quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I've finished reading the majority opinion and have to say that it is better stated than the syllabus but it still is a rather poor ruling.

The gist remains that while he seems to intend this to be a rather sweeping ruling he makes the right into a right unlike any other. He does make a rather supreme effort to sweep away the word 'bear' in the ammendment which is clearly an attempt to not turn things into the wild west. How that is supposed to work is completely unclear to me at this point.

I'm going to predict that this right will last only as long as this far right majority lasts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

In a 5-4 decision, the US Supreme Court struck down the Washington D.C.. ban on handguns.

The case is likely to be a landmark case as it is the first time in US history the Supreme Court rules on the interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

The case is a major victory for gun-rights advocates since it interprets the second amendment as an individual right.

Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion joined by Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy.

quote:

NY Times, June 27, 2008
By David Stout
Susan Walsh, Associated Press

The Supreme Court declared for the first time on Thursday that the Constitution protects an individual’s right to have a gun, not just the right of the states to maintain militias

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the landmark 5-to-4 decision, said the Constitution does not allow “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.” In so declaring, the majority found that a gun-control law in the nation’s capital went too far by making it nearly impossible to own a handgun.

But the court held that the individual right to possess a gun “for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home” is not unlimited. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,” Justice Scalia wrote.

The ruling does not mean, for instance, that laws against carrying concealed weapons are to be swept aside. Furthermore, Justice Scalia wrote, “The court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

The decision upheld a federal appeals court ruling that the District of Columbia’s gun law, one of the strictest in the country, went beyond constitutional limits. Not only did the 1976 law make it practically impossible for an individual to legally possess a handgun in the district, but it also spelled out rules for the storage of rifles and shotguns. But the court did not articulate a specific standard of review for what might be a reasonable restraint on the right to possess a firearm.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius
Did this ban or the bans in Chicago, bring down the murder rates, or in anyway prevent criminals from acquiring firearms?  Simple answer, NO.  Just as any other prohibition, the people that choose to work outside of the law will get their hands on whatever they wish to get.  Prohibitions only affect those that choose to remain within the restraints of the law.

?
Chicago's murder rates are way down. You can't make a causitive association as other factors are hard to factor out but simply claiming the murder rate has not been affected by the ban is simply not correct.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

Sorry...I dont trust the cops nor would I rely on them if I am in danger. It takes 15 mins to respond to a 911 call. If someone is breaking into my house, what do I do for those 15 mins? Pray?

Give me a break!

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I've finished reading the majority opinion and have to say that it is better stated than the syllabus but it still is a rather poor ruling.

The gist remains that while he seems to intend this to be a rather sweeping ruling he makes the right into a right unlike any other. He does make a rather supreme effort to sweep away the word 'bear' in the ammendment which is clearly an attempt to not turn things into the wild west. How that is supposed to work is completely unclear to me at this point.

I'm going to predict that this right will last only as long as this far right majority lasts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

There`s a myth floating that DC residence were defenseless and with out firearms.

It was a ban on hand guns.You could have a rifle or shotgun in your home.

This law won`t make anyone safer.Lol,a few dopes will end up shooting themselves in the leg or shooting a family member/friend.

A shotgun is safer for the user and a better weapon against home invasion.

There was no lack of fire power for residents of DC.

This law will invariably add more handguns to the streets awash in guns and into criminal`s hands.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I've finished reading the majority opinion and have to say that it is better stated than the syllabus but it still is a rather poor ruling.

The gist remains that while he seems to intend this to be a rather sweeping ruling he makes the right into a right unlike any other. He does make a rather supreme effort to sweep away the word 'bear' in the ammendment which is clearly an attempt to not turn things into the wild west. How that is supposed to work is completely unclear to me at this point.

I'm going to predict that this right will last only as long as this far right majority lasts.

DomKen, but wouldn't a far left majority want to "restore" rights that were taken from us by the far right?
Or are you saying that they'd "take away" more rights from us than the far right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

Well....Europe does go crazy with their restrictions on freedoms. You cant walk anywhere in Britain today without being on camera. Guns are banned. They dont even have a free press.

I dont want that kind of stuff in America.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius
In regards to your prediction, I actually think we will see an effort from the gun control side to use what they attempted in the '90s, regulating what types of ammunition are legal (outright bans on any ammunition capable of piercing body armor).  It gives them much more flexibility, and also allows them to control the "in common use" clause of the arguement.   See the trick is not to make the law super strict, but leave room for definition of terms like "body armor" which could easily be defined if they chose as a cotton shirt and pair of jeans.  In other words, I predict an assault on the 2nd Ammendment via alternative routes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

This is a Supreme Court ruling. It is the law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

Guns are NEVER going to be banned. The gun control lobby needs to just give up that pipe-dream. Instead they should be concentrating on improving gun safety and push for training classes on certain types of firearms.

The ruling will stick because it is the first major ruling on the 2nd amendment that deals with the question directly. Therefore it will be difficult for a future court to go against the precedent of a previous case that dealt with the issue so directly. Can it be weakened? Possibly. But you are never going to get the court to overturn the interpretation that owning a gun is an individual freedom.

This is a MAJOR victory for gun rights.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

Guns are NEVER going to be banned. The gun control lobby needs to just give up that pipe-dream. Instead they should be concentrating on improving gun safety and push for training classes on certain types of firearms.

The ruling will stick because it is the first major ruling on the 2nd amendment that deals with the question directly. Therefore it will be difficult for a future court to go against the precedent of a previous case that dealt with the issue so directly. Can it be weakened? Possibly. But you are never going to get the court to overturn the interpretation that owning a gun is an individual freedom.

This is a MAJOR victory for gun rights.

You're wrong here. Scalia goes over in detail the previous SCOTUS rulings on this issue, all went with the well regulated militia clause, and why the majority didn't feel bound by all those precedents.

You ignore stare decisis once and you certainly make it a lot easier for a future court to ignore stare decisis in regards to your ruling. I'd be stunned if this ruling make it to 2020.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

Guns are NEVER going to be banned. The gun control lobby needs to just give up that pipe-dream. Instead they should be concentrating on improving gun safety and push for training classes on certain types of firearms.

The ruling will stick because it is the first major ruling on the 2nd amendment that deals with the question directly. Therefore it will be difficult for a future court to go against the precedent of a previous case that dealt with the issue so directly. Can it be weakened? Possibly. But you are never going to get the court to overturn the interpretation that owning a gun is an individual freedom.

This is a MAJOR victory for gun rights.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
I'm sorry but I don't see it. If the right can be taken away by a judge then it can certainly be limited by a legislature. It even makes clear that what type of firearms are allowed is still under the purview of the legislatures.