Supreme Court rules gun rights extend to the state and local levels

[Fingon]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2802134_pf.html

 

 

About damn time!

[keepthefaith]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2802134_pf.html

 

 

About damn time!

 

5-4 along ideological lines. That's a shame. This should be one instance where the law is not that tough to interpret. Should be a 9-0 vote. Really, this is very troubling to see the court split on something that should be pretty clear.

[UConn James]

Sad, but typical. What exactly is so unclear about the 2nd amendment?

 

Unless I missed a subordinate clause that says "... unless you live in X, Y or Z."

[John Adams]

Second most interesting Supreme Court decision today after the Bilski decision.

[HopsGuy]

"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."

 

I can't decide if the founding fathers were brilliant or stupid by making the right open to debate by writing it this way. If it were written like this:

 

"The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

... then the anti-gun group would be left to trying to get another amendment passed to repeal #2. Fat chance of that.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

So much for state's rights!

[Brandon]

So much for state's rights!

 

Its not a states' rights issue, or at least, it shouldn't be. The 10th amendment doesn't override the rest of the Constitution, including amendments. If it did, states would also have a right to suspend all of the other rights and protections for citizens that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I don't think anyone believes the states can do that.

[Nanker]

Its not a states' rights issue, or at least, it shouldn't be. The 10th amendment doesn't override the rest of the Constitution, including amendments. If it did, states would also have a right to suspend all of the other rights and protections for citizens that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I don't think anyone believes the states can do that.

Not exactly. The Constitutional prohibition is specifically targeted to the Federal government's inability to abridge the rights - unilaterally against the citizens of the sovereign states. The states could - should they choose to. Excepting that now the SC has ruled otherwise - that the right is an individual and immutable right. Of course, the State Legislatures used to elect the Senators - who would do their bidding in Washington and would be recalled should they not do so. The 17th Amendment did away with that process - which had become rife with graft and corruption - not to mention deadlocks.

 

Ah, The Constitution - it's a marvelous document.

[Jim in Anchorage]

Not exactly. The Constitutional prohibition is specifically targeted to the Federal government's inability to abridge the rights - unilaterally against the citizens of the sovereign states. The states could - should they choose to. Excepting that now the SC has ruled otherwise - that the right is an individual and immutable right. Of course, the State Legislatures used to elect the Senators - who would do their bidding in Washington and would be recalled should they not do so. The 17th Amendment did away with that process - which had become rife with graft and corruption - not to mention deadlocks.

 

Ah, The Constitution - it's a marvelous document.

link

 

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority, said that the right to self-defense protected by the Second Amendment is fundamental to the American conception of ordered liberty. Like other provisions of the Bill of Rights that set out such fundamental protections, he said, the Second Amendment must be applied to limit not only federal power but also that of state and local governments.

Which only makes sense. What good is the right to free speech for example if any state could take it away?

[\GoBillsInDallas/]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2802134_pf.html

 

 

About damn time!

 

Did you see some of the comments attached to the article?

 

 

For Gods sake the activist roberts court is 3 for 3 for corporations and against the AMERIAN PEOPLE...Despicable...Who backs this the NRA--who kills most with guns--criminals not law abiding people! Disgraceful!

 

Liberty to carry gun and shoot your spouse, neighbor or coworker in a fit of anger?

 

How does Scalia know our founding fathers would do today, considering they were progressives of their time. In religion they were very moderate, some of them believed in Deism, compared to religious fanatic Scalia.

 

Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas are all for judicial restraint and state's rights until they receive a case where they get to push their own agendas. What a bunch of phoney right-wing hypocrites.

 

I can buy an arsenal but I cannot buy a morning after pill. Go USA!

 

"Let the slaughter begin! Guns for everyone, nuts, drunks, angry teenies, illegals, gangsters, sadists, wife abusers, tweakers, yeah baby!"

[HopsGuy]

I can buy an arsenal but I cannot buy a morning after pill. Go USA!

