410 replies to this topic

[Druid]

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!    5-4

[Matt H]

OOOOO-RAH!

[johnyt101]

5-4 ill take it!!!!

[oneshot]

Quote

Tom Goldstein -  It is striking that the decision is not clouded by ambiguity created by separate opinions.   One opinion on each side.

sweet

[Rem870]

this is just awesome....im so happy right now!!!!   what  a exciting moment in history!!!!

[lockman]

Scotus accepts & SCOTUS AFFIRMS!   - Now the details!  

[Chiburbian]

johnyt101, on Jun 26 2008, 09:14 AM, said:

5-4 ill take it!!!!

I am surprised it was that close.  Or am I reading too much into it?

[johnyt101]

Scalia could have wrote a narrow or sweeping decision, cant wait to find out!

[Kenny]

Quote

Tom Goldstein -  Apologies - there is a second dissenting opinion, but only one majority - no plurality and no concurrences.

?????????????????????????

[oneshot]

Cogz, on Jun 26 2008, 09:16 AM, said:

johnyt101, on Jun 26 2008, 09:14 AM, said:

5-4 ill take it!!!!

I am surprised it was that close.  Or am I reading too much into it?

about what we expected, down the political divisions.

[Pappy353]

Coach I need some of that O2  



Breathe slowly...

[johnyt101]

The minority had two decenting opinions....

[Lou]

Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Thursday, June 26th, 2008 10:14 am | Lyle Denniston | Comments Off |

Email this • Share on Facebook • Digg This!

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.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the majority stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, or laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, or laws putting conditions on gun sales.

[wazzle]

10:14
Tom Goldstein -  It is striking that the decision is not clouded by ambiguity created by separate opinions.   One opinion on each side.
10:16
Tom Goldstein -  Apologies - there is a second dissenting opinion, but only one majority - no plurality and no concurrences.

[Matt H]

my Smith and wesson stock just jumped 15 cents a share and rising quick at the release of  the scotus decision!

[oneshot]

Lou, on Jun 26 2008, 09:18 AM, said:

stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on gun possession

[w00dc4ip]

According to the Fox News Report, the reporter hinted the decision by Scalia was more wide than expected.

[Lou]

Are you pleased with the decision in Heller?
  Answer Now

Yes ( 86% )

No ( 14% )

[Chris]

IT"S 157 PAGES LONG!

[Chris]

Here's a quote


The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

[Lou]

Quote

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Opinion of the Court
In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun
possession in the home violates the Second Amendment,
as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm
in the home operable for the purpose of immediate
self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified
from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District
must permit him to register his handgun and must
issue him a license to carry it in the home.
* * *
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.

[wazzle]

Big Chris, on Jun 26 2008, 09:23 AM, said:

IT"S 157 PAGES LONG!

It may take a little bit of reading for this, wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[EnjoyLife]

Big Chris, on Jun 26 2008, 08:23 AM, said:

IT"S 157 PAGES LONG!

Almost 100 pages of that is dissenting though.  Don't have to read that crap.

[TTIN]

Big Chris, on Jun 26 2008, 09:25 AM, said:

Here's a quote


The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Well with the exception of Crook Co.,that doesn't appear to help much,or am I not seeing the big picture?

[EnjoyLife]

In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun
possession in the home violates the Second Amendment,
as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm
in the home operable for the purpose of immediate
self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified
from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District
must permit him to register his handgun and must
issue him a license to carry it in the home.
* * *
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.

[oneshot]

EnjoyLife, on Jun 26 2008, 09:26 AM, said:

Big Chris, on Jun 26 2008, 08:23 AM, said:

IT"S 157 PAGES LONG!

Almost 100 pages of that is dissenting though.  Don't have to read that crap.

100 pages of WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!    

lol

[Beezil]

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.


its right here folks.

hello chicago!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[johnyt101]

Im disapointed that scalia admits that certain bans on concealed weapons are probably lawful and they didnt strike down the fact that heller needed a permit to carry in his own home or the registration to own the gun...this could be bad news for us. Unless someone sues to overturn those statutes. Heller never directly challenged the permit system, he just wanted DC to issue him a permit, so that looks like another fight well have to deal with in the future.

[oneshot]

Now we can finally stop listening to or engaging in those stupid arguments over semantics and grammar because the Supreme Court of The United States of America has affirmed what we've been saying all along!

Quote

1. Operative Clause.
a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of
the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.”
The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights
use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the
First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in
the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The
Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The
enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by
the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously
refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights
that may be exercised only through participation in some
corporate body.5