Second Amendment Saved

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. - United States Constitution, 2nd Amendment.

In what is clearly a victory for constitutionalists and gun owners everywhere, the US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Thursday affirming the right to own handguns for self defense in a decision which overturned the gun ban in Washington DC enacted nearly 32 years ago. The court essentially made the only decision they could with the information available to them in the Second Amendment. With this new ruling clearing the air on this issue once and for all after nearly 250 years, gun bans in several other cities such as San Francisco and Chicago are now rightly in danger of being overturned as well.

The ruling specifically targets the DC case by striking down the requirement for handguns to have trigger locks or be disassembled while kept in the home, but left intact the need to register and be licensed to own the gun. Gun rights activists have never really put up much of a fight against the need for licensing as it does provide a critical protection against crazy people having free access to these weapons. The ruling wasn't quite so friendly with shotguns however, apparently those still need to be kept locked up, trigger locked, and unloaded. This effectively makes a shotgun useless for self defense needs, so I would expect to see more people favoring handguns in the future as a result.

This should be a wakeup call to those who think the Constitution can be walked all over and your rights taken from you by liberal politicians. Apparently they still don't get it and are absolutely convinced that less control will mean rampant increases in crime. The opposite has actually been shown to be true. Freer access to guns for defensive purposes has helped reduce crime in places where guns are much easier to get. The DC gun ban did absolutely nothing to reduce gun violence. Over the last 32 years, their gun related crime stats skyrocketed. Mainly because law abiding citizens could not defend themselves and the muggers and home invaders knew it. I would expect a fairly sharp drop in the crime stats over the next 10 years, provided you can get honest polling done.

Ruling in favor were:

Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

Ruling against:

Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

It should come as absolutely no surprise to anyone that this fell along liberal/conservative lines. It should also validate the naked truth that we should be electing presidents who will appoint conservative judges who interpret the Constitution as given, not as is politically convenient.
.........................
"It is pointless to resist, my son." -- Darth Vader
"Resistance is futile." -- The Borg
"Mother's coming for me in the dragon ships. I don't like these itchy clothes, but I have to wear them or it frightens the fish." -- Thurindil

Well. I guess that's that then.

       
« America Sucks
Wall-E »

Posted on Jun 26, 2008 7:58 pm by Samson in: , | 5 comment(s) [Closed]
Comments
While I really thought this one was obvious enough that it was a foregone conclusion months ago, I was rather surprised to have read:
AP news story titled "High court affirms gun rights in historic decision" said:

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, 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."


Personally, I'm quite convinced that the entire point that the Framers were well documented as trying to make to begin with was that they wanted to ensure every citizen the right to defend themselves against a corrupt government in order to prevent the possibility of another King George.

Otherwise, this decision comes as no surprise to me at all, but it is wonderful news and I sincerely wish the NRA every possible bit of luck/success in their upcoming suits against San Francisco and Chicago for related matters.

       
Oops, my attempt to embed a url into that quote's credits totally didn't work..

From an AP news story about this ruling titled: "High court affirms gun rights in historic decision" which can be found at [url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns[/url]:
In a dissent he summarized from the bench, 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."


...the rest of what I said in the previous post stands. ;)

       
Ugh. Well apparently the URL tag is misbehaving again. Next time just post the bare link, the code will make it clickable :)

I'm absolutely not surprise that Yahoo News would only quote the dissenting liberal opinion that we basically have no right to own guns. That's a typical media tactic. They ignored the entire meat of the whole story which was the affirmation, after 250 years, that we do indeed have the rights laid out in the Second Amendment. And I'm with you on wishing the NRA luck on their continued efforts to restore our rights as the Framers intended.

       
Huzzah!

Just a few hours after that ruling came on the news my neighbor was outside shooting his rifle with a friend at a target, I'm assuming in celebration or something.

Or maybe they just felt like it.

/shrug

       
Yeah, it's not many days I wake up agreeing with Scalia. ;)

The court essentially made the only decision they could with the information available to them in the Second Amendment.


Well, four of them read the Second Ammendment, thought about it, and came up with a different answer. Personally, I thought this was interesting - it's a graphic showing how the majority and the dissent each came to their different interpretation of the same ammendment: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/06/27/washington/20080627_SCOTUS_GRAPHIC.html

(OMG THE NEW YORK TIMES OMG HORRIBLE LIBERALS AHHH)

       
<< prev 1 next >>
Comments Closed
Comments for this entry have been closed.
Anonymous
Register

Forgot Password?

SuMoTuWeThFrSa
 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30