Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 91

Thread: Supreme Court Decision Extends Right to Keep and Bear Arms to all 50 States

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Huntsville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    63

    Supreme Court Decision Extends Right to Keep and Bear Arms to all 50 States

    BREAKING NEWS: On Monday, 28 June 2010 the Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling that extends the right to keep and bear arms to all 50 states. It invalidates the Chicago handgun ban, and affirms that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. Fox News link: http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2...or-gun-rights/

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,201
    Excellent. I'm looking forward to actually reading the decision.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Seattle,WA, , USA
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruger .454 View Post
    BREAKING NEWS: On Monday, 28 June 2010 the Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling that extends the right to keep and bear arms to all 50 states. It invalidates the Chicago handgun ban, and affirms that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. Fox News link: http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2...or-gun-rights/
    Here's a link to a WSJ article on how the vote divided..


    http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/do...T_TRACKER.html

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Opelika, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    31

  5. #5
    Regular Member XDFDE45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    823

    Thumbs up

    Outstanding news

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Huntsville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    63

    Washington Post Article on the Supreme Court's Decision


  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Huntsville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    63
    John Lott writes on Fox News concerning Supreme Court decision:

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/...gan-sotomayor/

  8. #8
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    And the cowards still did not address the "bear" aspect of 2A. The states cannot ban guns in the home, but carrying one was not even addressed. What cowards we have in SCOTUS.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558
    It should be pointed out that the decision DID NOT strike down the ban. That is left to the trial court to do on remand.

  10. #10
    Administrator John Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bristol, VA
    Posts
    1,735
    They only address the question before them.

    It is inappropriate to call the Justices cowards. Especially Justice's who just gave us a monumental victory that will be the second stone in the path that WILL lead to the 'bear' part being answered.

    See my article at http://www.examiner.com/x-3253-Minne...for-gun-owners


    Quote Originally Posted by rodbender View Post
    And the cowards still did not address the "bear" aspect of 2A. The states cannot ban guns in the home, but carrying one was not even addressed. What cowards we have in SCOTUS.

  11. #11
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by zack991 View Post
    It should be pointed out that the decision DID NOT strike down the ban. That is left to the trial court to do on remand.
    True, but the lower court has little choice but to strike it down.

  12. #12
    Regular Member jaiotu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Wetumpka, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by rodbender View Post
    And the cowards still did not address the "bear" aspect of 2A. The states cannot ban guns in the home, but carrying one was not even addressed. What cowards we have in SCOTUS.
    Had SCOTUS produced a ruling regarding the "bear" aspect of the 2A, it would have been judicial activism. McDonald v. Chicago was about the Chicago Gun Ban, and nothing else. The issue before the court was the right of citizens to keep hand guns in their homes. The justices, in this case, could have no more ruled regarding bearing arms in public than they could rule regarding Arizona's emigration laws. Neither of those issues were actually before the court.

    This DOES, however, have many repercussions to the right to BEAR arms. Using the 14th Amendment as a guide, SCOTUS has "selectively incorporated" the 2nd Amendment. Not just PART of the 2A, but the whole thing. SCOTUS did seem to rule that the States and Local governments CAN apply "reasonable" regulations regarding firearms. At the very least, this would cover concealed carry. At best, open carry.

  13. #13
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    What good does it do to say that 2A in incorporated when actually they only said that part of it was? I say it was not fully incorporated. To fully incorporate, they would have to address both parts, keep and bear. You say it would be judicial activism to rule on the bear part when it was not a question before them. I say it is activism not to. Either we take 2A as a whole or we don't. Just like taking the entire Constitution as a whole or we don't. What's the difference? Would you consider only applying that part of the Constitution that you like and abandon the rest? Why would you want to only apply the parts of 2A that you like and abandoning the rest. These judges are cowards to say the very least. I could use worse terms for them, but I won't, at least not on this forum.

    I understand that other suits will be brought to clarify all of this, but this only serves the lawyers on both sides of the argument. $$$$ for their own kind is the reason for doing things in this piecemeal fashion. And the fact that they won't catch as much flak from the news media.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026
    BWAHAhahahaahahahah.....did you guys see this??



  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    ROFL @ Brady!


    I bet that will be "liberated" off the wiki in short order. The libs won't let that stand. Too bad; it sounds accurate.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Tahoe, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    109
    Would have been nice if they said "What part of 'shall not be infringed' in 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' do you not understand?" and ended this thing once and for all.