 

I've got another pill for you. Is this something you'd be interested in?

[OCinBuffalo]

Did you see some of the comments attached to the article?

 

 

For Gods sake the activist roberts court is 3 for 3 for corporations and against the AMERIAN PEOPLE...Despicable...Who backs this the NRA--who kills most with guns--criminals not law abiding people! Disgraceful!

 

Liberty to carry gun and shoot your spouse, neighbor or coworker in a fit of anger?

 

How does Scalia know our founding fathers would do today, considering they were progressives of their time. In religion they were very moderate, some of them believed in Deism, compared to religious fanatic Scalia.

 

Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas are all for judicial restraint and state's rights until they receive a case where they get to push their own agendas. What a bunch of phoney right-wing hypocrites.

 

I can buy an arsenal but I cannot buy a morning after pill. Go USA!

 

"Let the slaughter begin! Guns for everyone, nuts, drunks, angry teenies, illegals, gangsters, sadists, wife abusers, tweakers, yeah baby!"

It's pretty simple really. But, it seems you are struggling with the concepts here. Let me clarify it for you:

 

If it's in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, like the 2nd amendment is, then the states aren't allowed to f with it.

 

If it's some dreamed up nonsense that has no basis in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or basic reason, like the Healthcare Abortion, then the states are allowed to protect themselves and their citizens from said abortion using all legal methods.

 

Oh, and there's nothing in the Constitution about "right to abortion" for that matter. There is "right to life" in the Declaration, but, that's not the Constitution. So, your "morning after pill" example has no bearing on this, and changes nothing.

 

There is 0 hypocrisy here. There is 100% following the law, as already written, for 230+ years. If it ain't in the Constitution, then it can be debated, if it is, it can't....by the Supreme Court. There is a process for repealing Amendments. You are free to avail yourself of that process. The Supreme Court has nothing to do with it, and until such time as the 2nd amendment is repealed? They are legally bound, as in, they have no choice, but to uphold the law.

[Rob's House]

Did you see some of the comments attached to the article?

 

 

For Gods sake the activist roberts court is 3 for 3 for corporations and against the AMERIAN PEOPLE...Despicable...Who backs this the NRA--who kills most with guns--criminals not law abiding people! Disgraceful!

 

Liberty to carry gun and shoot your spouse, neighbor or coworker in a fit of anger?

 

How does Scalia know our founding fathers would do today, considering they were progressives of their time. In religion they were very moderate, some of them believed in Deism, compared to religious fanatic Scalia.

 

Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas are all for judicial restraint and state's rights until they receive a case where they get to push their own agendas. What a bunch of phoney right-wing hypocrites.

 

I can buy an arsenal but I cannot buy a morning after pill. Go USA!

 

"Let the slaughter begin! Guns for everyone, nuts, drunks, angry teenies, illegals, gangsters, sadists, wife abusers, tweakers, yeah baby!"

 

Admittedly I haven't been keeping up to closely with the News lately, but I wasn't aware that the morning after pill was illegal. Regardless, even though I have no problem with the pill, if a state or municipality were to outlaw it, I'm not aware of any constitutional provision that would overturn that law.

 

 

As far as the rant about progressives of their time, don't even start. As Dennis Miller put it, those guys were blowing motherfukkers heads off for taxing their breakfast beverage. And it wasn't even coffee. I don't think they'd have a lot of patience for the limp wristed hand wringing shrill whiney liberalism that exemplifies today's "progressives".

 

And speaking of phoney, there's nothing in contemporary politics as phoney as this bs term "progressive".

 

And not that it is constitutionally relevant in the least, but most of the guns used by criminals are obtained illegally. Making guns illegal only takes them out of the hands of honest people. You can wrap yourself in your feel-good idealism and expect it to protect you if and when someone wants to cut your goddam throat. I'm going to fill that dude full of lead.

 

Edit: upon rereading I realized the post was just a list of quotes. Either way, my response is to those comments, not the poster.

[LeviF]

I've got another pill for you. Is this something you'd be interested in?

