Survivalist Forum banner

Do you support gun control

  • Yes, I favor strong gun control measures

    Votes: 1 0.3%
  • Yes, I favor some gun control( hi cap mag ban,some types of guns)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I favor some laws, storage of guns, background checks

    Votes: 34 10.6%
  • No new gun control laws,...criminals don't follow laws

    Votes: 105 32.7%
  • No, gun laws are too restrictive right now.

    Votes: 181 56.4%

2nd Amendment Interpretation-GUN RIGHTS THREADS MERGED HERE

139K views 1K replies 450 participants last post by  Bluetick Coonhound 
#1 ·
Supreme court on Gun rights - all threads merged

The Supreme Court just ruled that everyone has the right to keep and beer arms.I have no other detail anthis time.:D
 
#2 ·
THE D.C. Gun Ban is OFFICIALLY D-U-N......DONE

Well it's about dang time! Score 1 for Gun Owners!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns

Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun rights

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.
 
#4 ·
Here are some links:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7474924.stm

A ban on handguns in Washington DC has been ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court.

In a 5-4 decision, the justices upheld a lower court ruling striking down the ban. The justices said individuals had a right to own guns for personal use.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns

WASHINGTON - 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.

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."
 
#6 ·
We won thats all that matters. It is sad to see the justices so split. What you said, learn how to read justices. This will change things drastically; for instance trigger locks will be banned, & Chicago & New York will have to change drastically or face huge lawsuits. Yes it's one for the good guys. There may be some hope for this country yet. I haven't felt like partying for a while but this weekend its time to celebrate.
 
#8 ·
High court strikes down gun ban

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a sweeping ban on handguns in the nation's capital violated the Second Amendment right to bear arms.


A gun ownership supporter holds a placard in March outside the Supreme Court in Washington.

The justices voted 5-4 against the ban, with Justice Antonin Scalia writing the opinion for the majority.

At issue in District of Columbia v. Heller was whether Washington's ban violated the right to "keep and bear arms" by preventing individuals -- as opposed to state militias -- from having guns in their homes.

"Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security and where gun violence is a serious problem," Scalia wrote. "That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."

Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, who are all considered conservative voices on the court. Justice Anthony Kennedy, often seen as a swing vote, also joined the majority.

District of Columbia officials argued they had the responsibility to impose "reasonable" weapons restrictions to reduce violent crime, but several Washingtonians challenged the 32-year-old law. Some said they had been constant victims of crimes and needed guns for protection. See how proponents, opponents argued »

In March 2007, a federal appeals court overturned the ban, which keeps most private citizens from owning handguns and keeping them in their homes.

Don't Miss
Child rapists can't be executed, court rules
Court rules in favor of Muslim at Gitmo
High court to decide whether Navy saving whales
Gun laws in high court's sights
It was the first time a federal appeals court ruled a gun law unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds. iReport.com: What's your reaction to the ruling?

City attorneys urged the high court to intervene, warning, "The District of Columbia -- a densely populated urban locality where the violence caused by handguns is well-documented -- will be unable to enforce a law that its elected officials have sensibly concluded saves lives."

There were 143 gun-related murders in Washington last year, compared with 135 in 1976, when the handgun ban was enacted.

The Second Amendment says, "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 wording repeatedly has raised the question of whether gun ownership is an individual right, or a collective one pertaining to state militias and therefore subject to regulation.

In an Opinion Research Corp. poll of 1,035 adult Americans this month, 67 percent of those surveyed said they felt the Second Amendment gave individuals the right to own guns. Thirty percent said it provided citizens the right to form a militia. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. See poll results »

The Supreme Court has avoided the question since the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. The high court last examined the issue in 1939 but stayed away from the broad constitutional question.

Only Chicago, Illinois, has a handgun ban as sweeping as Washington's, though Maryland, Massachusetts and San Francisco, California, joined the Windy City in issuing briefs supporting the district's ban.

The National Rifle Association, Disabled Veterans for Self-Defense and the transgender group Pink Pistols -- along with 31 states -- filed briefs supporting the District of Columbia's gun owners.

In February, a majority of U.S. congressmen -- 55 senators and 250 representatives -- filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to strike down Washington's ordinance.


"Our founders didn't intend for the laws to be applied to some folks and not to others," Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana, said at the time.

Washington's ban applies only to handguns. The city allows possession of rifles and shotguns, although it requires that they be kept in the home, unloaded and fitted with locks or dissembled.

Wohoo!
 
#9 ·
Now the anti-gun nuts will create a frenzy about how the crime rate will skyrocket and how the court created a more dangerous America. The Vitriol begins.

I thank god that the ruling came down now. If Obama wins the court will swing more toward socialism and our historic rights as stong citizens will be challenged. The left wants a nanny state with the Government providing service womb to tomb which IMO is completely opposite our heritage. We used to be the CAN DO country but we are becoming the who is going help me country. We have a nation full of victims.

If it all goes the way the left wants we won't be electing Senators and Presidents we will be electing sheep herders.
 
#10 ·
Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
6 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - 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.

ADVERTISEMENT

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.

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.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, 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."

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

Gun rights supporters hailed the decision. "I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.

The NRA will file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several of its suburbs challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.

The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.

**** Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.

The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President **** Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.

Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

In a concluding paragraph to the his 64-page opinion, Scalia said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."

The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.

Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.

Amen
 
#15 ·
Before you shout for glory:

Anyone notice the limitations on purpose ( self defense, hunting, etc. ) NOT Defense against an oppressive government; or the limits on Type of weapons ????

OH, let's not forget the " REGULATION " exception !!!!

Obama will be elected and the Democrates WILL pick-up more seats in both the House & Senate. So what are our chances of keeping our RTKBA with that ?

Zip, Zero, Nada !!!! :( :mad: :eek:
 
#16 ·
I was happy with the ruling but sad to see the 5-4 decision. It helps cast doubt.

Either way with the ruling in place in favor of gun owners, even if Obama would get in and swing the house and senate - the hurdle of the supreme court decision would still be there.
 
#18 ·
it was only 5-4...only 5 supreme justices beleive in the 2nd amendment...amazing. back in the 40's or 50's even up to the 70 it probably would have been like 8-1. its just amazing how many people are scared of guns or dont want us to have them. and whenever a senator/represenatives family member is shot they go on a anti gun crusade in congress with gun bans and restrictions. dont punish us because your family member was either unlucky or stupid.
 
#20 ·
doesnt anyone remember that hitler disarmed the jews and people of germany years before WWII and the gathering of jews? he took all their guns away gradually, first hi-cap mags, then semi automatic then eventually handguns. he did all that so they couldnt fight back, so why does the american government want to make us helpless? i dont think they want to gather up jews or anything but why are they trying to do this?
 
#22 ·
now this is scary, but then again i guess for those who believe that the constitution is an evolving document it is expected

now we need a case to tie the 2nd and 14th together so it will be tied to the states by precedent before obama changes the court

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."
 
  • Like
Reactions: ready1
#27 ·
Its a temporary victory for now. If Obama gets in, then you can bet your rear that he will do everything he can to repeal the courts decision. And you can bet he will base that on something like "guns are only for hunting, and shooting clubs" sorta BS.


Oh and TENNGRIZZ, you left out 1 person. George S. Patton (Old blood and guts). Just think what he would do with our country, he didn't take sh*t from anyone. :D
 
#28 ·
i was just on a news site and i heard some liberal fools complaining about this case. there was a link to the virginia tech shooting and columnbine saying that "the stupid conservative supreme court doesnt understand the 2nd amendment" and calls them "red necks who cling to their guns from spite" i cant beleive this. i do think its time for the million gun march.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top