Supreme Court: 2nd amendment applies to states as well

[GunsBeerFreedom]

Automatic weapons
Handguns made of carbon fibres and plastic to get through metal detectors
Handguns disguised as other items
Derringers
Handguns with attached silencers

Tell me, what's wrong with any of those items? Also note that #2 does not exist.

 

[rightwinger]

Automatic weapons
Handguns made of carbon fibres and plastic to get through metal detectors
Handguns disguised as other items
Derringers
Handguns with attached silencers

Tell me, what's wrong with any of those items? Also note that #2 does not exist.

Either excessive firepower or ability to be concealed. Sorry boys...you can't have every toy you want

 

[Jarhead]

Automatic weapons
Handguns made of carbon fibres and plastic to get through metal detectors
Handguns disguised as other items
Derringers
Handguns with attached silencers

Tell me, what's wrong with any of those items? Also note that #2 does not exist.

The "silencers" dont sit well with me....on handguns.

If you are to use a handgun legitimately, there is no reason to silence it.

 

[Jarhead]

Automatic weapons
Handguns made of carbon fibres and plastic to get through metal detectors
Handguns disguised as other items
Derringers
Handguns with attached silencers

Tell me, what's wrong with any of those items? Also note that #2 does not exist.

Either excessive firepower or ability to be concealed. Sorry boys...you can't have every toy you want

Excessive firepower would prove to be useful against excessive firepower.
No?

 

[rightwinger]

Tell me, what's wrong with any of those items? Also note that #2 does not exist.

Either excessive firepower or ability to be concealed. Sorry boys...you can't have every toy you want

Excessive firepower would prove to be useful against excessive firepower.
No?

Sorry boys...no toys for you

Afraid the law agrees with me and it makes sense. Bring it up at your next NRA meeting. You will find a shoulder to cry on

 

[CMike]

Automatic weapons
Handguns made of carbon fibres and plastic to get through metal detectors
Handguns disguised as other items
Derringers
Handguns with attached silencers

Tell me, what's wrong with any of those items? Also note that #2 does not exist.

Either excessive firepower or ability to be concealed. Sorry boys...you can't have every toy you want

Rather a silly statement since a 12 gauge shotgun is more powerful than any handgun?

What's wrong with a derringer, other than only allowing one or two shots before reload?

 

[CMike]

Either excessive firepower or ability to be concealed. Sorry boys...you can't have every toy you want

Excessive firepower would prove to be useful against excessive firepower.
No?

Sorry boys...no toys for you

Afraid the law agrees with me and it makes sense. Bring it up at your next NRA meeting. You will find a shoulder to cry on

Derringers are legal.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why don't the states rightsers want to repeal the 2nd amendment and let the states decide how to regulate guns?

 

[GunsBeerFreedom]

Why don't the states rightsers want to repeal the 2nd amendment and let the states decide how to regulate guns?

Hmmm.... like say they wanted to do that with other rights as well? Like, voting, or free speech?

 

[GunsBeerFreedom]

Afraid the law agrees with me and it makes sense.

Not really, the opinion in Miller (1937) said quite the opposite.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why don't the states rightsers want to repeal the 2nd amendment and let the states decide how to regulate guns?

Hmmm.... like say they wanted to do that with other rights as well? Like, voting, or free speech?

Or abortion?

That the 'state's rightsers' don't want to repeal the 2nd amendment and take that power away from the federal government and give it to the states is just proof that they put outcomes ahead of principles.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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".

Since they used a flawed argument to uphold the right to bear arms it is an activist decision. They should have incorporated it using the Privileges and Immunity clause of the 14th amendment, and not using substantive due process.

 

[Nonelitist]

Either excessive firepower or ability to be concealed. Sorry boys...you can't have every toy you want

Excessive firepower would prove to be useful against excessive firepower.
No?

Sorry boys...no toys for you

Afraid the law agrees with me and it makes sense. Bring it up at your next NRA meeting. You will find a shoulder to cry on

Ah.... here is where your true colors come out. Before you stated that you weren't anti gun... now we get into it and indeed you are.


Stupid pathetic *****.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That is great news.

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

So do conservatives.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pk8IxqYF0E]YouTube - Liberal and Conservative Agree on Bill of Rights...[/ame]

 

[Nonelitist]

Either excessive firepower or ability to be concealed. Sorry boys...you can't have every toy you want

Excessive firepower would prove to be useful against excessive firepower.
No?

