I am not sure why everyone is so excited over this ruling. I for one am a little miffed over it. Rather than 5-4 ruling in favor of the 2nd amendment it should have been 9-0 in favor of the amendment. My great grandfather brought and used his firearms when he came out to the northwest, and he taught my grandfather how to shoot, who in turn taught my father how to shoot and finally passed it on to me. While it is still a victory, it is only a small one. My only hope is that my son will be able to teach my grandson how to shoot, maintain, and responsibly own a firearm.

I fear that day of living like the British in London or like the Aussies is comming soon. When that day comes, I hope I will be able to fend off a criminal by throwing a shoe or sicking our domestic cat upon him.

I have always believed that a true test of my courage is to read the opinions of those I don’t agree with, so it was with sweaty-palmed apprehension that I took the dive into the conservative den of a Fox News blog. I have to admit my courage was challenged by the overwhelming support in this blog of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the Washington DC ban on handguns. But, I will get to the point.
The diverse opinions in this blog on what the Second Amendment really means tells me that the wording is too vague. The amendment was ratified in 1791, when the “militia” was using hand-loaded black powder muskets. Today’s definition of “arms” includes hand guns, assault rifles, machine guns, hand grenades, land mines, missiles, artillery, tanks, planes, ships, nuclear weapons, and - well, you get the point.
So any government restriction on what arms you can own could be challenged, because if the Supreme Court decided you could own a hand gun but not a hand grenade, the court would be in the position of writing laws, rather than interpreting the Constitution. Strict constructionism, which appeals to many conservatives, dictates a literal reading of the Constitution without any judicial interpretation. Maybe we need to re-write the Second Amendment to more clearly define the terms “arms,” and “militia.”

Why would anyone vote Republican because they think Democrats want a total gun ban? The Supreme Court said that private citizens have some right to own firearms, but that there are also room for reasonable restrictions. Perhaps many of the people are just being paranoid about gun control. There is no rational reason why anyone should fear the coming of a total ban on private ownership.

Since the Supreme Court essentially said that the Second Amendment prohibits a total ban on private ownership of functioning firearms, but allows for some restrictions, there is no reason whatsoever for anyone to vote Republican because they believe Democrats want a total and complete ban on firearms. The ruling indicates that Democrats will be less motivated to puah sweeping federal gun restrictions, and that many gun owners are less motivated to vote Republican.

What I find funny is the constant argument that a republican president did this. First off, learn a little bit about our government. Article IV judges (federal judges with life tenure) must always be evaluated and confirmed by congress. Therefore, it is no more Bush’s fault than any other congressman’s.

Also, for those of you who are making a big deal about crime rates in the district, unless there carry laws (open and/or concealed) in the District change, there will be no change in crime rate. Actually, I can see the crime rates going up due to the easeier accesability of weapons to criminals. I do agree that individuals should have the right to keep their weapons in their home, but a hand gun will do the most good when carried on the person. In the home, a shotgun is far more effective. The simple sound of a round being loaded in a shotgun will cause most people to immediatly question what they are doing, and avoid the situation. Thus, the reversal of this law (though a step in the right direction) is pretty much a meaningless change.

Finally, for those of you who equate what happens here to that of the EU, you need to do some research. Yes, gun deaths are dramatically lower due to lower numbers of weapons, but the rate of robbery, rape, abduction, and theft have skyrocketed since the ban took place. This information can easily be found with minimal research. To make this argument is a double edged blade. Is a reduction in gun deaths (a great deal of which are criminal on criminal crime) worth a dramatic spike in other types of violent crime? This is defiantly a pick your poison argument. Personally, I would rather keep the ability to have a gun accesible and risk actually having to use it one day, than have someone rob/cut/abduct me and my only defense be a knife or hammer (i.e. hells angles).

Just some food for thought.

Lew

Well said, that is the Swiss way and they have little gun violence. From 18-65, every able-bodied man is in the “Militia” or Army reserve and they maintain their weapon in their home.

A simple two-question test:

1) Does a human being, any human being anywhere, have the right to defend himself or herself against violent attack (whether by criminal, tyrant or foreign invader)?

