Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The SCOTUS can only decide the issue at hand, nothing more, anything else is dicta. The issue at hand in the DC case was a ban on owning a handgun (and there were issues with the requirement to lock up or disassemble any firearms).
The dicta in the Heller case, however, made it very clear the Second Amendment protects a right of the same importance as the first, etc. It also made it clear that the court does consider "to keep and bear arms" as including the right to carry outside one's home, openly at the minimum, but that was not the issue in the case and so that will wait until another case. Furthermore, violations equivalent to poll taxes will be held unconstitutional.
Essentially, the only wiggle room the SCOTUS has allowed for gun control thus far is as follows: prohibiting felons from arms, prohibiting carrying of arms in especially sensitive places, banning weapons of mass destruction (i.e., nukes, etc.), and registration of guns may be required provided it's never used to later confiscate arms or to violate any other rights.
What utter and silly nonsense. The Court could have stated that DC could pass no laws concerning gun control. It didn't. Scalia in his opinion specifically recognized the government's right to place limits on gun ownership. Up to that time DC had a ban of civilian ownership of handguns. The court ruled that an outright ban was overly broad.
The net effect is that today, you can own a handgun if you keep it in your house. You could always own a rifle or shotgun.
What utter and silly nonsense. The Court could have stated that DC could pass no laws concerning gun control. It didn't. Scalia in his opinion specifically recognized the government's right to place limits on gun ownership. Up to that time DC had a ban of civilian ownership of handguns. The court ruled that an outright ban was overly broad.
The net effect is that today, you can own a handgun if you keep it in your house. You could always own a rifle or shotgun.
You have absolutely no idea how the Supreme Court works. They can't just willy nilly rule whatever they want. They can only rule on what's before them.
The only restrictions on firearms the SCOTUS has now allowed for are very narrow and restricted. You gun grabbers are grasping at straws.
A very good ruling today. In a sane world it would have been 9-0 but the libs love to put ideologs on the court who only care about advancing their agenda and will invent "laws" and "rights" to do it but refuse to acknowledge rights that are plainly in the Constitution right in front of them. Kagan ought to be grilled on this decision today and if she disagrees with it her nomination should be rejected.
You have absolutely no idea how the Supreme Court works. They can't just willy nilly rule whatever they want. They can only rule on what's before them.
The only restrictions on firearms the SCOTUS has now allowed for are very narrow and restricted. You gun grabbers are grasping at straws.
They were asked to rule on the constitutionality of DC gun laws. The could have ruled them unconstitutional. They r
If you think there are no tight restrictions on carry a gun. Come to DC packing I'll walk over to the White House with you. You won't be with me on the walk back. You'll be in custody, Rambo.
What part of "[l]ike most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" is unclear?
Last edited by rhinestone; 06-28-2010 at 01:37 PM..
They were asked to rule on the constitutionality of DC gun laws. The could have ruled them unconstitutional. They r
If you think there are no tight restrictions on carry a gun. Come to DC packing I'll walk over to the White House with you. You won't be with me on the walk back. You'll be in custody, Rambo.
What part of "[l]ike most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
No, the issue before them was the constitutionality of the ban on registering new handguns, and the requirement to have arms in the home locked or disassembled. Read it: FindLaw | Cases and Codes
[CENTER] [/CENTER]
[CENTER]
Quote:
No. 07-290. Argued March 18, 2008--Decided June 26, 2008[/CENTER]
District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms and that the city's total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right."
[CENTER]
I think YOU should "go back and read it again....."
How very amusing that you bash someone for supposedly not reading the amendment, and then immediately after, you misquote it!
The hits just keep coming!
As for the OP, good news, but 5-4 is disturbing...
Why is 5-4 disturbing? Did you read the dissenting opinions of each justice to see why they disagreed with the decision? How do you know? They could have disagreed on state's right issues? You try and make it gun grabbers against gun rights but you don't know that unless you read their reasoning behind their decision.
For the record I support the decision completely. I own a legal full auto HK33 and an MP5. Am active in local gun rights organizations and participate in the local gun safety classes held at our local HS.
What bothers me are the posters that claim the sky is falling because there were 4 dissenting votes when they don't even know why the justices voted as they did. They just assume it was an anti gun vote and try to sell that as fact.
A very good ruling today. In a sane world it would have been 9-0 but the libs love to put ideologs on the court who only care about advancing their agenda and will invent "laws" and "rights" to do it but refuse to acknowledge rights that are plainly in the Constitution right in front of them. Kagan ought to be grilled on this decision today and if she disagrees with it her nomination should be rejected.
Sotomayor, with the expression accompanying her dissenting vote on this ruling, proved that she outright lied during her hearings. Expect no less from Kagen.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
