2nd Amendment Ruling

[DavidT 11]

Whether your pro gun or anti gun. Todays Supreme Court ruling has historical significance.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_..._Ft.RGwF6qs0NUE

[lampliter87 8]

Hunting and self-defense yes, assult rifles no. IMO.

[DavidT 11]

They're all guns to me.

[Monty22 833]

Hunting and self-defense yes, assult rifles no. IMO.

Luckily it's not up to you. 2A has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with control.

[gxc999 7]

I'm not particularly surprised, as the Court has divided strictly along political lines on big issues lately with the exception of the terrorism detainment ruling last week. Personally, I'm not against reasonable gun ownership for honest citizens, however read in accordance with its plain meaning, I fail to see how "well regulated militia" translates to "individual". IMO, this is a slight bit of (unsurprising) judicial activism although it is based on precedent so maybe not...

[badsk8ter 0]

I used to think the same thing about the "well regulated militia" part but here is the exact sentence, as written in the constitution "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 commas separating everything is what leads to the different interpretations. I'm not saying one argument is right or wrong, I can just see how it can be read differently. Personally, I think the commas separate each individual thought (rights) that the founding fathers had to show cause for why it was necessary to keep and bear arms, both for the militia and also for the individual citizens. But again, that is just how I interpret it. The more a person learns about law, the more you begin to notice that "it depends" is a phrase of choice amongst attorneys.

[troy 12]

Regardless of the decision, who's to say the Supreme Court even has the right to rule on the matter. People appointed to a court shouldn't have any sway over what the Constitution stipulates.

[Chadd 916]

Regardless of the decision, who's to say the Supreme Court even has the right to rule on the matter. People appointed to a court shouldn't have any sway over what the Constitution stipulates.

Someone has to decide what it means and it should be people with actual knowledge of the law, not uninformed people off the street. I read some of the decision, not focused enough to read all 157 pages, and the decision is very logical. I really have no idea where the dissent is coming from logically or legally. Some of the positions taken only make sense if the justices are working backwards from their desired outcome as opposed to considering the merits of the arguements and applicable law.

[Chadd 916]

I used to think the same thing about the "well regulated militia" part but here is the exact sentence, as written in the constitution "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 commas separating everything is what leads to the different interpretations. I'm not saying one argument is right or wrong, I can just see how it can be read differently. Personally, I think the commas separate each individual thought (rights) that the founding fathers had to show cause for why it was necessary to keep and bear arms, both for the militia and also for the individual citizens. But again, that is just how I interpret it. The more a person learns about law, the more you begin to notice that "it depends" is a phrase of choice amongst attorneys.

With the exception of the tenth ammendment grants/recognizes the rights of the people and not the rights of the states or federal government. The framers go out of their way to denote when rights are being granted to the state or federal government.

[Trooper 8]

Regardless of the decision, who's to say the Supreme Court even has the right to rule on the matter. People appointed to a court shouldn't have any sway over what the Constitution stipulates.

That's exactly what the courts do, determine the legality and Constitutionality of legislation.

[Chadd 916]

I'm not particularly surprised, as the Court has divided strictly along political lines on big issues lately with the exception of the terrorism detainment ruling last week. Personally, I'm not against reasonable gun ownership for honest citizens, however read in accordance with its plain meaning, I fail to see how "well regulated militia" translates to "individual". IMO, this is a slight bit of (unsurprising) judicial activism although it is based on precedent so maybe not...

Kennedy crossed over from the Habeus Corpus decision on this one. I have no idea how it was 5-4, it should have been a much larger margin given the opinions they have published.

[kosydar 0]

Regardless of the decision, who's to say the Supreme Court even has the right to rule on the matter. People appointed to a court shouldn't have any sway over what the Constitution stipulates.

If there was no Judicial Reivew the Executive and especially Legislative branches would have very few checks on their power. Who would you rather have interpret the Constitution? Elected congressmen?

[lawryde 0]

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.