2) If no, why not? If yes, with what?

If answered truthfully, I don’t see how anyone who believes people have inalienable rights can support an anti-gun position.

Also, escalating the “arms” argument to nuclear devices is simply ridiculous. If you wish to tie the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms for personal defense to militia service, then say (as Miller tried to) that the arms one is allowed to keep and bear are the basic arms of an infantryman… the ones a member of the militia would be expected to show up with when mustered. That would include sidearms, shotguns and rifles, including select-fire assault rifles (i.e., the M16 or “machine guns”). Crew-served weapons would not be considered an infantryman’s basic weapon. Same for grenades (although this is iffy), rocket launchers, and so forth.

More basic than that, firearms safety instruction should be mandatory in grade school, and in high school instruction in the use and maintainance of firearms should be mandatory. Whether or not they ever decide to exercise their right to keep and bear, every 18-year-old in this country should know how to safely handle and use firearms… thereby being prepared to be part of the unorganized militia as defined in U.S. law.

When will the US realise that a 200 year old Constitution can, and should, evolve. What was right in the 1700’s does not mean it applies now.
A backward step.

Heres a fact for you - In 2000, when the US population had reached 275m, the country experienced 10,801 gun-related homicides, according to a University of Pennsylvania study. The EU, by contrast, had a population of 376m in 2000 but experienced only 1,260 gun-related homicides.

Smiley,

You elitist gun-banners try so hard to sound educated. Why not truly educate yourself on the facts concerning crime rates where concealed carry laws have been passed versus where firearms have been banned outright. I think DC is a perfect example, our nations capital has been rendered a cesspool of crime because of this 32 year old assault on the Constitution. In fact, it’s an embarrasment to the rest of the country that our nation is governed from such a violent society. Get back to me in 5 years and tell me that people having the right to self defense didn’t impact crime in a positive way.

For all you ahntui-gun activists, you need to read what happened in Australia when the government unilaterally banned all privately owned guns. The crime rate went up 48% over the existing statistics because all the criminals knew they were safe! Robberies, rapes,murders all increased. Be glad that one can defend themselves in one’s home under our Constitution!

What is the difference between a law abiding gun owner and a criminal?

Whomever pulls out the gun first is the criminal.

(What a bunch of paranoid gun-freaks. Next you’ll want grenades.)

Why are some people so upset that we have a right to defend our property with a gun? Political correctness is a disease. We can’t defend our homes, but a criminal can invade it with no fear of harm. If a person attempts to break into my home and I stop him with a gun, to some, I would be in the wrong. If the bozo’s who attempt to rob me don’t know whether I have a gun or not may chose not to break into my home. I guess some would prefer that we just say to the criminals- go ahead and do what you want because I have no means to defend myself. What they don’t know may hurt them. Support the people not the criminals.

This ruling only goes to show that when you elect a moron as President, you get morons like Scalia and Roberts in the Supreme Court. For all the right wing blather about having “constructionist” judges who don’t try to “interpret” the law (aka “allow for context”), we end up with Scalia nevertheless interpreting things to suit his philosophy — like disingenuously ignoring the militia question and trying to second guess what the founding fathers meant — except not nearly as intelligently as the supposed liberal judges the right tends to cast as boogeymen. And worse, the decision left the whole question of gun regulation in general so completely and utterly vague that it’s going to guarantee another Supreme Court case down the road to try to settle. What a sorry day for intelligent people who actually care about this country and the lives of its people.

Well aren’t all the right wingers breaking a out the champagne over this. For all those happy about the court and their wisdom in ruling this way, please see that on the same day they decided it wasn’t appropriate to set the death penalty on someone who rapes a child. This comes just in time for the summer. I can’t wait to hear the nightly carnage reports.

If the second amendment has nothing to do with the arming of militias, then why mention them. Why not word the amendment with no mention of any military at all.

“To protect against an oppressive government and criminal elements in society, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms is hereby affirmed.”

But it doesn’t say that. Guess I’ll go out and celebrate by buying a tank. Is everyone here ok with that. It’s a form of arms. Or are their hypocrytes here that are going to tell me that a tank is over the line. You just can’t have it half way. Please tell me you are for limits, cause then your whole second amendment rights arguement goes down the drain.

