Supreme Court says Second Ammendment is Constitutional!

[Jason]

[quote][size=5][b]Supreme Court rules that all Americans have fundamental right to bear arms[/size][/b]

By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 28, 2010; 1:11 PM

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134_pf.html

The Supreme Court ruled for the first time Monday that the Second Amendment provides all Americans a fundamental right to bear arms, a long-sought victory for gun rights advocates who have chafed at federal, state and local efforts to restrict gun ownership.

The court was considering a restrictive handgun law in Chicago and one of its suburbs that was similar to the District law that it ruled against in 2008. The 5 to 4 decision does not strike any other gun control measures currently in place, but it provides a legal basis for challenges across the country where gun owners think that government has been too restrictive.

"It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty," Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the conservatives on the court.

The victory might be more symbolic than substantive, at least initially. Few cities have laws as restrictive as those in Chicago and Washington.

Alito said government can restrict gun ownership in certain instances but did not elaborate on what those would be. That will be determined in future litigation.

Alito said the court had made clear in its 2008 decision that it was not casting doubt on such long-standing measures as keeping felons and the mentally ill from possessing guns or keeping guns out of "sensitive places" such as schools and government buildings.

"We repeat those assurances here," Alito wrote. "Despite municipal respondents' doomsday proclamations, [the decision] does not imperil every law regulating firearms."

The decision came on the final day of the term and at a time of great change for the court. Justice John Paul Stevens sat at the mahogany bench for the last time, and will end more than 34 years on the court when his retirement becomes official Tuesday. Confirmation hearings for Solicitor General Elena Kagan, President Obama's choice to replace Stevens, were scheduled to begin Monday afternoon.

And Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 77, was with the court despite the death of her husband of 56 years, Martin D. Ginsburg, on Sunday.

Besides the decision in McDonald v. Chicago, the court completed its work by issuing opinions in its final cases of the term:

-- It ruled that the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, an independent board set up by the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act in the aftermath of the huge corporate failures of Enron, WorldCom and others, is unconstitutional. The board was designed to provide much tougher regulation of the auditing of public companies than under previous regimes, but the court said that because it was insulated from direct control of the president, it violated the separation of powers.

It also said, however, that the problem could be corrected by allowing the Securities and Exchange Commission, which oversees the board and is more accountable to the president, to remove the board's members at will.

The case is Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board.

-- By a vote of 5 to 4, the justices said that a public university does not have to recognize a student religious group that wants to exclude gays and others who share its core beliefs. The University of California's Hastings College of the Law said its anti-discrimination policy required officially recognized student groups to include all who wanted to join. The Christian Legal Society argued that being forced to include those who did not share its beliefs violated constitutional protections of freedom of association and exercise of religion.

The majority included the court's liberal wing plus Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

The case is Christian Legal Society v. Martinez.

-- The court rejected a claim from inventors who wanted to have their business method patented. A majority of the court said such a claim would be possible in some cases, but not in this one, where a patent was sought for a strategy for hedging risk in buying energy.

The case is Bilski v. Kappos.

The guns case was the logical sequel to the court's 5 to 4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. That decision established for the first time that the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms" referred to an individual right, not one related to military service. But the decision that there is a right to keep a gun in one's home did not extend beyond the federal government and its enclaves such as Washington.

Gun rights activists immediately filed suit against the handgun restrictions in Chicago and the suburb of Oak Park.

"Today marks a great moment in American history," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, in a statement. "This is a landmark decision. It is a vindication for the great majority of American citizens who have always believed the Second Amendment was an individual right and freedom worth defending."

The court's decision means that the enigmatically worded Second Amendment -- "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" -- identifies an individual right to gun ownership, like the freedom of speech, that cannot be unduly restricted by Congress, state laws or city ordinances.

