BREAKING NEWS: DC Handgun Ban Overturned!

[FireofLiberty]

WOOOOOO!!!!!!

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

[asgardshill]

Sure looks that way.

Sometimes, occasionally, there is justice.

[SnappleLlama]

Awesome news!!!

Digg here: http://digg.com/politics/Court_A_constitutional_right_to_a_gun

[JRegs85]

Weak. It's my understanding right now that the SCROTUS only held that hunting and self-defense are protected reasons for owning guns....not resisting tyranny or anything similar.

[SnappleLlama]

Diig, digg...we need to get this on the front page!

http://digg.com/politics/Court_A_constitutional_right_to_a_gun

[pcosmar]

Weak. It's my understanding right now that the SCROTUS only held that hunting and self-defense are protected reasons for owning guns....not resisting tyranny or anything similar.

It will be an interesting read.
As I understand they held it to be an individual right.
That is more than we had from them in 70 yrs.

[Truth Warrior]

Gee, the SCOTUS FINALLY got one right. :rolleyes:

[ARealConservative]

and this is why we are trying to take back the GOP. We have a head start in a fight for liberty with non-theocratic conservatives.

Liberals are too interested in their own pocketbooks to fight for restoring freedom.

[asgardshill]

Well, its time to give my cousin a ring. He runs a convenience store in DC but has always wanted to sell a line of handguns ...

[freelance]

Weak. It's my understanding right now that the SCROTUS only held that hunting and self-defense are protected reasons for owning guns....not resisting tyranny or anything similar.


What's your definition of self defense?

[FireofLiberty]

Self-defense includes self-defense from government.

[SnappleLlama]

http://digg.com/politics/Court_A_constitutional_right_to_a_gun

Push, push! I think I can see the head!

[torchbearer]

I was told that if the SCOTUS declared the 2nd amendment an individual right that the states could no longer require you to pay any fee to own or carry a gun.

[torchbearer]

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."



What is this guy smoking?

There is no evidence that the Framers wanted the government to regulate firearms or they would have enumerated that power.

[SnappleLlama]

Guns for everyone! The government will think twice before taking away our rights if we're all well-armed!

[JRegs85]

What is this guy smoking?



I wish I knew....what an absurd statement.

[torchbearer]

There is no evidence that the Framers wanted the government to regulate firearms or they would have enumerated that power.

I have a feeling Justice John Paul Stevens is an enemy of freedom.

[asgardshill]

What is this guy smoking?

Either early-onset Alzheimer's or tenured. I can't decide which.

[RonPaulCentral]

JUNE 26, 2008......

A day to be remembered for liberty!

YAAAAA HOOOO!!!!!

[torchbearer]

How does this not effect current laws?
If I have a right to carry arms for self-defense, how can the government demand I have a permit? (permission)

[asgardshill]

How does this not effect current laws?
If I have a right to carry arms for self-defense, how can the government demand I have a permit? (permission)

Ask the protesters at the upcoming Democratic National Convention in Denver. They'll be easy to find, in one of the designated "free speech zones", encaged in chain link. :rolleyes:

[fr33domfightr]

Weak. It's my understanding right now that the SCROTUS only held that hunting and self-defense are protected reasons for owning guns....not resisting tyranny or anything similar.

I'm guessing your undestanding is based in part from this quote:

“It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense.”

This was probably directly related to allowing citizens in southern states to keep guns, post civil war. That they couldn't be taken away because they at least need them for self-defense.

This only states what they found through research. I would suggest self-defense in this case, was only 1 reason for the right, not the only reason. It almost seems obvious the reason to have a right to guns (at the time of the writting of the Constitution) was certainly to allow citizens the right to protect themselves from tyranny, from a king.


FF

[SnappleLlama]

bump and digg for liberty!

http://digg.com/politics/Court_A_constitutional_right_to_a_gun

[FreedomFighter8008]

Weak. It's my understanding right now that the SCROTUS only held that hunting and self-defense are protected reasons for owning guns....not resisting tyranny or anything similar.

Self-defense is self-defense. The key is that this seems to remove the restrictions on what types of guns can be owned. I'd like to see the exact wording of the decision. This looks to me like you can own whatever you want as long as it's intended use is for self-defense or hunting and you're not a convicted felon or "mentally ill". This is a big win!