    ANY law which prevents "the people" from "keeping" or "bearing" is an infringement, unless it's something along the lines of "you must maintain a weapon for self defense"

  17. #17
    Regular Member karolynrgalarza's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    67

    Toto mayor

    Of course that liberal puke sotomayor voted against guns...WTF does she think? When all the guns are banned in America there will be no crime? Heck no! Criminals (those who break the law, those who think they are above the law, etc) will always find a means to obtain guns just like they find a means to obtain illegal drugs like MJ and cocaine. The only difference will be that the law-abiding citizen will be left defenseless, and just like England, we will be walking around with bulletproof vests sewn into the inside of our clothes....God forbid they shoot us in the head. She has to be a complete moron if she thinks that a piece of paper will scare away a criminal.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Herndon, VA
    Posts
    120
    "Supreme Court makes it easier for Cubs fans to kill themselves" - Fark.com

    Question now becomes when do we get to BRING our guns in the city.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by eddyys View Post
    "Supreme Court makes it easier for Cubs fans to kill themselves" - Fark.com

    Question now becomes when do we get to BRING our guns in the city.
    Or to kill Bartman.

  20. #20
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by karolynrgalarza View Post
    Of course that liberal puke sotomayor voted against guns...WTF does she think? When all the guns are banned in America there will be no crime? Heck no! Criminals (those who break the law, those who think they are above the law, etc) will always find a means to obtain guns just like they find a means to obtain illegal drugs like MJ and cocaine. The only difference will be that the law-abiding citizen will be left defenseless, and just like England, we will be walking around with bulletproof vests sewn into the inside of our clothes....God forbid they shoot us in the head. She has to be a complete moron if she thinks that a piece of paper will scare away a criminal.
    Remember, gun control is not about guns, it's about control (of the citizens).

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    374
    Quote Originally Posted by merle View Post
    Would have been nice if they said "What part of 'shall not be infringed' in 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' do you not understand?" and ended this thing once and for all.

    ANY law which prevents "the people" from "keeping" or "bearing" is an infringement, unless it's something along the lines of "you must maintain a weapon for self defense"
    And then Kennedy wouldn't have gone along, and we wouldn't have anything.

    But that's ok. After all, everybody knows that a "pure" defeat is better than a partial victory.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Flyer22 View Post
    And then Kennedy wouldn't have gone along, and we wouldn't have anything.

    But that's ok. After all, everybody knows that a "pure" defeat is better than a partial victory.
    True.

    We didn't get into this situation in one fell swoop. Our rights have been nibbled at for years. We won't get them back in one fell swoop. We will have to claw and scratch for each partial victory.

    McDonald ain't perfect. But, it is good.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Tahoe, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by Flyer22 View Post
    And then Kennedy wouldn't have gone along, and we wouldn't have anything.

    But that's ok. After all, everybody knows that a "pure" defeat is better than a partial victory.
    Victory through appeasement?

    This is why the current situation is so bad, a hand out every now and then feels like victory but it merely delays correction of the current sorry condition. At some point everyone who used to remember "how things were" pass on and the current status becomes the norm. We then get into situations where anyone carrying a gun is viewed suspicously.

    "keep and bear...shall not be infringed"

    No qualifiers on felons or mentally ill, sensitive places or types of weaponry in there. In fact, those qualifications fly in the face of "infringed". A felon who has served their sentence (done the time, paid their due) has as much need (if not more) for self defense as your average citizen. A sensitive place (like a school like columbine or a military base) is not 100% safe. An 16" shotgun is no more or less deadly than an 18" one. Yet these are the "reasonable" restrictions the SCOTUS has decided on.

    It's 2010 and we have a 5-4 along idealogical lines. That's too close given the history and the desire of the framers.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    166

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by Phssthpok View Post
    BWAHAhahahaahahahah.....did you guys see this??


    Yeah, it's already taken off the site. Wonder if it will get there again?

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    San Angelo, Texas, USA
    Posts
    301
    While this is a small step in the grand scheme of things, I see this as a good step forward.

    granted we all would have liked then to go a little further and address "bear" and possibly open carry. As others have said, SCOTUS only addresses the question presented to them (which we like when the ruling doesnt go our way).

    This ruling, as I see it, opens the door for challenges in states like California, Hawaii, New Jersey and Maryland. This ruling might also help other states trying to get open carry, such as Texas.

    mark another win for freedom.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •