Supreme Court: 2nd amendment applies to states as well

[martybegan]

He's not confused, he's really a partisan moron. Too stupid to understand cause and effect or unintended consequences when ideology rules over common sense.

Can you please explain how your "Common Sense" applies to the case at hand?

Sense you said please...
Hand guns are too easily concealed, along with open carry laws there is a real danger of guns not protecting you or your family, but putting them at greater risk - not necessarily from you, but from others untrained or with evil intent.
Your side argues having a firearm makes you safer, and that maybe true. But, it seems not to make us, as a society safer, given the number of homicides, suicides and accidental deaths caused by firearms.
Will this decision mean that cheap handguns will now be for sale at Wall Mart? Best tell your kids and remind yourself the next time someone cuts you off on the road, to ignore them; for flipping them the bird or even looking at them with 'disprespect' may result in a violent response (hyperbole, maybe, but less than Condi Rice or Dick Cheney or Bush II suggesting not invading Iraq might result in a mushroom c loud).
I have no problem with someone having a firearm in their home for protecton. That said, an untrained person in a stressed state is less liikely to hit a threat with a handgun - especially a high powered weapon - and the potential for collaterial damage is great.

My greater concern is the Roberts Court has become extemely ideological and partisan, and is clearly what you conservatives feared - activist.

Your reasoning relys on alot of "what ifs" and pro forma gun control boogeymen. The fact remains the right to bear arms is stated in our constitution. That puts the burden on the government to prove that regulations against said right are 1) constitutional, 2) needed) and 3) warranted.

You place the line at carry vs home use. The laws in this case was the prevention of home use of hanguns. I do not see an endoresment of concealed or open carry anywhere in the decsion.

For people who truly beleive in the control of private ownership of weapons you have an option. amend the constiution.

 

[Nonelitist]

He's not confused, he's really a partisan moron. Too stupid to understand cause and effect or unintended consequences when ideology rules over common sense.

Can you please explain how your "Common Sense" applies to the case at hand?

Sense you said please...
Hand guns are too easily concealed, along with open carry laws there is a real danger of guns not protecting you or your family, but putting them at greater risk - not necessarily from you, but from others untrained or with evil intent.
Your side argues having a firearm makes you safer, and that maybe true. But, it seems not to make us, as a society safer, given the number of homicides, suicides and accidental deaths caused by firearms.
Will this decision mean that cheap handguns will now be for sale at Wall Mart? Best tell your kids and remind yourself the next time someone cuts you off on the road, to ignore them; for flipping them the bird or even looking at them with 'disprespect' may result in a violent response (hyperbole, maybe, but less than Condi Rice or Dick Cheney or Bush II suggesting not invading Iraq might result in a mushroom c loud).
I have no problem with someone having a firearm in their home for protecton. That said, an untrained person in a stressed state is less liikely to hit a threat with a handgun - especially a high powered weapon - and the potential for collaterial damage is great.

My greater concern is the Roberts Court has become extemely ideological and partisan, and is clearly what you conservatives feared - activist.

Liberal idiocy on display in all it's moronic, head-in-the-sand glory.

Only a liberal would call a court upholding the 2nd amendment as "activist".

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Good news indeed...those fucking assclown control freaks need to take a step back and realize that gun rights will never be taken away from law abiding citizens.

 

[rightwinger]

Fact is that in America, guns are here to stay.

The genie is out of the bottle, there are too many weapons in private hands to ever consider confiscating them. Guns are also part of our culture and we cannot go back. There is also the second amendment, which is still open for discussion, but which the Supreme Court rightfully upheld the right to individual gun ownership.

This does not, however, preclude the government from having an obligation to restrict the types of weapons in private hands. That is what the Supreme Court held. You cannot ban handguns across the board...but you can still place restrictions on types of handguns and how and where they are used

 

[PatekPhilippe]

He's not confused, he's really a partisan moron. Too stupid to understand cause and effect or unintended consequences when ideology rules over common sense.

Can you please explain how your "Common Sense" applies to the case at hand?

Sense you said please...
Hand guns are too easily concealed, along with open carry laws there is a real danger of guns not protecting you or your family, but putting them at greater risk - not necessarily from you, but from others untrained or with evil intent.
Your side argues having a firearm makes you safer, and that maybe true. But, it seems not to make us, as a society safer, given the number of homicides, suicides and accidental deaths caused by firearms.
Will this decision mean that cheap handguns will now be for sale at Wall Mart? Best tell your kids and remind yourself the next time someone cuts you off on the road, to ignore them; for flipping them the bird or even looking at them with 'disprespect' may result in a violent response (hyperbole, maybe, but less than Condi Rice or Dick Cheney or Bush II suggesting not invading Iraq might result in a mushroom c loud).
I have no problem with someone having a firearm in their home for protecton. That said, an untrained person in a stressed state is less liikely to hit a threat with a handgun - especially a high powered weapon - and the potential for collaterial damage is great.

My greater concern is the Roberts Court has become extemely ideological and partisan, and is clearly what you conservatives feared - activist.

LMAO!!!! They're activist when they rule in favor of a standing constitutional amendment that conservatives support but what are they when liberals get their way....

 

[Nonelitist]

edit

 

[Nonelitist]

Fact is that in America, guns are here to stay.

The genie is out of the bottle, there are too many weapons in private hands to ever consider confiscating them. Guns are also part of our culture and we cannot go back. There is also the second amendment, which is still open for discussion, but which the Supreme Court rightfully upheld the right to individual gun ownership.

This does not, however, preclude the government from having an obligation to restrict the types of weapons in private hands. That is what the Supreme Court held. You cannot ban handguns across the board...but you can still place restrictions on types of handguns and how and where they are used

I might have to retract my apology.

What restriction can the govt put upon me as to how I use a gun, except for in the commission of a crime?

What type of handguns does any Govt. document say that I cannot have?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Fact is that in America, guns are here to stay.

The genie is out of the bottle, there are too many weapons in private hands to ever consider confiscating them. Guns are also part of our culture and we cannot go back. There is also the second amendment, which is still open for discussion, but which the Supreme Court rightfully upheld the right to individual gun ownership.

This does not, however, preclude the government from having an obligation to restrict the types of weapons in private hands. That is what the Supreme Court held. You cannot ban handguns across the board...but you can still place restrictions on types of handguns and how and where they are used

I might have to retract my apology.

What restriction can the govt put upon me as to how I use a gun, except for in the commission of a crime?

What type of handguns does any Govt. document say that I cannot have?

NONE.

In fact the 2nd Amendment has already been ruled in 39 to mean specifically weapons of a military style use and type. The court ruled that in order to be protected by the 2nd Amendment a weapon must have been in use or of a type to be useful to the military.

 

[Flopper]

Can you please explain how your "Common Sense" applies to the case at hand?

Sense you said please...
Hand guns are too easily concealed, along with open carry laws there is a real danger of guns not protecting you or your family, but putting them at greater risk - not necessarily from you, but from others untrained or with evil intent.
Your side argues having a firearm makes you safer, and that maybe true. But, it seems not to make us, as a society safer, given the number of homicides, suicides and accidental deaths caused by firearms.
Will this decision mean that cheap handguns will now be for sale at Wall Mart? Best tell your kids and remind yourself the next time someone cuts you off on the road, to ignore them; for flipping them the bird or even looking at them with 'disprespect' may result in a violent response (hyperbole, maybe, but less than Condi Rice or Dick Cheney or Bush II suggesting not invading Iraq might result in a mushroom c loud).
I have no problem with someone having a firearm in their home for protecton. That said, an untrained person in a stressed state is less liikely to hit a threat with a handgun - especially a high powered weapon - and the potential for collaterial damage is great.

My greater concern is the Roberts Court has become extemely ideological and partisan, and is clearly what you conservatives feared - activist.

Your reasoning relys on alot of "what ifs" and pro forma gun control boogeymen. The fact remains the right to bear arms is stated in our constitution. That puts the burden on the government to prove that regulations against said right are 1) constitutional, 2) needed) and 3) warranted.