Now if more states would just invoke states rights . . .

[SnappleLlama]

bumpity bump bumpity bump!

[SnappleLlama]

bump because I want this to hit the front page :)

http://digg.com/politics/Court_A_constitutional_right_to_a_gun

[SnappleLlama]

more selfish bumping!

[SnappleLlama]

Come on, everyone...over 70 diggs, now...we have enough numbers to make this front page material (as it should be)!

http://digg.com/politics/Court_A_constitutional_right_to_a_gun

[asgardshill]

Come on, everyone...over 70 diggs, now...we have enough numbers to make this front page material (as it should be)!

http://digg.com/politics/Court_A_constitutional_right_to_a_gun

Bumped, Dugg, smothered and scattered. :D

[SnappleLlama]

Bumped, Dugg, smothered and scattered. :D

LOL!! Nice!! Thank you! Everyone should be celebrating this victory. :D

[Truth Warrior]

I was told that if the SCOTUS declared the 2nd amendment an individual right that the states could no longer require you to pay any fee to own or carry a gun. Interesting thought. :)

[Truth Warrior]

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
-- Thomas Jefferson

[dude58677]

We still have the right to own guns even if the Supreme Court said that we do not. They didn't but we can enforce the Constitution through jury nullification.

[SnappleLlama]

94 diggs and counting...let's do this!

http://digg.com/politics/Court_A_constitutional_right_to_a_gun

[Truth Warrior]

Does this SCOTUS decision, repeal and invalidate the Federal Brady law and all of the other associated CRAP gun restriction laws ( so called )?

What about the BATF?

[Matt Collins]

From somewhere else on the web:


"This supreme court rulling is completely meaningless and will change nothing.

They ruled it is a citizen's RIGHT (not priviledge) to own and bear arms.

Yet if this rulling had any effect on actual laws, all gun permits and licenses would now be abolished, because you don't need the government's permit or license in order to excersise a true RIGHT.

Permits and licenses are for priveledges, such as driving an automobile or operating your Ham radios.

Before anyone celebrates this as a victory, ask yourself why you need the government's permission (permit) in order to own a gun, if the supreme court said it is your RIGHT to own one.

It would be like saying you have the right to free speech or to vote, and need a permit or license in order to exercise those rights.

So long as a permit or license is required in order to own a gun, the government (and supreme court) really is saying it is NOT a right, even if the Constitution says it is.

And in the real world, it doesn't matter what the Constitution says, but what your local police officer says.

Until the supreme court rules that it is unconstitutional for the federal, state or local governments to require permits (government permission) to own a gun, the supream court is a farce that doesn't understand the difference between a RIGHT and a government allowed PRIVELEDGE."

[yongrel]

Woooooooooooooo

[ARealConservative]

We still have the right to own guns even if the Supreme Court said that we do not. They didn't but we can enforce the Constitution through jury nullification.

government does not give us our rights. never has and never will.

Of course, without them defending our rights, it is harder to exercise them.

[acroso]

Alito and Roberts were the onyl good thing Bush has done.

[amy31416]

Great news, thanks for sharing.

[damien88]

[QUOTE=Matt Collins;1535770]From somewhere else on the web:

Before anyone celebrates this as a victory, ask yourself why you need the government's permission (permit) in order to own a gun, if the supreme court said it is your RIGHT to own one.



thats exactly what i was thinking. Its great that they ruled this way but what if they have tougher ways to get permits and crap set as new add ons

[hillertexas]

dugg

[tonesforjonesbones]

God has smiled on We the People of the USA today. Amen and so it is. TONES

[UtahApocalypse]

Everyone needs to realize that this case was for a specific item. The Right for people in DC to own Hand Guns. Now I know many have pointed out the issues with 'Permits' I expect that groups will start to challenge these based on the SCOTUS decision soon. It may be another visit on the Issue to SCOTUS but this is a HUGE step for freedom. Lets take each and every victory as they come along, it may not be the final prize but puts a step closer.

