I know SOMEONE has something to say about this

[REVxERIK]

Supreme court to decide how far gun rights extend
Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:43pm EDT

Email | Print |
Share
| Reprints | Single Page
[-] Text [+]
Photo
1 of 1Full Size

By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court revived the legal battle over gun rights in America, saying it would decide whether the constitutional right of individuals to own firearms trumped state and local laws.

In a brief order on Wednesday, the court said it would settle the question by ruling in a dispute over a strict gun control law in Chicago that bans the ownership of handguns in most cases.

open link for more
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE58T44S20090930?sp=true
© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved


Gun Control is the most retarded idea. And i don't even like guns.

 

[Dis]

Banning guns is not going to stop criminals from getting their hands on them, or using them. It WILL, however, take away the ability for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, should the need arise.

I don't own any myself, and don't believe I need any, but I don't see the point behind taking away someone else's ability to own one.

I'm all for criminal background checks, and a waiting period to purchase one, though.

 

[Article 15]

Supreme court to decide how far gun rights extend
Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:43pm EDT

My .02

This needs to be shortened so the full article isn't posted and a link needs to be provided to comply with our copyright policy.

~A15

 

[REVxERIK]

Banning guns is not going to stop criminals from getting their hands on them, or using them. It WILL, however, take away the ability for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, should the need arise.

I don't own any myself, and don't believe I need any, but I don't see the point behind taking away someone else's ability to own one.

I'm all for criminal background checks, and a waiting period to purchase one, though.

i agree. regardless of laws, guns are going to be in the hands of CRIMINALS, who don't really care for laws.

 

[REVxERIK]

My .02

This needs to be shortened so the full article isn't posted and a link needs to be provided to comply with our copyright policy.

~A15

sounds good dawg, ill edit it.

 

[Big Black Dog]

I agree with Dis on this. If guns are truly outlawed in this country common sense tells you the criminals will still have them and then the odds will be more on their side when it comes to committing crimes because people will not be able to defend themselves or their property. What do you think is going to happen if the Supreme Court declares it unconstitutional to own a gun? Do you really believe all the gang bangers are going to line up outside of the police station to turn in their guns?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Article likes guns, I know you do.

You just dont want the loony toons to have em when beck pushes them over the edge


Am i wrong? .


I say guns for anyone without a violent criminal record and who can pass a background check.

 

[Ravi]

Gun Control is the most retarded idea. And i don't even like guns.

I don't think it's retarded. Certain types of criminals shouldn't be able to purchase guns.

I do think that it is unconstitutional for cities to deny their citizens something that the US constitution allows.

 

[REVxERIK]

Gun Control is the most retarded idea. And i don't even like guns.

I don't think it's retarded. Certain types of criminals shouldn't be able to purchase guns.

I do think that it is unconstitutional for cities to deny their citizens something that the US constitution allows.

good point,

 

[lawbuff]

I do think that it is unconstitutional for cities to deny their citizens something that the US constitution allows.

They can't.

This is what the case is about, incorporating the 2nd AM's individual right to the states.

The Heller case decided last year did not incorporate it to the states, as the question was not presented, it only concerned DC's ban, and DC is a Federal district.

 

[Xenophon]

Gun laws for the most part are rediculous, as criminals don't follow them.

 

[asaratis]

Gun laws for the most part are rediculous, as criminals don't follow them.

As described above, the laws applying to criminal use of guns, to criminals who may want to obtain guns and to pseudo-criminals who might be inclined to obtain guns for known criminals are not ridiculous. If there were no such laws, the criminals could legally obtain guns. Those parts of our collection of gun laws are not ridiculous.

The laws that stifle the honest man's ability to obtain guns and ammunition for legal purposes are ridiculous and pseudo-unconstitutional.

No law will preclude the obtaining of guns by criminals.

Chicago should not be allowed to deny gun ownership and possession to law abiding citizens. That is a right guaranteed to eligible U.S. citizen by the Constitution. Last I heard, Chicago is in the United States.

I believe that if we mandated that all law abiding citizens capable of properly using a handgun must be trained in the use of and carry a registered handgun on their person at all times, those citizens violating the rules (such as transferring the gun to another person) being cast into the criminal group, crime rates would go down drastically.

I don't know that it's the only municipality with such a law, but Kennesaw, Georgia requires that every household maintain a working firearm. The crime rate there is lower than most other populated areas. If a criminal mind realizes that the chances of being shot are higher, the potential crime may go uncommitted.

 

[Darkwind]

Banning guns is not going to stop criminals from getting their hands on them, or using them. It WILL, however, take away the ability for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, should the need arise.

I don't own any myself, and don't believe I need any, but I don't see the point behind taking away someone else's ability to own one.

I'm all for criminal background checks, and a waiting period to purchase one, though.

It will in fact, create a whole nation of criminals. I don't see America giving up their guns. Not even in the face of a SCOTUS ruling.

 

[Emma]

This is what the case is about, incorporating the 2nd AM's individual right to the states.

'bout time.

 

[lawbuff]

I don't see America giving up their guns. Not even in the face of a SCOTUS ruling.

A SCOTUS ruling will only make it the law of the land, but most states, if not all, already have such protections in thier state Constitutions. Here is GA's, since the other poster brought GA up:


Article I. Section I.
Paragraph VIII. Arms, right to keep and bear.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.