Justices Extend Gun Owner Rights Nationwide

[chevysoldier]

http://www2.nbc4i.com/news/2010/jun/28/2/justices-extend-gun-owner-rights-nationwide-ar-124947/

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court held Monday that the Constitution's Second Amendment restrains government's ability to significantly limit "the right to keep and bear arms," advancing a recent trend by the John Roberts-led bench to embrace gun rights.

...

Monday's decision did not explicitly strike down the Chicago area laws, ordering a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling. But it left little doubt that they would eventually fall

[kawi kid]

i actually have a problem with this.....

[Todd#43]

http://www2.nbc4i.com/news/2010/jun/28/2/justices-extend-gun-owner-rights-nationwide-ar-124947/

First Heller, now this.

It's been a long time coming.

I can't wait to read the entire opinion.

http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/mcdonaldopinion08-1521.pdf

[chevysoldier]

Explain Kawi..

[Todd#43]

i actually have a problem with this.....

So you have a problem that the Supreme Court ruled that states can not limit a substantive right as guaranteed by the Constitution?

Seriously?

You've got some 'splainin to do.

[kawi kid]

my problem is it only passed 5 - 4............ that is my problem. essentially they were voting on the basic constitutionality of the 2nd admendment.

[Uncle Punk]

This ruling will have a greater impact on future challenges that the Heller case because it holds the constitution above local and state laws. This is a win for the good guys but will not affect a large percentage of people yet. Reasonable restrictions will be put to the test plenty of times before a person with cause can get it to the Supreme Court for any clarification if the court will hear it at all. The 5-4 decision is disappointing but you will find half of our country will side with the opposing judges, this is why elections matter.

Some good reading here

http://www.scotusblog.com/

[C-bus]

5-4 is very concerning. We know the idiots will leave while there's a liberal in office, but we're essentially a heart attack. ..a car wreck away from the loss of freedom

.

[jagr]

Now we need free Gemtechs for all!!!

[C-bus]

You may be a heart attack away from a loss of freedom' date=' but I'm not. They can ban whatever the fuck they want to. They've banned all sorts of shit that is a normal part of my day-to-day life. I don't really give a shit what they do.[/quote']

I'm a "cold -dead-hands" guy too. The difference is that a contrary ruling transforms me from a law -abiding citizen into an outlaw guerrilla warrior.

Edited June 29, 2010 by C-bus

[DangBruhY]

Glad it passed... This ruling will be case law.

[Todd#43]

essentially they were voting on the basic constitutionality of the 2nd admendment.

No, they weren't voting on the "constitutionality" of the Second Amendment.

The issue was can the states limit a substantive right guaranteed by the Federal Government via the Constitution - like due process, or freedom of speech.

This is a HUGE decision and will soon have ramifications nation wide for other local gun bans like Cleveland's "Assault Weapons" ban.

[Likwid]

This is a home rule precedent... it's about time, but it's not enough, and it's not going to happen quick enough.

But.... the wheels of justice move slowly.

[Uncle Punk]

A view into the opposition. A well thought out rebuttal with logic and common cense full of information processed with blinders on to draw their own conclusion. While historically significant Miller had nothing to do with the question before the court in regards to McDonald. I know a little about Presser and very little about Cruikshank so I can’t argue with the writer’s conclusion. The writer does make a point about self defense not being part of the ratified amendment even though most of us try to infer our desire for it to be there.

"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."

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/06/the-thick-edge-of-the-wedge/#more-22575

[Aerik]

Interesting. I generally agree with this ruling, but I am amused at how all the "States Rights! Fuck the federal gubment, I want states' rights!!" people are being quiet right now.

[AOW]

A-mutha-fucking-MEN!

[Aerik]

What do you mean? The States can't violate the Constitution. That kind of makes it worthless.. don't you think?

Yes' date=' fuck the FedGov and its ever-encroaching power trip, but what does that have to do with the Supreme Court? I guess I use "FedGov" to define Congress, generally.[/quote']

I personally tend to use Federal Government to refer to all three branches at the national level.