[Deborah K]

No time to go through the whole thread or read up on it now, can someone tell me if SCOTUS put in their ruling any definitions with regard to which arms we can bear? In other words, did they apply any restrictions on any weapons, because if they made it a point to do that, then this isn't much of a victory, all it did was set a precedence for narrowing our ability to own what we want. If they didn't apply any definitions, then this is indeed another battle won for the people!

[Ex Post Facto]

I am extremely pleased with this decision...but more work is needed. The constitution has been trampled on for many years now.

[daniroyer]

This is definitely a step in the right direction. We need to stay on this while the iron is hot.

[Truth Warrior]

From somewhere else on the web:


"This supreme court rulling is completely meaningless and will change nothing.

They ruled it is a citizen's RIGHT (not priviledge) to own and bear arms.

Yet if this rulling had any effect on actual laws, all gun permits and licenses would now be abolished, because you don't need the government's permit or license in order to excersise a true RIGHT.

Permits and licenses are for priveledges, such as driving an automobile or operating your Ham radios.

Before anyone celebrates this as a victory, ask yourself why you need the government's permission (permit) in order to own a gun, if the supreme court said it is your RIGHT to own one.

It would be like saying you have the right to free speech or to vote, and need a permit or license in order to exercise those rights.

So long as a permit or license is required in order to own a gun, the government (and supreme court) really is saying it is NOT a right, even if the Constitution says it is.

And in the real world, it doesn't matter what the Constitution says, but what your local police officer says.

Until the supreme court rules that it is unconstitutional for the federal, state or local governments to require permits (government permission) to own a gun, the supream court is a farce that doesn't understand the difference between a RIGHT and a government allowed PRIVELEDGE."

Well if it's "completely meaningless" then why all of the MSM hub bub, going ballistic and fuss about it? :D

Why did the SCOTUS even bother ruling? ;)

[ARealConservative]

Well if it's "completely meaningless" then why all of the MSM hub bub and fuss about it? :D

Why did the SCOTUS even bother ruling? ;)

so we all act like good little conservatives and vote for the lesser of two evils.

[Truth Warrior]

so we all act like good little conservatives and vote for the lesser of two evils.
BLEAAAH! :p

[SnappleLlama]

Can you DIGG it?

http://digg.com/politics/Court_A_constitutional_right_to_a_gun

[Indy4Chng]

Alito and Roberts were the onyl good thing Bush has done.

I would disagree with your sentiment somewhat... he has done a lot of good vetos in the last couple months... maybe we should have had a democratic congress on along... we might not be in Iraq and the he would have vetod all the riducous law instead of signed them. (Cap & Trade, Windfall Profits, $300B mortgage bailout, farm bill).

[newyearsrevolution08]

I want to know what was stuffed in this ruling that will end up screwing our liberties over though, there is always SOMETHING they stuff into a ruling that then makes it even harder for us later on...... Optimistic always but realistic still the same.

[CurtisLow]

dugg.

[Cowlesy]

Can you DIGG it?

http://digg.com/politics/Court_A_constitutional_right_to_a_gun

Dugg.

I am going to try and read a good portion tonight. Others on here should take the time to read it as well, as sitting around asking what it says is the easy way out. That, and pundits' interpretations of most of this stuff is typically questionable.

[RoyalShock]

A step in the right direction.

But how long until D.C. rewrites their law to the point that the only allowed "hand gun" shoots paint balls?

"You can defend yourself, just aim for the perpetrator's eye!"

[SnappleLlama]

Way to go, everybody! This story was just made popular on Digg!

http://digg.com/politics/Court_A_constitutional_right_to_a_gun

w00t, w00t! We're awesome!

[mport1]

The fact that it was 5-4 is frightening though. Should have been 9-0.

[newyearsrevolution08]

The fact that it was 5-4 is frightening though. Should have been 9-0.

I think we have 4 spots that need new representation. At least that is what I got from that ruling.

[mport1]

I think we have 4 spots that need new representation. At least that is what I got from that ruling.

Won't matter. We will still be getting unconstitutional decisions like we have since its inception. The whole thing should just be scrapped :D

[newyearsrevolution08]

Won't matter. We will still be getting unconstitutional decisions like we have since its inception. The whole thing should just be scrapped :D

+1 point taken

Remove em all and get a few FULL constitutionalists in those offices.