Sorry boys...no toys for you

Afraid the law agrees with me and it makes sense. Bring it up at your next NRA meeting. You will find a shoulder to cry on

You mean those laws that the SC keeps shooting down as unconstitutional?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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/ --

Gun Control's Twisted Outcome - Reason Magazine

 

[daveman]

Why don't the states rightsers want to repeal the 2nd amendment and let the states decide how to regulate guns?

Hmmm.... like say they wanted to do that with other rights as well? Like, voting, or free speech?

Or abortion?

That the 'state's rightsers' don't want to repeal the 2nd amendment and take that power away from the federal government and give it to the states is just proof that they put outcomes ahead of principles.

You really don't understand how the Constitution works, do you?

 

[daveman]

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/ --

Gun Control's Twisted Outcome - Reason Magazine

Yet another lefty ideal shown to be a colossal failure.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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".

This has got to be the quotidian...but, hopefully not the most quintessential on the subject...


"I AM a math teacher at Brockton High School, the site of a school shooting earlier this month.

Current school security procedures lock down school populations in the event of armed assault. Some advocate abandoning this practice as it holds everyone in place, allowing a shooter easily to find victims.

Some propose overturning laws that made schools gun-free zones even for teachers who may be licensed to securely carry concealed firearms elsewhere. They argue that barring licensed-carry only ensures a defenseless, target-rich environment.

But as a progressive, I would sooner lay my child to rest than succumb to the belief that the use of a gun for self-defense is somehow not in itself a gun crime.

DOUG VAN GORDER
Quincy "
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed..._campaign=8315

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e...es/2009/12/28/guns_teachers_and_self_defense/



Jaw dropping.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Automatic weapons
Handguns made of carbon fibres and plastic to get through metal detectors
Handguns disguised as other items
Derringers
Handguns with attached silencers

Tell me, what's wrong with any of those items? Also note that #2 does not exist.

Either excessive firepower or ability to be concealed. Sorry boys...you can't have every toy you want

What is "excessive" firepower? If two guys push into my house with AK-47s with a modified sear to be full auto, must I confront them with a .38 special? Not that I'm trying to have a fire-fight in my house, but at least give me a sporting chance.

The court focuses primarily on the right to self defense, but Justice Alito also adds a more nuanced bit of reasoning in his decision. He talks about the fact that the right is "deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions" :

Heller also clarifies that this right is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradi-tions,” Glucksberg, supra, at 721. Heller explored the right’s origins in English law and noted the esteem with which the right was re-garded during the colonial era and at the time of the ratification ofthe Bill of Rights. This is powerful evidence that the right was re-garded as fundamental in the sense relevant here. That understand-ing persisted in the years immediately following the Bill of Rights’ratification and is confirmed by the state constitutions of that era,which protected the right to keep and bear arms.

McDonald case

This points to the primary reason the anti-Federalists sought the 2nd Amendment in the first place. The anti-Federalists were none too sure about having a strong central government. They had just finished fighting a war with one of those. They were quite sure that no matter how many protections were inserted in the Constitution, no matter how ingenious the authors and checks and balances, that years of concerted avaricious behavior on the part of successive Presidents and other politicians would eventually work to devolve all power to the central government. That the government could, and probably would, become tyrannical.

Going back to the Constitution and its basis, the Constitution is the social contract that the citizens of the United States have with its government. That's why states did not ratify the Constitution but it was ratified by the citizens of the state assembled for that purpose. The National government obtains its right to govern directly from the people, state by state. The state government did not do it. However, if the people no longer have the right to reject the contract, it becomes a contract of adhesion. A concept in the law where one party has no choice, so they can not be said to have freely contracted therefore the contract is void.

A well-armed citizenry ensures the right of the people to reject the contract if the other party becomes tyrannical. But, you cannot have a reserved right to revolution with "pop-guns". That doesn't mean people should be allowed to have tanks, but they should be allowed military grade weapons. I'm OK with semi-auto that's easy enough to remedy if need be. But, effective ammo and decent weapons need to be available to the population to act as a preemptive check on government. It was created for that purpose by the anti-Federalists and it may be the only effective means of keeping the cows in the barn.