Much more needs to be decided as to what constitutes reasonable limitation versus unconstitutional regulation of the right to bear arms by citizens.

Who authoritatively decides this?
Town councils, state legislatures, congress, the courts?
Who are citizens?
Anyone who can vote, youth with a learners permit? Foreign visitors, illegal aliens?
Who may reasonably be denied the second amendment right?
Violent felons, the insane, the retarded, those too stupid to pass a test?
Anyone convicted of any felony, of road rage, of threatening, of stalking?
Anyone a judge and/or jury believes is unsafe to themself or others?
What constitutes arms?
Mace, stun guns, knives, arrows, guns, chemicals, grenades, fireworks, bombs?
Why may citizens keep and bear arms?
National defense, personal security, hunting, hobby?
Where may arms be kept?
In a car, home, motorhome, apartment, room for rent, tent (a home for some)?
In storage, museums, private collections, at clubs?
Where may the citizen bear arms?
When hunting, when hiking in the woods, when traveling, when on public transporation?
In private/public buildings, on private/public property, on private/public transportation?
Inside shopping malls, at amusement parks, at the beach, at churches, at stadiums?
How and why may citizens keep and bear arms?
Locked or unlocked, concealed or visible, assembled or disassembled?
How many arms is unreasonable to own?
One, ten, one hundred, one thousand?
How much fire power is too much?
Hand gun, shot gun, semi-automatic, machine gun, grenades?
When might it be reasonal for a citizen to obtain greater firepower?
Declared War, civil war, civil unrest, national invasion, home invasion,
Terrorist attack (one attack or hundreds, one terrorist or hundreds)?
Are permits needed?
For everyone, for how much money, with how much education, with how much training?
Are warning signs needed
“Danger-Firearms Present”, “Warning-I’m Loaded”?

The SCOTUS did NOT get it right… allowing registration limits on the exercise of a right effectively nullifies the right. In IL one must apply for and receive a Firearm Owners Identification card (FOID) before being able to buy, sell or transport arms or ammunition. Failure to do so can result in felony charges, thereby permanently removing one’s Second Amendment right, per Federal law. Therefor the excercise of the right to keep and bear arms is subject to permission by the State, with loss of right plus fines and imprisonment as the punishment for not getting permission.

In IL, there is no Second Amendment right, because SCOTUS says registration and licensing are okay.

This is not registration for Concealed Carry, which is not a problem. It is registration for ALL circumstances. Except, of course, the criminals.

The reason I carry a gun is because I can not carry a Cop.

You all have a lot to say. But how many of you know what a militia is and actually take time to participate in it? A well-regulated militia is the army of the sovereign people or in other words the people of this nation. The militia is schooled, drilled, and prepared to go to battle on a minute’s notice to defeat any form of enemy foreign or domestic. The militia is what this country was founded upon. The right to bear arms is the ability of the militia to meet any threat whether internal or external. These days I feel the greater threat to this nation is from within and not without. So I’d say get your weapons ready and prepare to march with the local militia and defend true freedom. The worst form of tyranny is the subjugation of the mind. When your eyes are truly opened you will discover that freedom has already been lost in this country. The question is not whether but how much has been lost and to what degree. Get a gun, join your local militia, and if you don’t have one, start one. It’s your constitutional right. To quote one of the founding fathers, People that aren’t willing to fight for life and freedom deserve neither.

As a DC resident, I’m not at all enthused about this ridiculously decided ruling. Crime will go UP, not down. Yes, criminals will always find a way to do evil if intent on it; there is no denying that. But, when the prevalence of guns is increased, there are easier ways to acquire that which you seek for evil. I completely understand the argument for defense…however, if a criminal has no money, and knows the likelihood that breaking into a couple houses will produce a gun, not only do you have the resulting crime that will likely be more violent than without the gun, but you also have the crimes of the break-ins to GET the gun.

The right to protect yourself, through whatever means necessary, IS inherent in the constitution; there is no denying that. Guns are a great way to do that. I just hope that lawmakers do what is necessary, and legally restrict the heck out of gun purchasing in areas where crime is already bad. In places like DC, this gun ban kept things from getting worse. Now, the only place crime will go is up.