[Alawn]

Breaking We Got Screwed In Disguise!!!!!!!!!!

For the first time ever we have a Supreme Court ruling saying some restrictions on your 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is ok as long as it is reasonable. They said this one was unreasonable but left it open for any other type of restriction, licensing, horrible rule to be reasonable. This was a very anti 2nd Amendment ruling. We are going to see many more gun regulations now.

[mport1]

+1 point taken

Remove em all and get a few FULL constitutionalists in those offices.

I thinking more along the lines of abolishing the Supreme Court along with the whole government, but that is just wishful thinking on my part. Certainly all pro-liberty judges would be an improvement.

[Bradley in DC]

Citizens for Heller:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/draftheller/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQZxjQ302Lw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Izts2x2u_L4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqnL1bi7ncM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYACOse6DLQ

[pacelli]

Breaking We Got Screwed In Disguise!!!!!!!!!!

For the first time ever we have a Supreme Court ruling saying some restrictions on your 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is ok as long as it is reasonable. They said this one was unreasonable but left it open for any other type of restriction, licensing, horrible rule to be reasonable. This was a very anti 2nd Amendment ruling. We are going to see many more gun regulations now.

I agree. This is being heralded as a victory, when in fact the 2nd amendment is a right and not a privilege. The supreme court has no jurisdiction over that right. The DC gun ban was unconstitutional.

[Carole]

So I looked it up so I would have a clear understanding of jury nullification. I like it. It really does put power in the hands of the people, even though it can be misused. I supposed this is why judges do not want people to know about it.

Would many agree that in the case of OJ Simpson, jury nullification was practiced.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html

What is jury nullification?

Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty" despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is either immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant whose fate that are charged with deciding.
When has jury nullification been practiced?

The most famous nullification case is the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, charged with printing seditious libels of the Governor of the Colony of New York, William Cosby. Despite the fact that Zenger clearly printed the alleged libels, the only issue the court said the jury was open to decide as the truth or falsity of the statements was ruled to be irrelevant, the jury returned with a verdict of "Not Guilty."

Jury nullification appeared at other times in our history when the government has tried to enforce morally repugnant or unpopular laws. In the early 1800s, nullification was practiced in cases brought under the Alien and Sedition Act. In the mid 1800s, northern juries practiced nullification in prosecutions brought against individuals accused of harboring slaves in violation of the Fugitive Slave Laws. And in the Prohibition Era of the 1930s, many juries practiced nullification in prosecutions brought against individuals accused of violating alcohol control laws.

More recent examples of nullification might include acquittals of "mercy killers," including Dr. Jack Kevorkian, and minor drug offenders.

Do juries have the right to nullify?

Juries clearly have the power to nullify; whether they also have the right to nullify is another question. Once a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty," that verdict cannot be questioned by any court and the "double jeopardy" clause of the Constitution prohibits a retrial on the same charge.
Early in our history, judges often informed jurors of their nullification right. For example, our first Chief Justice, John Jay, told jurors: "You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge [both the facts and law]." In 1805, one of the charges against Justice Samuel Chase in his impeachment trial was that he wrongly prevented an attorney from arguing to a jury that the law should not be followed.

Judicial acceptance of nullification began to wane, however, in the late 1800s. In 1895, in United States v Sparf, the U. S. Supreme Court voted 7 to 2 to uphold the conviction in a case in which the trial judge refused the defense attorney's request to let the jury know of their nullification power.

Courts recently have been reluctant to encourage jury nullification, and in fact have taken several steps to prevent it. In most jurisdictions, judges instruct jurors that it is their duty to apply the law as it is given to them, whether they agree with the law or not. Only in a handful of states are jurors told that they have the power to judge both the facts and the law of the case. Most judges also will prohibit attorneys from using their closing arguments to directly appeal to jurors to nullify the law.
Recently, several courts have indicated that judges also have the right, when it is brought to their attention by other jurors, to remove (prior to a verdict, of course) from juries any juror who makes clear his or her intention to vote to nullify the law.

If jurors have the power to nullify, shouldn't they be told so?