Also voting in the majority were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer objected to the majority decision, and read his dissent from the bench. He disagreed with the majority that it is a fundamental right, and said the court was restricting state and local efforts from designing gun control laws that fit their particular circumstances, and turning over all decisions to federal judges. Joining him with dissenting votes were John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor. Stevens wrote his own dissent and did not join Breyer's.

"Given the empirical and local value-laden nature of the questions that lie at the heart of the issue, why, in a nation whose constitution foresees democratic decision-making, is it so fundamental a matter as to require taking that power from the people?" Breyer wrote. "What is it here that the people did not know? What is it that a judge knows better?"[/quote]

It's nice to know that over half of our supreme court justices think the second ammendment to the Constitution is in fact constitutional. The other 4 concern me though.

[AmishBengalFan]

[quote]-- By a vote of 5 to 4, the justices said that a public university does not have to recognize a student religious group that wants to exclude gays and others who share its core beliefs. The University of California's Hastings College of the Law said its anti-discrimination policy required officially recognized student groups to include all who wanted to join. The Christian Legal Society argued that being forced to include those who did not share its beliefs violated constitutional protections of freedom of association and exercise of religion.[/quote]

I've read this one three times and I still don't understand what this says. On one hand, why would a student group want to exclude people on the basis of SHARING THAT GROUP'S CORE BELIEFS? I can understand if the Young Muslims want to exclude non-Muslims, but the quote says that the group would exclude those who share that group's core beliefs. So it seems that it's talking about a student group that is excluding members of it's only target demographic. The confusion continues, since the ruling says that universities can opt to NOT recognize student groups that to this. WTF? I mean, if a student group wants to exclude everyone who shares that group's beliefs, there'd be nobody in that group, so why on earth does the Supreme Court give a rat's ass about the school recognizing groups that have no members? The Washington Post, while full of left-thinking liberal doo-doo heads, is not known for such sloppy writing.

[AmishBengalFan]

Back on topic. Those 4 have me worried. The Constitution does not GRANT the right to bear arms. It states that such a right cannot be taken away by the government, thereby implying the core belief that such a right derives from a higher authority. And if you do not believe in a gun-distributing God, then that higher authority could be the fundamental human right of self-defense. Pick your wording, its the same net effect - the Constituion assumes that you already had this right, and states only that the government founded upon this document is forbidden from abridging that right.

"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

EDITED TO ADD: And, by the way, I have no patience with people who don't like this or any part of the Constitution but who do nothing to change it. The Constitution is a living document, and contains within it the means and procedures by which the will of the people may be recognized by making changes to it. It only contains what we, the citizens of the US, want it to contain. If there's enough support to outlaw guns, then go to Washington and begin the process of writing an Amendment to make that support a part of the public law. Heck, we once outlawed alcohol. So if someone has a problem with ANYTHING in the Constitution, but does not do a thing to change it, you can go pound sand as far as I'm concerned. Take responsibility for fixing something that you think is broken, rather than trying to weasel-word your way through judicial activists or unconstitutional local laws to make your way the only way. Draft an Amendment, call a Constitutional Convention, or shut the fuck up.

[Squirrlnutz]

[quote]-- By a vote of 5 to 4, the justices said that a public university does not have to recognize a student religious group that wants to exclude gays and others who [color="#FF0000"]DON'T[/color] share its core beliefs. The University of California's Hastings College of the Law said its anti-discrimination policy required officially recognized student groups to include all who wanted to join. The Christian Legal Society argued that being [u]forced to include those who did not share its beliefs[/u] violated constitutional protections of freedom of association and exercise of religion. [/quote]

Based on the underlined I think it was a typo.

[Orange 'n Black]

Nondenominational Christianity is so vague in what is or is not a core belief, I'm not surprised they lost their case. I personally am no big fan of the Catholic church, but at least they make it abundantly clear what you must do to be part of the club.

As per the topic, agreed with the first comment; glad the judicial branch feels the Constitution is constitutional. The loop hole in the wording as described above makes these type of bans technically possible, but at this point it's the intent of the document that should be upheld. People have an intrinsic right to self defense, be it a gun or another method.