You place the line at carry vs home use. The laws in this case was the prevention of home use of hanguns. I do not see an endoresment of concealed or open carry anywhere in the decsion.

For people who truly beleive in the control of private ownership of weapons you have an option. amend the constiution.

I support most progressive causes but not this one. I am against most gun control laws, not because I favor gun ownership but because it is a constitution right. Gun laws do little to keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys but do discourage gun ownership by people who need a gun for personnel protection.

I lament the fact that we are such a violent society, but banning guns is not going change that.

 

[mal]

AP: "Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide"

^The SCOTUS did NO such thing... They Observed what is Constitutionally there regarding the 2nd Amendment...

In the Roe v. Wade Case they Extended EXTRA-Constitutional Rights to the Mother and Denied Rights to the 2nd Heartbeat within her.



peace...

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Where have I ever posted that I oppose individual gun ownership?

You must have me confused with someone else

I have to side with Righty on this one.... I don't recall him ever opposing individual gun ownership. So... just simmer down!

What I do believe...

1. You are your own first line of defense in defending yourself. The police are there to clean up the blood and find out who did it. If you need a gun to protect yourself....you should have that right

2. There needs to be reasonable restrictions on what you need to protect yourself. The government has an obligation to restrict fully automatic weapons, armor piercing rounds and military grade firepower.

3. Not everyone should be allowed to have a gun. Felons, mentally unstable and yes, even terrorists should not have open access to weapons

As a "gun tot'n" fanatic.. I agree. Nobody needs fully-automatic weapons or armor piercing rounds. Also, ther e should be reasonable checks to make sure we know who the hell is buying a gun. Nobody needs a gun RIGHT NOW.

 

[CMike]

That is great news.

Liberals try and cherry pick which part of the constitution they think should apply.

 

[CMike]

I have to side with Righty on this one.... I don't recall him ever opposing individual gun ownership. So... just simmer down!

What I do believe...

1. You are your own first line of defense in defending yourself. The police are there to clean up the blood and find out who did it. If you need a gun to protect yourself....you should have that right

2. There needs to be reasonable restrictions on what you need to protect yourself. The government has an obligation to restrict fully automatic weapons, armor piercing rounds and military grade firepower.

3. Not everyone should be allowed to have a gun. Felons, mentally unstable and yes, even terrorists should not have open access to weapons

As a "gun tot'n" fanatic.. I agree. Nobody needs fully-automatic weapons or armor piercing rounds. Also, ther e should be reasonable checks to make sure we know who the hell is buying a gun. Nobody needs a gun RIGHT NOW.

What the government feels people "need" is irrelevant.

Americans have constitutional rights and liberties.


It's not based on "need"

 

[rightwinger]

What I do believe...

1. You are your own first line of defense in defending yourself. The police are there to clean up the blood and find out who did it. If you need a gun to protect yourself....you should have that right

2. There needs to be reasonable restrictions on what you need to protect yourself. The government has an obligation to restrict fully automatic weapons, armor piercing rounds and military grade firepower.

3. Not everyone should be allowed to have a gun. Felons, mentally unstable and yes, even terrorists should not have open access to weapons

As a "gun tot'n" fanatic.. I agree. Nobody needs fully-automatic weapons or armor piercing rounds. Also, ther e should be reasonable checks to make sure we know who the hell is buying a gun. Nobody needs a gun RIGHT NOW.

What the government feels people "need" is irrelevant.

Americans have constitutional rights and liberties.


It's not based on "need"

I understand that Amway salesmen are out in public and need to defend themselves. It is up to the government to define the extent of protection you are allowed to have. We can't have Amway salesmen running around with 50 cal machine guns.
If you feel the government is being overly restrictive, you have the right to take it up in the courts. That is what happened in DC and Chicago.

 

[KMAN]

Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide - Yahoo! News

looks like the Chicago gun ban has been struck down. States need to recognize that Americans have a right to bear arms.

Never imagined we would be voting on whether the US Constitution covered the statesl...