That's a good question. As it stands now, jurors must learn of their power to nullify from extra-legal sources such as televised legal dramas, novels, or articles about juries that they might have come across. Some juries will understand that they do have the power to nullify, while other juries may be misled by judges into thinking that they must apply the law exactly as it is given. Many commentators have suggested that it is unfair to have a defendant's fate depend upon whether he is lucky enough to have a jury that knows it has the power to nullify.

Judges have worried that informing jurors of their power to nullify will lead to jury anarchy, with jurors following their own sympathies. They suggest that informing of the power to nullify will increase the number of hung juries. Some judges also have pointed out that jury nullification has had both positive and negative applications--the negative applications including some notorious cases in which all-white southern juries in the 1950s and 1960s refused to convict white supremacists for killing blacks or civil rights workers despite overwhelming evidence of their guilt. Finally, some judges have argued that informing jurors of their power to nullify places too much weight on their shoulders--that is easier on jurors to simply decide facts, not the complex issues that may be presented in decisions about the morality or appropriateness of laws.

On the other hand, jury nullification provides an important mechanism for feedback. Jurors sometimes use nullification to send messages to prosecutors about misplaced enforcement priorities or what they see as harassing or abusive prosecutions. Jury nullification prevents our criminal justice system from becoming too rigid--it provides some play in the joints for justice, if jurors use their power wisely.

[freelance]

The devil is in the details, and now that the details are emerging, they're pretty ugly.

[mediahasyou]

A Victory for Liberty.

[Dieseler]

Bump for 1715 Diggs.
:)
Better circle the wagons.
They will be back.

[tpreitzel]

Damn it! I was hoping the Supreme Court would find (erroneously) that the 2nd Amendment did NOT give the individual the right to bear arms. If the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise, the state of Montana would likely have been forced to secede from the US. I want secession so badly that I can taste it, because it is the only LIKELY avenue left for lovers of freedom without blood flowing in the streets. As it is, now the status quo will continue and guns will continue to be registered, etc.

[newyearsrevolution08]

Damn it! I was hoping the Supreme Court would find (erroneously) that the 2nd Amendment did NOT give the individual the right to bear arms. If the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise, the state of Montana would likely have been forced to secede from the US. I want secession so badly that I can taste it, because it is the only LIKELY avenue left for lovers of freedom without blood flowing in the streets. As it is, now the status quo will continue and guns will continue to be registered, etc.

due to a d.c. ruling? how?

[tpreitzel]

due to a d.c. ruling? how?

Do a Google search! The governor of Montana has talked about the issue.

[Matt Collins]

Well if it's "completely meaningless" then why all of the MSM hub bub, going ballistic and fuss about it? :D

Why did the SCOTUS even bother ruling? ;)Dog, meet pony. It's time for curtain call! :rolleyes:

[TheEvilDetector]

Page 67/150 of court opinion PDF
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf

"We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this
country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the
many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun
ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the
District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that
problem, including some measures regulating handguns,
see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of
constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy
choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition
of handguns held and used for self-defense in the
home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment
is outmoded in a society where our standing army is
the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces
provide personal security, and where gun violence is a
serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is
not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to
pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
It is so ordered."

[Doktor_Jeep]

Don't be fooled by this ruling.

Do you see the ATF disbanding? Do you see the police state receding? Do you see the Rule of Law, the Constitution, returning?

Instead SCOTUS locked into the "self defense and hunting thing" - the arguement of the bought out Judas Goat known as the NRA.

2A was for fighting tyranny, nothing else.


And the SCOTUS left a lot in there for regulation. It was a non-ruling. All of this is designed to dissapate and fool the ONE group that can restore freedom, the gun owners. How many will think all is well from this point, while the state prepares for martial law and subjugation that hangs on the next big excuse?


Remember what Patrick Henry said:


I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort.

[newyearsrevolution08]

why would the atf disband over a d.c. ruling? We do understand this wasn't the savior for the nation bud. lol.... It is however a STEP.... A good one... not sure just yet however it can still be used to allow handgun ownership where it wasn't allowed and that to me is in the right direction.

It is something to work with.


Don't be fooled by this ruling.

Do you see the ATF disbanding? Do you see the police state receding? Do you see the Rule of Law, the Constitution, returning?
Remember what Patrick Henry said:

[HOLLYWOOD]

Don't be fooled by this ruling.