But generally speaking, there is a certain subset of the political right in this country who completely lose their shit over any time the federal legislative or judicial branches contradict the states, regardless of which side happens to be more constitutionally sound at the time. These people have been whining about states' rights since the traitor South got lumped the fuck up by a funny looking guy in a tophat.

In this one case, though, when the SCOTUS has decided in favor of the right, they're oddly quiet.

Like I said, I tend to agree with this ruling and with the permissive interpretation of the 2nd amendment in general (as opposed to the more restrictive 'militia' interpretation). I just think it's funny when people who oppose national authorities telling the states what they can and can't do stop complaining when the national authorities take their side against the states.

[Uncle Punk]

Interesting. I generally agree with this ruling, but I am amused at how all the "States Rights! Fuck the federal gubment, I want states' rights!!" people are being quiet right now.

I would like to understand your issue better about how this conflicts with your view on states rights. Are you suggesting states can regulate speech, press, assembly, search and seizure, due process, voter’s rights, segregation, etc?

[Aerik]

I would like to understand your issue better about how this conflicts with your view on states rights. Are you suggesting states can regulate speech, press, assembly, search and seizure, due process, voter’s rights, segregation, etc?

I'm not suggesting any such thing; I'm a liberal, after all, and states' rights aren't one of my pet issues. I think there are some roles for which the federal government is well-suited, and others that work better at the state or local level. I see our whole system as a balancing act-- part of the federal government's job is to keep the states from stepping all over the rights of the citizens, however the citizens have to keep the federal government from stepping all over the states, and somewhere along the way we have to keep the citizens from stepping all over each other too. It's a constant process, there is no finished product.

However, there are those who do support what they refer to as 'states rights' even when they'd otherwise contradict the constitution. In modern times, they're generally the ones trying to pass a bunch of crazy religious laws in red states. Go back a bit and they were the ones fighting tooth and nail to protect the Jim Crow laws.

[Todd#43]

I'm not suggesting any such thing; I'm a liberal, after all, and states' rights aren't one of my pet issues. I think there are some roles for which the federal government is well-suited, and others that work better at the state or local level. I see our whole system as a balancing act-- part of the federal government's job is to keep the states from stepping all over the rights of the citizens, however the citizens have to keep the federal government from stepping all over the states, and somewhere along the way we have to keep the citizens from stepping all over each other too. It's a constant process, there is no finished product.

Another liberal that doesn't understand the Constitution.

The Second Amendment and the defense and application of the same is NOT a states rights issue. Period.

The Federal Government's responsibility is to defend our borders and make sure the individual states don't do anything to the citizens within their borders that conflicts with the Constitution.

A constant process? Are you fucking kidding me? The Constitution is finished product. The only way it can be changed is through the amendment process.

However, there are those who do support what they refer to as 'states rights' even when they'd otherwise contradict the constitution. In modern times, they're generally the ones trying to pass a bunch of crazy religious laws in red states. Go back a bit and they were the ones fighting tooth and nail to protect the Jim Crow laws.

I think you need to take another history class, genius. Those that supported the "Jim Crow Laws" and were anti civil rights are the same fucks you currently align yourself with - "liberal" democrats.

I'd also like to hear some examples of your "crazy religious laws" that they "try to pass" in "red" states.

Maybe you can try again when you've done some research and learned a thing or two? On the other hand, maybe you could post your uneducated views in the "globalization" thread.

[kawi kid]

agreed with todd the constitution is not a living document. it is what it is...........

[Uncle Punk]

I'm not suggesting any such thing; I'm a liberal, after all, and states' rights aren't one of my pet issues. I think there are some roles for which the federal government is well-suited, and others that work better at the state or local level. I see our whole system as a balancing act-- part of the federal government's job is to keep the states from stepping all over the rights of the citizens, however the citizens have to keep the federal government from stepping all over the states, and somewhere along the way we have to keep the citizens from stepping all over each other too. It's a constant process, there is no finished product.