This is one of the few amendments where the language gets in the way and it isn't really clear what exactly the Founding Fathers really meant.

You can logically come to either conclusion, and in most cases you're personal opinion takes you to whatever decision you really want.

The lift still only covers having a handgun in your own home. You still can't carry in DC.

[Trooper 8]

Hunting and self-defense yes, assult rifles no. IMO.

Quit drinking the Kool-Aid. So-called assault weapons are nothing more than a name given to semi-automatic rifles by gun-grabbing politicians who want to scare people and ban them. True assault weapons, select-fire guns capable of full-auto fire, are highly regulated by the NFA. Full-autos made after 1986 are illegal to own by civilians.

Since the founders deemed those arms "in common use" at the time were specifically protected, and AR-15s are by far the most popular rifle right now, your argument falls flat.

And "assault rifles" are used in less than 1% of crimes in the US, why do you need to ban them?

[Trooper 8]

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.

This is one of the few amendments where the language gets in the way and it isn't really clear what exactly the Founding Fathers really meant.

You can logically come to either conclusion, and in most cases you're personal opinion takes you to whatever decision you really want.

The lift still only covers having a handgun in your own home. You still can't carry in DC.

When you read the writings of the Founding Fathers, it is very clear what it means.

[lawryde 0]

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.

This is one of the few amendments where the language gets in the way and it isn't really clear what exactly the Founding Fathers really meant.

You can logically come to either conclusion, and in most cases you're personal opinion takes you to whatever decision you really want.

The lift still only covers having a handgun in your own home. You still can't carry in DC.

When you read the writings of the Founding Fathers, it is very clear what it means.

Oh, right, the writings... It's amazing this issue isn't done and over with if it's so clear.

The logical reason to own a gun is presented in the below quote:

Homer: Lisa, if I didn't have this gun, the king of England could walk right in here and start pushing you around.

[Homer starts pushing Lisa around]

Homer: D'you want that? Huh? Do ya?

Lisa: No...

[Chadd 916]

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.

This is one of the few amendments where the language gets in the way and it isn't really clear what exactly the Founding Fathers really meant.

You can logically come to either conclusion, and in most cases you're personal opinion takes you to whatever decision you really want.

The lift still only covers having a handgun in your own home. You still can't carry in DC.

The majority opinion touches on a lot of related issues, this will have a wide-ranging impact over the next couple years. After hearing what the politicians in the DofC plan on doing, this case will be revisted in the next few years. While the decision does allow reasonable limitiation, the DofC has said they plan on limiting to only one gun and that you can only have it in your home. If you can't transport a weapon, how do you get it to your home?

This is a huge decision, but it isn't going to stop people from passing laws that will have a hard time meeting the standards set by this decision.

[Trooper 8]

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.

This is one of the few amendments where the language gets in the way and it isn't really clear what exactly the Founding Fathers really meant.

You can logically come to either conclusion, and in most cases you're personal opinion takes you to whatever decision you really want.

The lift still only covers having a handgun in your own home. You still can't carry in DC.

When you read the writings of the Founding Fathers, it is very clear what it means.

Oh, right, the writings... It's amazing this issue isn't done and over with if it's so clear.

The logical reason to own a gun is presented in the below quote:

Homer: Lisa, if I didn't have this gun, the king of England could walk right in here and start pushing you around.

[Homer starts pushing Lisa around]

Homer: D'you want that? Huh? Do ya?

Lisa: No...

It is over and done with, they ruled on individual vs. collective right this morning....

[badsk8ter 0]

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.

This is one of the few amendments where the language gets in the way and it isn't really clear what exactly the Founding Fathers really meant.

You can logically come to either conclusion, and in most cases you're personal opinion takes you to whatever decision you really want.

The lift still only covers having a handgun in your own home. You still can't carry in DC.

When you read the writings of the Founding Fathers, it is very clear what it means.

Oh, right, the writings... It's amazing this issue isn't done and over with if it's so clear.