Realize there’s a difference between a right to protect yourself and the NEED for a safe environment. This court has gone off its rocker.

Where are the neg. comments??? Someone must be against this subject. No?

you got to fight

for your right

to PAAAARRRR teeee

This ruling should help decriminalize law abiding citizens of California. This ruling will strike down gun locks in the state.

It would nice to see in my lifetime the 2nd amendment tied to the 14th amendment.

The Supreme Court FINALLY GOT IT RIGHT…..I am proud of the 5 that did. I am ashamed that there were actually 4 individuals that would have us stripped of the right to protect ourselves. Those four must have thought that Mao, Adolf, and Josef had it right.

Kennedy, Souter, Stevens, Breyer… giving terrorists American rights, and now they have tried to make us defenseless against them. Makes regular honest people SICK.

They don’t have the power to change the 2nd amendment. It doesn’t exist in the Constitution.

if Barrack and Hillary have their way, we will be both…. communist and socialist…
be afraid people, be very afraid….

As if there weren’t enough guns in DC already…

Got it wrong…

An unarmed man is a Subject. An Armed man is a Citizen.

I can only wonder what were the other 4 thinking. A right as basic as this was not understood by 44%. I can only imagine had Obama had the power to replace just one justice what a decision like this would have come to. Here I see it as a victory with a 5-4 vote, however just one vote difference would have given this most basic right away.

Amazing: Does anyone recollect that 200 yrs ago, an American standing army was rare. The people were the army (militia [Wikipedia: The role of militia, also known as civilian military service and duty, in the United States is complex and has transformed over time]). In the service of the militia, you brought your own weapon and powder.

In that context, the people were to be armed.

The point of the Bill of Rights were to enumerate the rights of the people and circumscribe the power of government. Justice Stevens is either very political or extremely uniformed. There were great arguments over the need of the Bill of Rights, espeically since the Constitution left all powere and rights not enumerated in the document to the people. Restricting government was the whole point.

Obama…. are you listening.

An armed man is a Citizen. A disarmed man is a Subject.

The Supreme Court finally got one right! Our right to bear arms is what has kept us and keeps us safe and free. It was their fear of armed U.S. citizens that kept the Japanese from invading CA at the beginning of WWII as our Pacific Fleet lay in ruins at Pear Harbor. If the citizens of Italy or Germany or Russia had firearms would the atrocities of their fascist administrations been possible? It was not only from foreign invasion that our founding fathers wanted to protect us from, but the right for us to bear arms protects us from, God forbid, our own government. I am glad our 2nd Amendment right has been upheld by the majority of the Supreme Court. What I find disappointing, sad, and scary is why 4 justices think we shouldn’t be able to protect ourselves with a firearm if we chose to do so. I thought they believed in choice. What is their political motivation?

Just look at Justice Steven’s dissent…. “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.” Will someone please inform him that is exactly what the founding fathers wanted to do! Why are the liberals so fearful of an armed citizenry? Makes you wonder.

I reckon this helps ensure a country who threw off the yolk of tyranny 3000 miles away will not have to throw of the yolk of 3000 tyrants 1 mile away.

in my view, the Second Amendment was intended by the Founders as the ultimate check on the government. what police force, or other henchmen of any would-be despot, would attempt to confront a population armed to the teeth? similarly, any attempt by any socialist wannabe, as we are confronted with in this election, can go only so far in his attempt to “redistribute wealth” without risking armed uprising. our very existence, and continuation, as a free nation depends upon the general population being so strong that no organ of government could ever seize complete control. lastly, the so-very-much-treasured First Amendment continues to exist only because of the existence of the Second Amendment; everything that we hold dear as Americans can be traced directly to a population prepared and capable of defending itself.

As of this writing, all but one of the comments appear to strongly support the Court’s ruling (as do I). And, the one that did not, came from a lawyer. Does that tell us something?

