SubscribeSCOTUS ‘Finds’ Individuals Can Own Guns
From a deeply disappointed Reuters:
Supreme Court finds individual right to own guns
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, for the first time in U.S. history, that individual Americans have the right to own guns for personal use, and struck down a strict gun control law in the nation’s capital.
The landmark 5-4 ruling marked the first time in nearly 70 years the high court has addressed whether the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, rather than a right tied to service in a state militia.
Writing the court’s majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia said the Second Amendment protected 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.
Although an individual now has a constitutional right to own guns, that new right is not unlimited, wrote Scalia, a hunter.
The ruling came the day after a worker at a plastics plant in Henderson, Kentucky, used a handgun to shoot and kill five people inside the factory before killing himself, the latest in a series of deadly shooting sprees across the country…
The court struck down the nation’s strictest gun control law adopted in Washington D.C., 32 years ago. It bans private possession of handguns and requires that any rifles or shotguns kept at home be unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock.
The justices split along conservative-liberal lines in the ruling, one of the most important of the court’s current term, in deciding a legal battle over gun rights in America. The ruling came on the last day of the court’s 2007-08 term.
President George W. Bush’s two appointees on the court, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both voted with the majority in finding an individual right to keep firearms.
In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote, "The decision threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States."
Of course we agree whole-heartedly with this "ruling."
In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote, "The decision threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States."
No it doesn’t. It makes it clear they are unconstitutional. But the left and the media (but I repeat myself) will pretend otherwise.
The ruling came the day after a worker at a plastics plant in Henderson, Kentucky, used a handgun to shoot and kill five people inside the factory before killing himself, the latest in a series of deadly shooting sprees across the country.
Not that they are biased or anything.
Still, this decision and the breathless anticipation surrounding it is a symptom of a far deeper problem that such a clearly enunciated right should have ever been in question.
So why do we need to wait on tenterhooks for an interpretation of the text by these black-robed mullahs?
Worse yet, what is to stop a future court, one with several Obama-nominating justices, from declaring this decision in error, and issuing a fatwa against all gun ownership.
No, this is not what the framers of the Constitution envisioned. In fact, it is the opposite.
We were to be a nation of laws, not men.
Related Articles:
- SCOTUS: Death Penalty Only For Murders
- Supreme Ct Gives Terrorists Right To Appeal
- CA Court Overturns Voters On 'Gay Marriage'
- SCOTUS Says EPA Must Regulate All Emissions
- DC Court Says 2nd Amendment Constitutional
- SCOTUS Gives Gitmo Detainees Court Trials
- SCOTUS: Re-Districting Must Be Race Based
- SCOTUS Approves Use Of Hallucinogenic Drug
20 Responses to “SCOTUS ‘Finds’ Individuals Can Own Guns”
Leave a Reply
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:14 am
None-the-less good news! But of course the right to own arms was granted to allow the citizenry to revolt against a corrupt government. Self-defense goes well beyond the confines of one’s home.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:46 am
“President George W. Bush’s two appointees on the court, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both voted with the majority in finding an individual right to keep firearms.”
Yes, once again, now repeat after me…. IT’S ALL BUSHES’ FAULT! What a disgrace it is that this was even in need of a decision. Then again in a legal system where you can actually claim that something depends on what the meaning of is is, I guess that this isn’t all that surprising. Note also the usual suspects who were against YOUR Constitutional rights. Disgraceful!
June 26th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Well, look here, Mr. Obama and Mr. Daley:
NRA Filing Suit Against Gun Laws in Obama’s Hometown
http://campaignspot.nationalre.....VjZGJlMzc=
June 26th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
An interesting comment from Robert Novak from last April:
Robert D. Novak - Obama’s Second-Amendment Dance - washingtonpost.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....01652.html
June 26th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
That is good news. Unfortunately, there were still 4 Supreme Court Justices that have no idea what the Constitution means or what the Bill of Rights means. I was concerned about this case when it first was brought up to the Supreme Court, but now I can breathe a little easier.
We have won a major battle, not by an overwhelming majority, but still one takes a victory when one finds one. However, our rights as gun-owners are still threatened and are still endangered by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and others. We need to stay on our toes. The war is not over. The battle is still raging on.
June 26th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Up in my neck of the woods, I’m watching the camel’s nose get a little further into the tent as the Mayor of Toronto -in response to all the gang-related shootings in that city- is going to evict any gun clubs that are located on city property.
He also wants to ban any firearms manufacturers from operating in city limits (looks like Para-Ordinance will be relocating to the US and taking it’s good-paying jobs with it) and is going after any organizations that promote the sale of firearms -though the city council is now doing some backpedalling on that one since someone reminded them that the Toronto Sportsmen’s Show brings in millions of dollars to the city every year -but it’s all about safety, right?).
The crickets you hear in the background is the sound of us waiting to hear what he plans to do about the gangs who have been doing all the killing.
http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/431333
Whatever you do, my good neighbours, hang onto your Second Amendment rights.
June 26th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
When congress is in session, nobody’s safe.
“This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer.” –Will Rogers
When SCOTUS is making rulings we all hold our breath. I have proposed changing the acronym of SCOTUS. A much better descriptive phrase is “Supreme Court Ruling Over The Unwashed Masses” or SCROTUM. This SCROTUM is half full of nuts, including Justice Kennedy who is the Swing Nut. By a one vote margin we are able to keep our guns. By a one vote margin they declare death for a brutal child rapist to be “cruel and unusual punishment” overturning a States Right to punish criminals as the people see fit.
Personally I admire McCain in many ways, just not as a Senator or President. However, if we wind up with one more liberal nut in SCROTUM we will lose all kinds of rights. One vote, people. We almost lost our guns. Yeah. I’ll vote for McCain because Obama’s SCROTUM appointments would be disastrous.
June 26th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
realist:
President George W. Bush’s two appointees on the court, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both voted with the majority in finding an individual right to keep firearms.
There you go -a couple of Bush Appointed Lawyers Legislating Sanity.
Or -in other words:
Fortunately, you had a pair of BALLS in your SCROTUM.
(sorry, I couldn’t resist)
June 26th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
DW, that is a fine response. Mind if I use it in future posts?
June 26th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Thanks, realist. By all means feel free to use it.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Excellent point, realist!
As is the point made by SG - the SCOTUS may decide these days what the words of the Constitution mean, but they do not ‘give’ us rights (much to Breyer’s dismay, as evidenced by the minority response). The Constitution makes the overarching and, ultimately, common sense point that all men have intrinsic rights by the very nature that they are men and one of those rights is the ability to defend our selves and our property from intrusion both from foreign and domestic threats. No matter what limits and curtails are attempted on those inalienable rights, the rights still exist and are ours. We empower the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial branches to conduct the business of government, but in doing so, we do not forfeit those inviolable rights. For the Judicial to wax philosopically and ‘find’ a right embedded in a 200-plus year old document is asinine. The right exists, it has always existed, and it is broadly the property of citizens - not the government. On days like today - even though this is a good ‘ruling’ - I still feel it is necessary to say back to the SCOTUS - You want my guns? Come try and take them!
June 26th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
I am not a huge gun collector or an avid hunter, but I do own two firearms so I applaud today’s SC decision. The one thing that disappoints me though is why this case even got this far.
I don’t know, maybe it’s because I live in a simpler, uncomplicated part of this country, you know . . . where “we cling to our guns and our religion” that I can answer the “$64,000 question” of what our Founding Fathers’ intentions were when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. Did they intend for just the “Militia” to bear arms during a time of war OR did they intend that it should be the right of every citizen to own firearms anytime?
If the Founding Fathers intended for ONLY the Militia to bear arms ONLY during a time of war, why then weren’t all the firearms owned by common citizens confiscated from them at the end of the Revolutionary War and locked up in armories? As the old adage goes, actions (or in this case inactions) speak louder than words. I mean even Helen Keller could see the answer to this. Is this just too simple for someone with years and years of legal work behind them to realize this?
June 26th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
For those interested, here is the entire ruling, (caution, 1mb pdf file).
http://tinyurl.com/4hyez6
A very good read, may I add.
Scalia’s majority opinion, page 4 to 67, is just masterful. I especially love the way he completely dismantles Stevens’ and Breyer’s dissenting arguments, piece by piece.
Judging from the al-Reuters article above, the libtard minions of the MSM must be absolutely crestfallen.
Bwaahaahaahahahaha..!!
June 26th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Thank the lord they told me I can keep my gun….I was getting ready to give it to them…
I know my rights, I don’t care what their oppinion was. I used to care what they decided, but, since they took away the property of tax paying citizens and gave it to a private business and since they decided that it is cruel to gently execute a child rapist and torturer, I could give a rats ars what they say I can and can’t do. They are godless, disgusting creatures and they need to get on their knees and start asking for forgivness before holy vengeance strikes them.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Always reading here - hardly ever posting. But to say this. If there is any confusion as to the framers state of mind and what they were intending and who they meant….Just scroll down a hair and read the THIRD ammendment…Kind edges you towards thinking that we have this in place to protect us from the government itself.
June 27th, 2008 at 8:43 am
Great news! But it doesn’t help the twelve personally owned weapons that Billy Bubba allowed the German Government to confiscate from me and destroy.
Nice working for our US Army overseas.
June 27th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
The Supreme Court of the United States might take note of this: Americans have owned guns, do own guns, and will own guns no matter how they rule. Do you believe for a moment that our founders failed to see this coming? It’s now time for us to us to honor them by proving that their efforts had great value and were not a waste of their time.