The logical reason to own a gun is presented in the below quote:

Homer: Lisa, if I didn't have this gun, the king of England could walk right in here and start pushing you around.

[Homer starts pushing Lisa around]

Homer: D'you want that? Huh? Do ya?

Lisa: No...

As interpreted by you....as you state earlier, you can logically come to either conclusion and your personal opinion can sway you to that conclusion. Which means your personal opinion is swaying you to come to the Homer and Lisa exchange for your decision on what the 2nd amendment means. Until we bring back to life our founding fathers and ask them what they really meant, it will continue to be interpreted depending on our each person's personal opinion.

[DavidT 11]

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.

This is one of the few amendments where the language gets in the way and it isn't really clear what exactly the Founding Fathers really meant.

You can logically come to either conclusion, and in most cases you're personal opinion takes you to whatever decision you really want.

The lift still only covers having a handgun in your own home. You still can't carry in DC.

The majority opinion touches on a lot of related issues, this will have a wide-ranging impact over the next couple years. After hearing what the politicians in the DofC plan on doing, this case will be revisted in the next few years. While the decision does allow reasonable limitiation, the DofC has said they plan on limiting to only one gun and that you can only have it in your home. If you can't transport a weapon, how do you get it to your home?

This is a huge decision, but it isn't going to stop people from passing laws that will have a hard time meeting the standards set by this decision.

I think FOPA of 1986 has a safe passage coverage.

Personally, I dont thin we'll see any great changes in laws. Machine guns will still be "banned", attempt on banning of certain types of firearms will still be looked into, 922r probably wont go away etc.

[Rustpot 1]

This is such a hot-button topic, but I feel really strongly for the right to own firearms. If anything the government should mandate gun safety into the curriculum of schools.

Gun ownership with very strong penalties and very tight limits is probably the best course of action. It just gets bad when bureaucrats put limits on things like maximum allowed, transportation, etc. They think controlling the law-abiding will cut down on the number of crimes when in reality most gun crimes are committed by people breaking already-existing laws.

I don't see why i can't own 8 handguns, 3 shotguns and 5 rifles. So long as I shoot at the range or while legally hunting, who really cares? Nervous bureaucrats.

[Trooper 8]

I don't see why i can't own 8 handguns, 3 shotguns and 5 rifles. So long as I shoot at the range or while legally hunting, who really cares? Nervous bureaucrats.

Because if they admitted that, then the people would realize that they were fully capable of taking care of themselves and the nanny-state politicians wouldn't be as important...

[Chadd 916]

I think FOPA of 1986 has a safe passage coverage.

Personally, I dont thin we'll see any great changes in laws. Machine guns will still be "banned", attempt on banning of certain types of firearms will still be looked into, 922r probably wont go away etc.

FOPA and 922r really aren't addressed by this, except where the majority decision references arms used for legitimate lawful purposes. The decision does allow reasonable limitation and restriction, how that is interpreted down the line is going to be the next battleground.

[DavidT 11]

I agree. Im just stating this only starts the snowball effect.

I can assure you people will try and fle Form 1s to make machine guns etc, only to be denied to starts another case in further understanding and in ther eyes overtuening numerous bans and other firearms acts.

[troy 12]

Regardless of the decision, who's to say the Supreme Court even has the right to rule on the matter. People appointed to a court shouldn't have any sway over what the Constitution stipulates.

Someone has to decide what it means and it should be people with actual knowledge of the law, not uninformed people off the street. I read some of the decision, not focused enough to read all 157 pages, and the decision is very logical. I really have no idea where the dissent is coming from logically or legally. Some of the positions taken only make sense if the justices are working backwards from their desired outcome as opposed to considering the merits of the arguements and applicable law.

The problem I have isn't the basis or outcome of the decision, but that it is arrived at through the Supreme Court. If there is a clear problem or issue with the Second Amendment there is course for further amendments, not for a court to interpret the extant amendment. I could really care less about gun laws.