Thank GOD and the NRA ! Now hide & watch the states devine under what circumstances a gun owner may be able to defend his home, wife, & children. The old “Man’s Home is his Castle” and any trespass after daylight is burgelry Laws should prevail. Why 5 out of 4 ? Geeeeze; what do we have going on there ?

I have loved history all my life and have never understood the issues regarding the Second Amendment. The language is crystal clear. There are innumerable historical documents discussing the development of the amendment and the reasons for it that were written before and after its inclusion in the Constitution. The writer who said this was a political decision was 100% right. It corrected the political decisions of previous courts that had deliberately tried to strip Americans of their constitutional rights.

Feinstein’s concern with precedent is absurd in this case. The Miller decision which she is probably refering to when talking about “70 years” never decided anything as it merely remanded the case for retrial and the defendant had died before there ever was a retrial. Even then, that court ignored more than 130 years of precedent when it made its decision.

Yes, they did get it right this time.

My fellow Americans -

This is an historic day for lawful gun owners across our beautiful country. To think that the nation’s highest legal officers upheld the individual’s right to keep and bear arms has given me a renewed sense of confidence in our process and in our country.

Before today, I have to admit that I was extremely worried about the tone and direction of the Supreme Court, as well as our country’s politics in general (vis-a-vis Barack Obama and his idiot followers).

It’s no secret that liberals are waging an all out war on all that is good, fair and loving in America.

However, today’s court decision solidified the inherent rights of all law abiding Americans to maintain the last the line of defense against tyranny, terrorists, liberals and other malefactors working against life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

In God We Trust.

Signed,

The American Rifleman
Serving America Since 1775

Now that we’ve got the 2nd amendment back.

It’s time to start taking back the 4th amendment.

Congress, left and right alike, has gutted our 4th amendment protections with the FISA revisions currently on the floor.

They’ll tell you that the only problem is Telecomm Immunity, but that’s just window dressing.

But the real problem is that judicial oversight has been thrown into the trash heap.

Funny thing is, Senator Obama had a chance to lead on this issue, and he proved himself a resounding failure. One more flip flop in what’s become the longest trail of flip flops in campaign history.

The real issue now seems to be how to get the dissenting judges evaluated for mental competency.

Now if we can just get those “justices” and I use the term loosely in some cases, to recognize that the rape of a child can be worse than a death sentence, they might just start making sense and get in tune with the American people. We need to find out exactly which ones voted to ban the death penalty for child rapists so we can never, never, ever support them and do what we can to get rid of them.

Kim, sorry, but you, like most people that have been educated in the public school system, got it kinda wrong: the Founding Fathers differentiated between an “army” and a “militia.” Army was understood to be governmentally funded, supplied and controlled. Militia was defined to be armed citizenry. At that time, there were no “police;” adult males took turns as a “constable,” and the people worked together a bit more than we see today. Attorneys were all but unheard of.

Our good Justice John Paul Stevens made a very good point in his dissenting opinion. Unintentionally, perhaps, but a good point. At 88 years of age, he had been through an educational system that taught diagramming sentences and the value of a dictionary. Either senile dementia has taken over the gent, he simply follows a political agenda, or he is an out and out liar. He should have looked up the word “infringe.”

As Lazarus Long observed: There is no-one more peaceful than a dead troublemaker. An armed society becomes a peaceful society.

The liberals on the Supreme Court are dangerous. The desenting opinion from those liberal loons was just scary. It’s obvious that the intent of the framers of the Constitution means nothing to them.

Thank God they got it right.

The people who would like for us to believe we have no right to self-defense and state that the second amendment applies only to the military forget one thing: you can’t have a military WITHOUT guns, so the argument is totally without merit and totally absent of common sense. THE SUPREME COURT HAS DONE THE RIGHT THING FINALLY.

At least I get to keep my guns, I’m still
waiting to hear about my religion.

Down went the gunner, a bullet was his fate
Down went the gunner, then the gunners mate
Up jumped the sky pilot, gave the boys a look
And manned the gun himself as he laid aside The Book, shouting
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition and we’ll all stay free!
Praise the Lord and swing into position!
Can’t afford to sit around and wishin’
Praise the Lord we’re all between perdition
and the deep blue sea!
Yes the sky pilot said it
You’ve got to give him credit
for a son - of - gun - of - a - gunner was he,
Shouting;
Praise the Lord we’re on a mighty mission!
All aboard, we’re not a - goin’ fishin;
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition and we’ll all stay free!

