In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
SCOTUS gun ruling due at 10:00 AM Eastern time
Spider7115
Member Posts: 29,704 ✭✭✭
Comments
Can't wait until the Constitution is used like a rolled up newspaper on 50 states and the federal gov't for their shameful disregard for the rights of its people.
Changed it a little
LAW STRUCK DOWN
PARTY ON
YAY!
Good lord, that was close
5-4
Good lord, that was close
Is it safe to assume Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy?
Brad Steele
5-4
Good lord, that was close
Does the constitution mean anything to these 4 ?
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
5-4
Good lord, that was close
Is it safe to assume Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy?
Yep, thats it.
DC GUN BAN STRICKEN DOWN!!!
That kicks *. I think I will have a beer or 12 on that when I get home...
That was close, I wonder if this type issue will come before them again soon?
I am waiting to see the opinion's come out.
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
5-4
Good lord, that was close
Does the constitution mean anything to these 4 ?
Bryer, Souter, Ginsburg and Stevens are political hacks, absent judicial temperament, and are specifically the 'policy makers' that Alito referenced in his dissent to Kennedy vs. State of LA.
These four should be impeached today. Not tomorrow, today.
Brad Steele
By all rights it should have been 9-0.
NRA Lifetime Benefactor Member.
Which rock did those 4 Commie judges crawl out from under???
I was thinking it would go 7-2 assuming Ginsberg would never vote to support the Bill of Rights and maybe one other * would go along with her on suppressing the American people and keeping them as slaves... but no... it was the same old 5-4 again.
I won't say what I am thinking.
Too old to live...too young to die...
Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
1 minute ago
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.
ADVERTISEMENT
The court's 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.
The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "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."
The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court says 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 strikes down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.
The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "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."
The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
By all rights it should have been 9-0.
100% correct the fact that it was not a unanimous decision is VERY scary! can you say OBAMA 08!
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."
NRA Lifetime Benefactor Member.
Did that MORON really say that???
Um... what law school graduated this idiot that he never heard of the Second Amendment?
I won't write what I would really like to do.
But I cannot remember being this agitated in a long time. Those same 4 knotheads* voting against the American people... AGAIN... has just set me off.
*This is not the word I wrote. The filter changed it. You know what I wrote and that's what he is.
Too old to live...too young to die...
Haven't read but a few pages yet, Spider, but from your quote, maybe yes! They separated militia from citizen (I hear) - that would allow your interp
Those last three words made me twitch a little as if they're using "legaleze" to still allow restrictions on gun ownership. I would have been much more comfortable if that sentence simply ended with "self defense" followed by a period.
Stevens says the Constitution doesn't say anything about people owning guns???????!!!
Did that MORON really say that???
Um... what law school graduated this idiot that he never heard of the Second Amendment?
I won't write what I would really like to do.
But I cannot remember being this agitated in a long time. Those same 4 knotheads* voting against the American people... AGAIN... has just set me off.
*This is not the word I wrote. The filter changed it. You know what I wrote and that's what he is.
Those idiots only rule FOR the bad guys, like rapists.
NRA Lifetime Benefactor Member.
Too old to live...too young to die...
"the constitution does not permit 'the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.'"
Well, what does it permit *in their opinion* (since we all pretty muc hagree it doesn't permit any prohibitions - Shall not be infringed) ? everything except absolute prohibition?
Does it permit the absolute prohibition of detachable magazines over 10 rounds?
centerfire rifles with a certain grip and a detachable magazine?
We need follow up cases where these questions are answered before any of those 5 leave.
I suppose the next step, is to apply for an "assault weapon" permit here in CA, and sue once they deny it.
Don't get too cheery yet.
I suppose the next step, is to apply for an "assault weapon" permit here in CA, and sue once they deny it.
or do what SP is afraid to do and say, But I wouldn't yet either. I figure it'll be another 200 years before this bug comes to a head.