SCOTUS rules 5/4 - Keep Your Guns

[Tchocky]

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-a...ight-to-a-gun/

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 one’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, “it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”

[JetSnake]

Keep them? They never would have been able to take them.

[SUBMAN1]

What this does is screw Washington DC's ban on firearms.

It also brings into question the National Firearms Act and its legality. We may once again be able to own machine guns like we rightfully should. Not to say that a citizen couldn't own one now, but it had to be made prior to the 1986 ban, and they are extremely expensive. $12K for an M-16 last time I checked.

-S

PS. All the Brady idiots just lost a job.

[Tchocky]

However, Scalia was careful not to strike down all gun laws. "The Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns," Scalia wrote. Additionally, he said, "nothing in our opinion should 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." Licensing requirements were also held to be constitutional.

from salon

[SUBMAN1]

McCain on the subject:

John McCain issued the following statement regarding Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban:

“Today’s decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States. For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers. I applaud this decision as well as the overturning of the District of Columbias ban on handguns and limitations on the ability to use firearms for self-defense.

“Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today’s ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right — sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.

“This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms. But today, the Supreme Court ended forever the specious argument that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to keep and bear arms.”

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

from salon

Yep. Sawed off shotguns would be considered unusual. No real need for a sawed off shotgun.
No one makes one like that either, and if they do, it would be a rarity.

An M-16 however is not unusual in that millions of them are in existence and they were manufactured that way.

-S

PS. A sawed off shotgun may even be in question:

In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote, "The decision threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States."

[SUBMAN1]

I should point out here -

This is a Great Day for America!!!

:p

I'm tired of liberals constantly chipping away at our Constitution. They do it daily. The only way to stop them is to get the Supreme Court involved. If left unattended, we wouldn't have any rights left!

Time for SCOTUS to go after the chipping away of free speech now. That is what I want to see next.

-S

[danurve]

I would thank the 5 that helped and voted with common sence.

To the 4 that voted against I would wish their genitals to be infested with 1000 swamp leeches.

[mrbeast]

An M-16 however is not unusual in that millions of them are in existence and they were manufactured that way.

What legitmate reason would a citizen have for owning a fully automatic military assault rifle in the home?

[August]

Originally Posted by mrbeast

What legitmate reason would a citizen have for owning a fully automatic military assault rifle in the home?

Because you shouldn't keep it in your garage when you aren't shooting it?

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

I'm tired of liberals constantly chipping away at our Constitution. They do it daily. The only way to stop them is to get the Supreme Court involved. If left unattended, we wouldn't have any rights left!

Time for SCOTUS to go after the chipping away of free speech now. That is what I want to see next.

-S

Just think, if Gore or Kerry had been elected, and had placed their regressive liberal judicial nominees on that court, your 2nd amendment rights would have been flushed down the crapper today.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Just think, if Gore or Kerry had been elected, and had placed their regressive liberal judicial nominees on that court, your 2nd amendment rights would have been flushed down the crapper today.

I guess it's a matter of picking which part of the Bill of Rights you'd prefer to have "flushed down the crapper".

PD

[JetSnake]

Originally Posted by mrbeast

What legitmate reason would a citizen have for owning a fully automatic military assault rifle in the home?

For when the jack-booted thugs come to confiscate guns. It is nice to be able to lay down some suppresing fire.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

I guess it's a matter of picking which part of the Bill of Rights you'd prefer to have "flushed down the crapper".

PD

Most of us don't want any part of the Bill of Rights flushed. What most of us really don't appreciate is liberal activists writing things into the Constitution that don't exist. Things like "a woman's right to kill her unborn children"...illegal aliens "right to U.S. taxpayer funded education" and other benefits....and homosexual activists "right to homosexual marriage".

[PeriscopeDepth]

Are there efforts to put those into the Constitution? I wasn't aware of that.

I fear I may have steered this thread OT for good.

PD