylvania 1790

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power." - Vermont 1777

" The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it" - Mass 1780

"That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." - Tenn 1796

"That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." - Alabama 1812

[slackmaster]

108. The word "regulated"...

I do not think it means, what you think it means.

[X_Digger]

117. "People" != "States"

Otherwise, we'd have no need for the ninth and tenth amendments. (They'd be redundant.)

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[friendly_iconoclast]

94. Hah, that's way funny! I am *so* quoting that last line.

+1 to you.

[aikoaiko]

83. Another victory for civil rights in the USA.

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
:toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast:
:party: :party: :party: :party: :party: :party: :party: :party: :party: :party: :party: :party: :party: :party: :party: :party: :party: :party: :party: :party: :party: :party: :party: :party: :party:
:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:
:patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

[proteus_lives]

86. A great decision!

:thumbsup: