The SUPs come through!

[LUVMBDiesels]

Gun rights extended by Supreme Court


Gallery

Patriot's Day gun rights rallies in Virginia and D.C.
Organized by the group "Restore the Constitution," self-proclaimed patriots rallied in D.C. and Viriginia for Second Amendment rights. At the Virginia rally in Fort Hunt in Alexandria, many demonstrators carried guns intending to make history as the first people to rally with firearms in a national park.






By MARK SHERMAN
The Associated Press
Monday, June 28, 2010; 10:46 AM

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court held Monday that the Constitution's Second Amendment restrains government's ability to significantly limit "the right to keep and bear arms," advancing a recent trend by the John Roberts-led bench to embrace gun rights.
By a narrow, 5-4 vote, the justices also signaled, however, that some limitations on the right could survive legal challenges.
Writing for the court in a case involving restrictive laws in Chicago and one of its suburbs, Justice Samuel Alito said that the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states."


The court was split along familiar ideological lines, with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and four liberals opposed. Chief Justice Roberts voted with the majority.
Two years ago, the court declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess guns, at least for purposes of self-defense in the home.
That ruling applied only to federal laws. It struck down a ban on handguns and a trigger lock requirement for other guns in the District of Columbia, a federal city with a unique legal standing. At the same time, the court was careful not to cast doubt on other regulations of firearms here.
Gun rights proponents almost immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging gun control laws in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill, where handguns have been banned for nearly 30 years. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence says those laws appear to be the last two remaining outright bans.
Lower federal courts upheld the two laws, noting that judges on those benches were bound by Supreme Court precedent and that it would be up to the high court justices to ultimately rule on the true reach of the Second Amendment.


The Supreme Court already has said that most of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights serve as a check on state and local, as well as federal, laws.
Monday's decision did not explicitly strike down the Chicago area laws, ordering a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling. But it left little doubt that they would eventually fall.
Still, Alito noted that the declaration that the Second Amendment is fully binding on states and cities "limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values."

[TnBob]

The 2nd Amendment is core to our survival to our Nation.

If you doubt that ask any nation that has allowed their government to
confiscate their weapons.

[Txjake]

[Hatterasguy]

Fantastic, I need to write the NRA and suggest that they challenge the CT assualt weapon ban. Were still under the 1994 ban and it SUCKS!


With the way the winds are blowing we might stand a chance of actualy having a bit of freedom in this state again.

[retmil46]

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

Fantastic, I need to write the NRA and suggest that they challenge the CT assualt weapon ban. Were still under the 1994 ban and it SUCKS!

Unfortunately for your point of view, while the article indicates that while the ruling pretty much says the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to bear arms and limits what state and federal governments can do, it did seem to leave the door open to some restrictions to "address local problems and needs" if I'm quoting it correctly.

IE, while you have the right to bear arms, they didn't rule out restrictions such as what TYPE of arms you're allowed to bear.

Don't get me wrong - I fully support the right to bear arms for self and home defense, hunting, sporting events, etc - have quite a few of my own. But just like the old saw about yelling "fire" in a crowded theater being an abuse of and exceeding the 1st Amendment right of free speech, they could make a logical case that unless you're a licensed collector, there's little need and many potential problems with allowing individual private citizens to possess military weapons that were made for no other purpose than fighting a war. They'd once again pull out the arguably extreme example of redneck deer hunters with AK-47's.

For that matter, I'd fully support making first-time gun owners attend a firearms safety course, purchase of said firearm being contingent on successful completion of the course. Been many people over the years I've ran into I woudn't feel safe giving them a slingshot, much less a loaded firearm.

[MS Fowler]

They upheld the 2nd amendment by a 5/4 vote. That is pretty frightening!

Good; like it or not, the second amendment says what it says and should be protected. Personally, I think it's at least 100 years out of date but there is a correct way to change the constitution when some of it's provisions are no longer applicable. States limiting gun ownership is just as bad as the state of AZ trying to require citizens to prove their citizenship on demand. It is not acceptable to incrementally erode rights that are specifically protected.

[Fulcrum525]

Originally Posted by retmil46

They'd once again pull out the arguably extreme example of redneck deer hunters with AK-47's.

I don't own any weapons but some of the things I hear really make me scratch me head. For example I found out recently that CT restricts AK-47 ownership yet you can buy an AK-74 without issue which is a much more accurate and lethal rifle.....

Originally Posted by Fulcrum525

I don't own any weapons but some of the things I hear really make me scratch me head. For example I found out recently that CT restricts AK-47 ownership yet you can buy an AK-74 without issue which is a much more accurate and lethal rifle.....

That's the problem with nitpicking around the edges of these issues instead of addressing the constitutional issue; you end up with a bunch of inconstant local laws and constant court challenges.

It's silly to equate "a well regulated militia" with what type of gun bubba gets to use to hunt deer. The second amendment was written at a time when the only military in the nation was formed from local militias who showed up with their own weapons. If you wanted to actually meet the intent of the second amendment in the 21st century, you would have to own aircraft carriers.

[LUVMBDiesels]

Originally Posted by Craig

That's the problem with nitpicking around the edges of these issues instead of addressing the constitutional issue; you end up with a bunch of inconstant local laws and constant court challenges.

It's silly to equate "a well regulated militia" with what type of gun bubba gets to use to hunt deer. The second amendment was written at a time when the only military in the nation was formed from local militias who showed up with their own weapons. If you wanted to actually meet the intent of the second amendment in the 21st century, you would have to own aircraft carriers.

Sounds good to me... I would love a submarine or two...

[Hatterasguy]

Don't get me wrong - I fully support the right to bear arms for self and home defense, hunting, sporting events, etc - have quite a few of my own. But just like the old saw about yelling "fire" in a crowded theater being an abuse of and exceeding the 1st Amendment right of free speech, they could make a logical case that unless you're a licensed collector, there's little need and many potential problems with allowing individual private citizens to possess military weapons that were made for no other purpose than fighting a war. They'd once again pull out the arguably extreme example of redneck deer hunters with AK-47's.

The point of the 2nd is to protect weapons of "like kind" to what the military uses. The 2nd ammendment doesn't protect out right to hunt, it protects our right to arm ourselves to overthrow the government/fight foreign invaders should voting fail.

The 2nd is ment as the final way for the people to enforce all there other rights should the government break the contract.

I'm all for being part of a militia. I'll agree to that when I can own exactly what the military has.

BTW a lot of people hunt with AR15's, its the most popular rifle in the country.

[Hatterasguy]

Originally Posted by Fulcrum525

I don't own any weapons but some of the things I hear really make me scratch me head. For example I found out recently that CT restricts AK-47 ownership yet you can buy an AK-74 without issue which is a much more accurate and lethal rifle.....

Yeah its stupid. I can't buy a Sig556, but change the name and your cool. Same with the FN Fal.

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

The point of the 2nd is to protect weapons of "like kind" to what the military uses. The 2nd ammendment doesn't protect out right to hunt, it protects our right to arm ourselves to overthrow the government should voting fail.

The 2nd is ment as the final way for the people to enforce all there other rights should the government break the contract.

BTW a lot of people hunt with AR15's, its the most popular rifle in the country.

That's exactly correct, that is also the reason that the second amendment is completely irrelevant in the 21st century. In a perfect world, the constitution would be revised to talk about gun ownership for hunting, recreation, and protection and it would include reasonable limitations based on those functions. In reality, revising the constitution is politically impossible and we will continue to play this silly game for at least another generation.

[Hatterasguy]

Its never out of date.

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

Its never out of date.

Really? The citizens are going to grab their personal weapons and repel invaders? The citizens are going to use their weapons to enforce their rights against some future US government? You expect that to be effective? Good luck with that.