 

[CMike]

Fact is that in America, guns are here to stay.

The genie is out of the bottle, there are too many weapons in private hands to ever consider confiscating them. Guns are also part of our culture and we cannot go back. There is also the second amendment, which is still open for discussion, but which the Supreme Court rightfully upheld the right to individual gun ownership.

This does not, however, preclude the government from having an obligation to restrict the types of weapons in private hands. That is what the Supreme Court held. You cannot ban handguns across the board...but you can still place restrictions on types of handguns and how and where they are used

What kinds of handguns should be restricted sewerboy?

 

[rightwinger]

Fact is that in America, guns are here to stay.

The genie is out of the bottle, there are too many weapons in private hands to ever consider confiscating them. Guns are also part of our culture and we cannot go back. There is also the second amendment, which is still open for discussion, but which the Supreme Court rightfully upheld the right to individual gun ownership.

This does not, however, preclude the government from having an obligation to restrict the types of weapons in private hands. That is what the Supreme Court held. You cannot ban handguns across the board...but you can still place restrictions on types of handguns and how and where they are used

I might have to retract my apology.

What restriction can the govt put upon me as to how I use a gun, except for in the commission of a crime?

What type of handguns does any Govt. document say that I cannot have?

You cannot own a machine pistol
You cannot have a gun with a silencer
You cannot fire your weapon anytime or anywhere you feel like it
You cannot take your gun into a school or on an airplane

You have a Constitutional right to own a firearm. You do not have the right to use it without restrictions

 

[Greenbeard]

Never imagined we would be voting on whether the US Constitution covered the statesl...

The question is whether the Bill of Rights is a protection from state (or in this case with the Chicago ban, local) governments. When the document was written, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. With the passage of the 14th amendment after the Civil War (an amendment expanding federal power over the states), it became possible to extend the restrictions on governmental power found in the Bill of Rights to state governments (this was first done with freedom of speech with Gitlow v. New York in the mid-1920s). Most of the rest of the protections in the Bill of Rights were later incorporated in the same way, using the 14th amendment.

However, before now the 2nd amendment hadn't been. All that was certain before is that it's a protection from federal encroachments; the question of whether a municipality could do what Chicago did was unclear.

 

[Madeline]

I think the decision was correctly decided, but I don't think guns are good for us. I wish the second amendment was not there and the US resembled the UK, but that ain't gonna alter my legal analysis.

"People will die because of this decision. It is a victory only for the gun lobby and America's fading firearms industry. The inevitable tide of frivolous pro-gun litigation destined to follow will force cities, counties, and states to expend scarce resources to defend longstanding, effective public safety laws. The gun lobby and gunmakers are seeking nothing less than the complete dismantling of our nation's gun laws in a cynical effort to try and stem the long-term drop in gun ownership and save the dwindling gun industry. The 30,000 lives claimed annually by gun violence and the families destroyed in the wake of mass shootings and murder-suicides mean little to the gun lobby and the firearm manufacturers it protects.

"It is our hope that Chicago's citizens will follow the lead of the residents of the District of Columbia--who were stripped of their handgun ban in the wake of the Supreme Court's June 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. In the two years since that decision, only 900 firearms have been registered in the District that otherwise could not have been registered before the Heller ruling. The citizens of D.C. reject the wrong-headed notion that more guns make us safer. We know the facts prove the opposite and that areas of the country with the highest concentration of gun ownership also have the highest rates of gun death. We urge Chicago residents to consider these indisputable facts before considering bringing a handgun into their homes--an act that could well prove fatal to themselves or a loved one."

Violence Policy Center Statement on McDonald v. Chicago Decision -- WASHINGTON, June 28 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Well, I was adddressing the cristicisms of waitin periods... and yes, it is just my opinion. And, in my opinion, NOBODY HAS TO HAVE A GUN RIGHT NOW.

Here in LA (that's Louisiana, NOT Los Angeles) all you have to do is sign an affidavit swearing you'r not nuts or a felon.. and you get a gun on the spot.