However, there are those who do support what they refer to as 'states rights' even when they'd otherwise contradict the constitution. In modern times, they're generally the ones trying to pass a bunch of crazy religious laws in red states. Go back a bit and they were the ones fighting tooth and nail to protect the Jim Crow laws.

Thanks for your reply but I'm still missing your point about the states’ rights people not making a fuss about this.

Those people are happy to have the federal government defend the constitution and this ruling supports the constitution or so say five out of nine judges. The constitution is a living document that can be added to by the ratification of the states but it is not to regress and take rights away that have already been granted. When the ones who were fighting for the "Jim Crow" laws were doing so they were not violating any constitutional amendment they had approved of. I can think of no law in any red state that has been pushed or passed that establishes a religious law so I will need more input to be swayed by that argument. You might be able to make a parallel to a religious law but the vast majority of civil laws will have a religious equal. Just because "thou shalt not kill" is part of religious teachings doesn't make it a bad thing for a civilized body of people to use as a means to govern them.

I still am not convinced that the states’ rights people have supported anything that contradicts the constitution.

[wht_scorpion]

want to see fucked up gun laws look at NY laws just dont get caught there with a hand gun even with a ohio ccw permit

[Aerik]

The Federal Government's responsibility is to defend our borders and make sure the individual states don't do anything to the citizens within their borders that conflicts with the Constitution.

This is basically what I already said:

part of the federal government's job is to keep the states from stepping all over the rights of the citizens, however the citizens have to keep the federal government from stepping all over the states, and somewhere along the way we have to keep the citizens from stepping all over each other too.

A constant process? Are you fucking kidding me? The Constitution is finished product. The only way it can be changed is through the amendment process.

Way to not understand. The application is a constant process. The 'perfect' balance is not static, because time is not static and neither are countries. There will always be circumstances which change, technologies which present new problems, etc. The framers understood this; it's why we have a legislative and judicial branch-- otherwise we'd only need one guy to walk around carrying out the instructions in the handy-dandy manual.

Instead, we have to constantly examine our interpretations, both to see whether they meet with our understanding of the constitution and to see whether what we're doing works in a practical sense.

I think you need to take another history class, genius.

Seriously, calm the fuck down. Political debate is vital to the successful operation of a representative government, and a major reason why the first amendment is so important. However, the debate tends to be better when we can disagree like adults.

Those that supported the "Jim Crow Laws" and were anti civil rights are the same fucks you currently align yourself with - "liberal" democrats.

You won't hear me deny that. I will say that the passage of the Civil Rights Act helped drive a lot of the bigots into the other party, so now the Republicans get to deal with them. Incidentally, I'm not a Democrat. Call me an independent liberal, if you will-- I vote for more democrats than republicans, but that's because I agree with the average democratic candidate on about 45% of the issues and the average republican on about 25% of them. Neither party impresses me much.

I'd also like to hear some examples of your "crazy religious laws" that they "try to pass" in "red" states.

Off the top of my head, try HB1 in Georgia. It's your run-of-the-mill abortion ban, with a nice page laden with religious nonsense:

HB 1 prohibits all abortions and punishes those convicted of performing abortions as the murderers that they are. The blood of these babies is calling out to the Lord for vengeance.

You can google yourself for more.

Maybe you can try again when you've done some research and learned a thing or two? On the other hand, maybe you could post your uneducated views in the "globalization" thread.

For some reason I can just picture you stomping your little feet in red-faced righteous indignation every time a liberal says anything. Hate all you want, I'm still just as much a citizen as you are.

[Uncle Punk]

Off the top of my head, try HB1 in Georgia. It's your run-of-the-mill abortion ban, with a nice page laden with religious nonsense

Did the Google search and found zero religious nonsense in the current bill. The bill does use the Roe V Wade majority writings as a basis for the law and spells out clearly the social and economic cost to the citizens of their state. The same arguments are used to implement seatbelt laws along with the same missing religious references. If you have an issue with religion being a basis of unconstitutional laws you will have to try harder because this one missed the mark.