Hillarious: When the Supreme Court goes against the neo-con grain (Gitmo’ case), the neo-cons(and their propaganda arm a.k.a. Fox News) goes ape, taking every opportunity to demean the institution. Then, lo-and behold, the Supreme Court rules to uphold Gun Rights (rightfully so) and everyone applauds them for getting it “right” (or Right, with a capital R).

Laura Ingraham, who certainly knows better, argued against the Justices holding in the “Child Rape” case by saying (paraphrasing): “Yeah, but the majority of the people in the USA want child rapists to be put to death, and here a few UNELECTED judges overturn the people’s will”

Guess What, Laura? THE FOUNDERS INTENTIONALLY MADE THE COURT NON-ELECTED in order to protect the fundamental constitutional rights of ALL citizenry AGAINST what Jefferson termed the “tyranny of the majority”. During the Brown v. Board era, the majority of Americans opposed school integration and if it were left to the citizenry, these rights might not be realized yet…Same goes with various other injustices (voting rights violations, slavery, etc.) that were abolished by the court in order to uphold the constitution against the fiat of the majority (through the legislative branch).

-Chris - a gun owning, right wing true CONSERVATIVE (i.e., small government, limited welfare- corporate AND individual, free-market (not no-bid contracts to contractors), limited-interventionist, supporter of the Constitution.

Saying the second admendment means only the militia can have weapons is like saying the 1st admendment just gives freedom of speech tp the press. It is about time!

If it were not for the historic right to keep and bear arms, we would not have had all this legal argument going on now. The framers would have gotten rid of all these “arms” over 140 years ago.
The Feds had a great opportunity when States Rights ended after the Civil War, to insure all the rebels were disarmed, and black militias replaced them. After all, the Militias only could bear arms….
Where do these people get their law degrees from. The Constitution limits the Government, by design and intent. Power to the People…

Thank goodness this came up now. An Obama supreme court would probably have been 6-3 the other way !

Hold on to your “power” boys!!
They never said you had the right to keep AMMO.
Thats next!

I find it odd that Lis says here that ‘The Supreme Court Got It Right!’ when back in March on O’Reilly she said there was no individual right to own firearms. Megan Kelly was on the individual rights side at that time. I’m wondering if she was assigned this post, as opposed to it being her personal opinion.

I hope everyone realizes if kerry had won, or if obama becomes president and this comes up again, this ruling will go the opposite way.

Get your priorities right, people, and ditch mr. hopenchange.

Duncan says that bearing arms does not give people the right to posess handguns. I can only imagine the difficulty of trying to defend ones self in the middle of the night by weilding a rifle not to mention trying to carry one concealed. Perhaps he would have us “arm” ourselves with axe handles.

While I celebrate the Supreme Court for upholding our Constitution I do believe in serious gun restrictions. There is a big difference between owning a gun for protection and collecting them for sport. Guess what, the Constitution doesn’t cover collecting guns as a hobby and we all know that is not what our second amendment was written for. Therefore, citizens should be restricted to who and how many guns they can own. Too many kids die each year in accidents with guns. I can deal with the threat of gun accidents in order to uphold our constitution, but not so some guy can have a stupid collection of weapons.

Duncan: “Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

You had to know the opinions would break down 5-4 with Kennedy being the swing vote. There are 4 conservatives and 4 libs with Kennedy a tweener. As a gun rights advocate I applaud the decision. If it were up to the lefties ,only bad guys would have guns.

People need to sit up and take notice. If Obama is elected president he will descimate the Supreme Court with his liberal judges and these decisions will not be made in the future. Vote McCain. He will appoint strict constitutionalists.