Do you see the ATF disbanding? Do you see the police state receding? Do you see the Rule of Law, the Constitution, returning?

Instead SCOTUS locked into the "self defense and hunting thing" - the argument of the bought out Judas Goat known as the NRA.

2A was for fighting tyranny, nothing else.


And the SCOTUS left a lot in there for regulation. It was a non-ruling. All of this is designed to dissipate and fool the ONE group that can restore freedom, the gun owners. How many will think all is well from this point, while the state prepares for martial law and subjugation that hangs on the next big excuse?


Remember what Patrick Henry said:

Isn't it UNUSUAL, that every Bill of Right ARTICLE that provide Liberty for the Individual OVER government is constantly contested and ruled against?

Yet the ARTICLES that favor Government and their control NEVER SEEM to be overruled.

HOW does the U.S Government take control and RID the CONSTITUTION of the rights of the INDIVIDUALS? Systematically, come up with justifications, though ONLY EFFECT .0001% of the American population, to RULE in FAVOR of GOVERNMENT and Special Interest!

The U.S. CONSTITUTION was put in place to PROTEST the CITIZENS from GOVERNMENT... systematically, GOVERNMENT has been chipping away at each article.

It's shocking that the Supreme Court ruled 5-4... it should be a slam dunk 9-0!

[bander87]

Typo?

Examining the words of the Amendment, the Court concluded “we find they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weaons in case of confrontation” — in other words, for self-defense.

[Aratus]

the roberts court extended habeas corpus to gitmo... yet now allows D.C to have handguns.
habeas corpus is an issue that seperates out mccain from obama merrily and happily ~~~ its tres red/blue

curiously enough barack obama was happy this february when the ban was solidly in place! i thought he liked
the idea that it was in place, and now its not...he's happy its not {i sense a flipflop?} --- so my point being... well...
anyway... i guess john mccain and barack obama actually are on the same page... for once! tis less of a gap or gulf...?

methinks given the wide and broad press corp speculation about one or two supreme court venerable seats opening up
for the next POTUS... many mass media talking head pundits are surprised these supreme court cases have had
less airplay. patrick buchanan on this weeks mclaughlin group even repeated on air the soap box, ballot box,
jury box and ammo box quip in matt collins's sig. the mix of this current court is uniquely delicate...

[Truth Warrior]

Page 67/150 of court opinion PDF
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf

"We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this
country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the
many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun
ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the
District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that
problem, including some measures regulating handguns,
see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of
constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy
choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition
of handguns held and used for self-defense in the
home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment
is outmoded in a society where our standing army is
the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces
provide personal security, and where gun violence is a
serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is
not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to
pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
It is so ordered."
No, their JOB is to reinforce the 2nd.

Who hired these goobers, for life? How much are they getting paid, for life?

"Preserve, protect,defend", ring any bells, at all? :rolleyes:

"The system is corrupt, beyond redemption, and is not worthy of my support!"

[Indy4Chng]

It's shocking that the Supreme Court ruled 5-4... it should be a slam dunk 9-0!

+1

But alas most the supreme court worry about what international courts are doing not what the constitution says. Any justice who ever uses international precidence specifically in their opinion to rule against the US Constitution should be immediately removed, cause he blantantly violated the oath they swore too. Also, in most causes they should then be tried for treason. They have put in writting their treason which is much worst then anything the president has done (IMHO).

[TruckinMike]

We not only didn't gain... But we lost! And I mean LOST BIG!

I couldn't believe the posts I was reading... WoW! Thank goodness the rest of you spoke up! Hurray for Doctor Jeep, Hurray for Hollywood!

WE HAVE LOST OUR 2nd AMENDMENT! For the first time in history the Supreme Court acknowledged government regulation of the second to be a necessary "INFRINGEMENT". Prior to this case no such statements had been made. This ruling justified every stinkin' unconstitutional law (infringement) upon the second that every municipality, state, and fed gov has ever put upon us except for the total ban of an arm or requiring the arm to be non-functioning.

The enemy of freedom can now state Supreme court words in support of any freakin law they want - with exception of the two previous points.

This was a HOME RUN for the opposition!

Goodbye dear guns, not through bans, but through regulation instead.

TMike