Heller Struck Down

[Annie]

Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right - Yahoo! News

Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer 2 minutes ago

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact....

 

[Swamp Fox]

Finally they got one right!!!!!

 

[jillian]

Gee... I'm so shocked. But I have been saying that all the talk about which candidate is and isn't into guns is irrelevant since the court would decide the issue.

I can't find the Decision online yet... it's not on the Court's website.

But yesterday Bush's Court did decide that their good friends at Exxon weren't responsible for punitive damages in the Exxon Valdiz case.

 

[jillian]

Finally they got one right!!!!!

Because you so very much understand the rationale for the decision and have read the court's opinion, right?

 

[Ravi]

I think they this one correct as well but isn't this basically what was done in the California gay marriage ruling? The courts ruled that legislation was unconstitutional...where are the cries of activist judges?

 

[jillian]

You're probably right about the reasoning. My only point was that he hasn't READ the decision,yet he's applauding.

You know that it's only judicial activism if the decision went 5 to 4 the OTHER way. lol...

I am interested in reading it, though.

 

[Shogun]

Which amendment suggests gay marriage is a right like the second amendment does with guns, Ravi?

 

[Ravi]

Which amendment suggests gay marriage is a right like the second amendment does with guns, Ravi?

The same one that suggests straight marriage is a right.

 

[Shogun]

which one is that?

 

[jillian]

which one is that?

you know, baby, the one that requires equal protection of all people... EVEN IF YOU DON"T LIKE THEM. ;o)

Sucks, yeah?

 

[Ravi]

which one is that?

You tell me. The constitution limits what the federal government can legislate. There is no mention of marriage. Therefore the federal government cannot legislate marriage.

 

[jillian]

You tell me. The constitution limits what the federal government can legislate. There is no mention of marriage. Therefore the federal government cannot legislate marriage.

Actually, the gay marriage issue wasn't ruled on based on Federal Law (that way Bush's Court can't get a hold of it). If I recall correctly, it was based on the California Constitution.

Either way, the Court's already held that marriage is a fundamental right and the government can't infringe on a fundamental right without a damn good reason.... and certainly can't treat people disparately

 

[Shogun]

you know, baby, the one that requires equal protection of all people... EVEN IF YOU DON"T LIKE THEM. ;o)

Sucks, yeah?

HA!

oh RLY?

I guess since there is no constitutional right to get married then there is no equal protection jurisdiction in a state LEGISLATIVE matter, eh?

don't go out and shoot someone just because the second amendment is actually stated in our common gov, Jillian... I mean, I'd HATE to make you whip out the interstate commerce clause or something.

 

[Ravi]

Actually, the gay marriage issue wasn't ruled on based on Federal Law (that way Bush's Court can't get a hold of it). If I recall correctly, it was based on the California Constitution.

Either way, the Court's already held that marriage is a fundamental right and the government can't infringe on a fundamental right without a damn good reason.... and certainly can't treat people disparately

And that I suppose is when the judges are called activist judges.

 

[Shogun]

You tell me. The constitution limits what the federal government can legislate. There is no mention of marriage. Therefore the federal government cannot legislate marriage.

Indeed, and it cannot ALSO overturn state legislation without a Constitutional reason to do so. No mention of marriage, indeed.


Hey, there is always the interstate commerce clause!

 

[AtlasShrieked]

Quote:
Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer 2 minutes ago

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact....Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right - Yahoo! News

the court only clarified what was mostly agreed to. who said that citizens did not have the right to own guns for hunting? the self defense part is a bit different.

did the court say all citizens have these rights? if they did then mental patients will be signing up very soon.

The DC law was silly and most liberals and conservatives and libertarians and Democrats and Republicans thought it went too far.

the 2nd amendment was never said to not exist. what was fought over was what the amendment means.

but the court has extended the right to hunters.

is that being an activist court?

where does it say in the second amendment that the people have a right to own guns for hunting?

 

[Shogun]

Actually, the gay marriage issue wasn't ruled on based on Federal Law (that way Bush's Court can't get a hold of it). If I recall correctly, it was based on the California Constitution.

Either way, the Court's already held that marriage is a fundamental right and the government can't infringe on a fundamental right without a damn good reason.... and certainly can't treat people disparately

DAMN GOOD REASON being the midigating factor.


well, that, and the difference between an actual amendment statement preserving rights (2nd) and some fabrication of twisted legalese.

 

[Ravi]

Indeed, and it cannot ALSO overturn state legislation without a Constitutional reason to do so. No mention of marriage, indeed.


Hey, there is always the interstate commerce clause!

The courts can indeed turn over legislation that is unconstitutional. That is one of their duties.

You cannot apply the interstate commerce clause in a manner that violates someones civil rights.

 

[wayne]

To day the SC ruled the citizen have a right to be physically equal. The woman does not have to submit to the rape of the bigger man. An individual does not have to accept the attack of a gang. People have to right to prevent a home invasion. It is only a right; how well you use it is up to you.

 

[Shogun]

The courts can indeed turn over legislation that is unconstitutional. That is one of their duties.

You cannot apply the interstate commerce clause in a manner that violates someones civil rights.

and since, THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MARRIAGE, they would have no grounds to overturn a marriage ban. How many states have declared their marriage restrictions so far, Ravi? Indeed, you sure do see a path being beaten strait to scotus with each state whose LEGISLATURE makes a decision, dont you?


no, Ravi, I brought up the interstate commerce clause to illustrate the hokey bullshit that those gifted in legalese use to contort how our governement is supposed to work. Ask Jillian about the joke that is the Interstate Commerce Clause.