 

 

It's pretty simple really. But, it seems you are struggling with the concepts here. Let me clarify it for you:

 

If it's in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, like the 2nd amendment is, then the states aren't allowed to f with it.

 

If it's some dreamed up nonsense that has no basis in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or basic reason, like the Healthcare Abortion, then the states are allowed to protect themselves and their citizens from said abortion using all legal methods.

 

Oh, and there's nothing in the Constitution about "right to abortion" for that matter. There is "right to life" in the Declaration, but, that's not the Constitution. So, your "morning after pill" example has no bearing on this, and changes nothing.

 

There is 0 hypocrisy here. There is 100% following the law, as already written, for 230+ years. If it ain't in the Constitution, then it can be debated, if it is, it can't....by the Supreme Court. There is a process for repealing Amendments. You are free to avail yourself of that process. The Supreme Court has nothing to do with it, and until such time as the 2nd amendment is repealed? They are legally bound, as in, they have no choice, but to uphold the law.

Guys, I think he was listing the comments to the article, and laughing at them. I don't think they're his point of view. GBID, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[whateverdude]

So much for state's rights!

States don't have rights, they have powers granted to them by the people of the state. Rights reside with the people not the state.

[OCinBuffalo]

Guys, I think he was listing the comments to the article, and laughing at them. I don't think they're his point of view. GBID, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

On second thought, looks like you are right.

 

Oh well, just take that post and redirect it to anybody who doesn't seem to know the difference between what is enumerated in the Constitution and what isn't.

[LeviF]

On second thought, looks like you are right.

 

Oh well, just take that post and redirect it to anybody who doesn't seem to know the difference between what is enumerated in the Constitution and what isn't.

Yeah, I was hoping you would leave it up even if I was right. It's not terribly verbose!

[Alaska Darin]

So much for state's rights!

So if the states arbitrarily decided to ban free speech or freedom of the press, you'd be OK with it? Yeah, sure.

 

Liberals love to pretend prohibition is a valid tactic to solving problems.

[John Adams]

There seem to be a few things open to interpretation on gun laws.

 

- What you can have, ie, what's an acceptable legal way to blow **** apart and what isn't? (No to nukes...yes to .22s...where does "yes" cross to "no"?)

 

- What kind of background check is OK? To me it seems OK to not sell guns to violent offenders. But that's just me. Besides that, don't care. And maybe I don't even care about that.

 

- No gun sales to kids. I'm OK with kids shooting guns but let's at least pretend a parent is involved and make adults buy the guns.

 

- Maybe a handful of places where you can't bring guns like schools.

 

Beyond that, I don't care much. I don't carry but feel free to.

[Peevo]

Incorporation is an interesting if not confusing debate.

 

I think the "conservative" wing of the court made an uber liberal swing yesterday.

 

On certain issues, conservatives want to devalue national/federal power, as in the immigration debate. You hear Hannity talk all the time about how Arizona should deal with its own immigration problems and not have to go through the federal government.

 

But on the 2nd amendment rights, its the EXACT opposite. Local cities and municipalities, like Chicago, Buffalo, Detroit, Baltimore, etc, have serious, serious gun violence problems. Can you blame their local leadership for at least trying to do something about the problem? Sure, maybe their restrictions don't get rid of all the gun violence, but at least local leadership is doing something.

 

I think Stevens is right. The conservative wing evokes history-justifying how newly freed slaves had to have guns to protect themselves and the 14th amendment by extension incorporates gun ownership to the states. I get the argument.

 

But at the end of the day, "The reasons that motivated the framers to protect the ability of militiamen to keep muskets available for military use when our nation was in its infancy, or that motivated the Reconstruction Congress to extend full citizenship to freedmen in the wake of the Civil War, have only a limited bearing on the question that confronts the homeowner in a crime-infested metropolis today." -Justice Stevens' last dissent before retirement. Say what you want about old men/women on the SC, but that guy at 90 is sharp as a tack.