Thank you United States Supreme Court. Matt you'll be able to take that new Sig into DC now. I just wonder how the gun grabbers will use tactics to now control the guns we're all allowed to have.
It's an individual right
- Thread starter smokinghole
- Start date
When I come home I may have to buy a new gun in celebration!
Altercall
I beat you all May '08 :)
I can't believe they had to rule on this! And then there were 4 dissenters. Tells you what condition our country is when when the supreme court has to decide if our gun rights are somehow tied to whether or not we're in a militia.
Don't celebrate yet, boys and girls. Expect lawsuits aplenty from the bleedin' hearts.
And yes, I do own a gun.
And yes, I do own a gun.
Might or might not, one thing for sure they body guards that do.
About what, and whom will they sue? This is the first time in our history that the court has ruled definitively that the Second confers and individual right. This is the end of the line for bans and will make further infringements extremely difficult for the left. The case has no precedent and having read part of the opinion this morning, it is crystal clear for a change. Yes, other tactics will be attempted, such as registration schemes, but even those will be given close scrutiny.
However, what bothered me most about the decision was Stevens dissent, to wit: "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." I am very much disturbed his comment about the Framers and his understanding of the Constitution itself. He is absolutely wrong about the Framers since their clear intent was to limit the powers of the federal government, exactly the action Stevens decries. I always liked Stevens, but having an 88-year old man on the court whose mental faculties appear to be departing, is disturbing. I wonder how he would feel if someone said this: "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 free speech." The media and the left would be freaking out even more than they are now. . .:rolling:
Good news! Its just another battle in the fight for the right to keep and bear arms for the honset citizen but a very important one!
It's EXCELLENT news! Will have to have a celebratory smoke tonight!
Of course, you should read this:
Mayor Daley calls Supreme Court's gun-ban reversal 'a very frightening decision'
It's on the Chicago Tribune website (not enough posts yet to post the link...)
People like HIM frighten me MORE than street thugs.
Mayor Daley calls Supreme Court's gun-ban reversal 'a very frightening decision'
It's on the Chicago Tribune website (not enough posts yet to post the link...)
People like HIM frighten me MORE than street thugs.
Mitch
BOM 2/09-Keeper BOTtLe
I believe that certain jobs like DA, Judges, Cops, etc. are protected under federal law to own and carry concealed weapons on or off duty, even after retirement. Basicly locals could give them hell, but as soon as it gets to a higher court its thrown out. These judges never had an issue with carring a weapon anyway.
I'm pretty sure that is a state law, not federal.
If the gun-control advocates were trying to repeal the Second Amendment, I could (sort of) respect that; at least it's intellectually honest. But it absolutely baffles me how anyone can read the Second Amendment and not conclude that it's an individual right.
States used to be able to say "yeah or neah" regarding their recognition of out-of-state law enforcement ccw's (carry conceal weapon).
the feds overode it:
In 2004, the United States Congress enacted the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, 18 U.S. Code 926B and 926C. This federal law allows two classes of persons the "qualified law enforcement officer" and the "qualified retired law enforcement officer" to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of any state or local law to the contrary, with certain exceptions.
What a wonderful day for this country. I'm disheartened by the split of 5-4 and reading the ruling makes my mind just boggle at the thought process behind the dissenting opinon. On the plus side, Scalia wrote an amazing majority opinion that really just rips Stephen's dissenting opinion to shreds.
Honestly, if this doesn't highlight the difference between a strict constitutionlists bent and attempting to legislate from the bench, I don't know what does.
Honestly, if this doesn't highlight the difference between a strict constitutionlists bent and attempting to legislate from the bench, I don't know what does.
Good news. Its about time!