June 27th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
I agree with Enthalpy…..guns are not going to be legislated away. Everyone knows that if you want one, regardless of laws or impediments, you can get one. Quite easily as a matter of fact.
So the powers that be should realize that unregistered firearms in the hands of a pissed off populace doesnt bode well for re election time, or post legislation time for that matter.
Nobody will take mine from me without paying a high price for it. I do hope it doesnt come to that, but elections are upon us, and I am not looking forward to the outcome.
June 28th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
This is gonna jerk a lot of the anti-gunners… anti-assault weapon political moonbats etc. up by the shorthairs… this is ‘precedent’: ‘Bearable ARMS! ‘Been my argument for years… That includes, knives, swords, poleaxes ‘n whatever… as well as firearms of any configuration. ‘ALL INSTRUMENTS’… that constitute bearable arms. I argued this point in High School. The 2A addresses ‘Arms’… not to be construed as firearms only. (GASP!) The government… any government, cannot ‘grant’ the people their inherent Rights as free men. The government can only recognize, codify and PROTECT those inherent rights. The Constitution is recognition and codification NOT something ‘given’. No more than the air I breath or thoughts in my head. (GASP!)
A Drivers License… any license may be a ‘Priviledge’ granted by the government… and justly so… but government cannot give me Rights… Government can only restrict them… or forbid them. In essence… the Right to keep and bear arms has been in actual practice, FORBIDDEN in many areas. As such… those who have sworn to support and defend the Constitution are in violation of their oath when ‘meddling’ with the intent and purpose of that recognized and codified RIGHT. (GASP!) (’Nuff to boggle the mind ain’t it?)
Bearing Arms means to ‘carry’… not simply to own/keep someplace unloaded, disasembled ‘n locked up.
“…who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it.’ Cesare Beccaria - 1764
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” - Thomas Jefferson quoting Ceaser Beccria.
“Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence… From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms, everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good. When firearms go, all goes we need them every hour.” - George Washington, Address to the Second Session, First United States Congress.
“…arms…discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property…. Horrid mischief would ensue were [the law-abiding] deprived of the use of them.” - Thomas Paine
“If violent crime is to be curbed it is only the intended victim who can do it. The felon does not fear the police, and he fears neither judge nor jury. Therefore, what he must be taught to fear is the victim.” - Jeff Cooper, the father of modern combat hand gunning.
“In truth, a state which deprives its law-abiding citizens of the means to effectively defend themselves is not civilized but barbarous, becoming an accomplice of murderers, rapists and thugs, and revealing its totalitarian nature by its tacit admission that the disorganized, random havoc created by criminals is far less a threat to state power than are men and women who believe themselves free and independent, and who act accordingly.” - Jeffrey R. Snyder, The Public Interest, No.113, Fall 1993.
In the Heller case, Justice Scalia wrote, “Nowhere else in the Constitution does a ”right“ attributed to ”the people“ refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention ”the people,“ the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset… The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms… The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed’.”
NOTE: The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms… Burn that passage into yer skulls folks. “ALL INSTRUMENTS THAT CONSTITUTE BEARABLE ARMS”
Here’s what Mayor Fenty (DC) said ’bout a half hour of the Courts decison:
The Mayor, Attorney General and Chief emphasized that the Supreme Court’s ruling is limited and leaves intact various other laws that apply to private citizens who would purchase handguns or other firearms for home possession. First, all firearms must be registered with the Metropolitan Police Department’s Firearms Registration Section before they may be lawfully possessed. Second, automatic and semiautomatic handguns generally remain illegal and may not be registered. Third, the Supreme Court’s ruling is limited to handguns in the home and does not entitle anyone to carry firearms outside his or her own home. In addition, although the Court struck the safe storage provision on the ground that it was too broadly written, firearms at home should be kept either unloaded and disassembled or else locked except for use in self-defense in emergencies.
What part of ‘SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED’ don’t they understand?
“We will comply with the Court’s reading of the Second Amendment in its letter and spirit,” said Chief Lanier. “At the same time, we will continue vigorously enforcing the District’s other gun-control laws and are considering other ways to protect the District’s citizens against the scourge of gun violence.”
Under its rules, the Supreme Court will not formally issue its mandate for about a month to allow the parties to file rehearing petitions. After that period passes, the court of appeals will send the case to the district court to enter an injunction, though the district court will have to decide exactly how the injunction should be phrased. The injunction is the court order that will officially prevent the District from enforcing the handgun ban. That process may yet take several weeks.
On the face of it… the DC Government apparently wants to ‘interpret and cherry pick’ the Courts decision… while dragging it’s heels in implementation. This ain’t over.
The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms… How clear is that?
June 28th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
SonoraRebel.
That is without a doubt one of the finest posts I have ever read!