[big_dish]

I also think some people (not in this thread, just in general) have a false belief that the right to bear arms intends for everyone to be walking around with guns in hand like the wild west, whether criminal or contributing positive member of society. It only means if you are a non-felonious citizen, you have the right to keep arms at your HOME, not on your person. Big difference.
Not everyone that has a gun legally needs or wants to carry it around.

I personally have had a Concealed Carry license for around 6-7 years now. I dont go anywhere without a gun (except alcohol related places). I hope I never have to use it, but in the case of myself being a murdered victim, or living the rest of my life, I like my chances a lot better with my little buddy on my hip. Very bad people do very bad things to very good (innocent) people all the time, and if you cant choose to defend yourself at least in your own home, then we are all sitting ducks.


On a side note, god I hate those signs posted in (for instance) a shoe store saying "No concealed weapons"... What??? How many gun toting madmen is that little sign going to stop?? All that sign says to a criminal with intent to cause harm is: is that any law abiding citizen that has the right to carry a gun will not be in there to stop any potential robbery/murder/rape, so come on in and do whatever you want to do! No one can stop you! lol... I choose not to shop somewhere that advocates me being a victim and is a proponent of criminal behavior.

[Squirrlnutz]

[quote name='big_dish' date='30 June 2010 - 09:36 AM' timestamp='1277904994' post='895321']
I also think some people (not in this thread, just in general) have a false belief that the right to bear arms intends for everyone to be walking around with guns in hand like the wild west, whether criminal or contributing positive member of society. It only means if you are a non-felonious citizen, you have the right to keep arms at your HOME, not on your person. Big difference.
Not everyone that has a gun legally needs or wants to carry it around.

I personally have had a Concealed Carry license for around 6-7 years now. I dont go anywhere without a gun (except alcohol related places). I hope I never have to use it, but in the case of myself being a murdered victim, or living the rest of my life, [b]I like my chances a lot better with my little buddy on my hip.[/b] Very bad people do very bad things to very good (innocent) people all the time, and if you cant choose to defend yourself at least in your own home, then we are all sitting ducks.


On a side note, god I hate those signs posted in (for instance) a shoe store saying "No concealed weapons"... What??? How many gun toting madmen is that little sign going to stop?? All that sign says to a criminal with intent to cause harm is: is that any law abiding citizen that has the right to carry a gun will not be in there to stop any potential robbery/murder/rape, so come on in and do whatever you want to do! No one can stop you! lol... I choose not to shop somewhere that advocates me being a victim and is a proponent of criminal behavior.[/quote]

What about when there are two gunmen?

[big_dish]

[quote name='Squirrlnutz' date='30 June 2010 - 04:07 PM' timestamp='1277928469' post='895395']
What about when there are two gunmen?
[/quote]


I have better aim than both of them. No question.

And if its in the winter, this is the handgun I carry (clothes arent thick enough to conceal well in summer):

http://www.taurususa.com/video-theJudge.cfm

Like I said, I hope I never have to use it. But, vicious and disturbing things happen to innocent people everyday. If I can stop it from happening to myself, or someone in my vicinity, I'll be glad I exercised my right to defend myself/innocents (I am aware the second amendment isnt exactly CCW compliant in nature).

I don't infringe on other peoples well being, but some heinous people do. Chances of anything ever happening are slim to none. But I wont be a victim if it does.

[sois]

[quote name='big_dish' date='13 July 2010 - 08:48 PM' timestamp='1279079312' post='896933']
I have better aim than both of them. No question.
[/quote]

What if one of the gunmen is a deranged you who traveled back in time?

[big_dish]

[quote name='sois' date='14 July 2010 - 12:12 AM' timestamp='1279080740' post='896938']
What if one of the gunmen is a deranged you who traveled back in time?
[/quote]


Well thats easy. I also carry an extendable/retractable spear. Problem solved.