Finally they got it right. Now we all can look forward to law enforcement concentrating on the criminals and not peaceful legal gun owners. P.S. criminals beware! More of your prey will be legal conceled carry permit holders.

back in the 1700’s when the second amendment was written the country was spread out there was no one next to you you had to protect yourself from robbers and yes indians and you also hadf to feed your family you needed to have a gun had it been written today i think the second amendment would have been quiet different the country quiet different today your talking about something written many years ago what applied then does not apply now.
lew

This was a close but good call by the Supreme Court. Since the American Justice cannot protect us, we should be able to protect ourselves. The police can not be everywhere. The courts are incapeable of prosecuting criminals as well!

Frank Pena, Texas

There are many reasons to be critical of George W. Bush, but one can’t deny that that his appointment of John Roberts and Sam Alito to the Supreme Court will cement his legacy at the president who saved the 2nd Amendment.

Saying the 2nd admendment only referes to a military having weopons is like saying freedom of speech is just for the press in the 1st admendment. Great decision.

5-4? Scary!

And the minority proposition that they should use a standard of “Interest Balancing Inquiry” (read: let the judges decide what’s in the “best interest,” not what the law says) is just as scary.

5-4?

And who are we going to elect as the next President, likely to appoint two or more judges? ALSO scary.

This was a good decision but I worry about the 5 to 4 vote by the Supreme Court Judges. That is pretty scary. We need to ask the Judges why the American judicial system is not protectiong law-abiding citizens from the law-breaking criminals! The judicial system needs to clean up their act first before they try to deny us the right to defend ourselves, our family, and the safety of other law-abiding citizens.

Frank Pena, Iowa Park Texas

It’s about time that some court started figuring out that the only ones who cared about guns being legal are the ones who try to live according to the law. People who are going to use guns in crimes do not care what is legal and what is illegal. The only ones hampered by a law are those who try and live within the law. Finally, people who want to live within the law have the right to defend themselves from those who do not care about the law. Criminals love unarmed victims. Trying to stop crime by regulating guns makes about as much sense as trying to stop DUIs by regulating cars.

I’m glad the Supreme Court did not legislate against the Constitution. I believe they should hold to strict interpretation of the constition and not undertake social restructuring. If they are going to legislate from the bench, we need a constitutional amendment to allow another check and balance!

1. Who sets the limits on what would disqualify someone from exercising their 2nd (or any other) amendment rights?
2. If there is no place to legally purchase a weapon, how could your 2nd amendment rights be exercised?
3. Does this have any effect on the limitations imposed by the BATF (.50 cal max, 18″ min barrel length, no full auto w/o special permit, etc)?

Just a few questions to ponder before getting too excited about this.

Incidentally, some of the Fox News people said something about a DC resident going over to VA, buying a handgun and coming back to DC. I don’t think that can be done, you just can’t (legally) go across the state line to buy a handgun. In DC, where would one buy a legal handgun anyway, does anyone sell them legally in DC. Any gun shops in DC?

They finally got it right. No doubt the Democrats in Congress will have a dozen excuses, denials and statements, all published in the press. It would appear that lots of congress critters failed English in college. Most nasty old Americans knew what the Second Amendment said, while the gun control folks tried to reword the language it contained to mean something else. You lost, big time. June 26, 2008 is a day in history that will be remembered.

No, this isn’t a socialist country, at least not until (if) Obama is elected. Then you’ll get a first hand taste of what socialism truly is. Not something to look forward to.

Why are so many equating “arms” with “handguns”? So does “arms” also mean “rocket launchers”? If not, why not? The right to bear arms is the right of citizens to arm themselves, but a ban against handguns should not be construed as a violation of that right. If citizens are granted the right to possess shotguns, there is no violation of the constitution. It may be sub-optimal for many people to be restricted to rifles, but it is not the role of the Supreme Court to legislate.

I don’t think that the phrase “a well regulated militia” is inartful or clumsy at all. It has just fallen out of popularity to think that THE PEOPLE are the first line of defense, against enemies both foreign and domestic, against criminals and invading armies.

A full reading of the 2nd Amendment leads me to believe that the people are to have the right to keep and bear weapons of warfare, not just guns.

Is that reasonable? Well, if it isn’t, we do have the power to further amend the Constitution. Don’t just ignore the Constitution, that will lead to further loss of rights without the consent of the people.

Protect it, amend it, or lose it.