doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com NOT O.T. Court upholds Second Amendment !

We win!

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Washington D.C.'s sweeping ban on handguns is unconstitutional.

That's not the end of the subject though. The court does recognize the right for "reasonable" regulation. This is going to create a whirlwind of new attempts to create restrictive regulations through new licensing procedures, etc. I think that most laws currently on the books will stand the scrutiny of the new ruling. So, bottom line, not a lot will change--other than laws cannot be made to eliminate or confiscate arms from law abiding citizens. Believe it--the "antis" creative juices are flowing.

This ruling applies in Washington DC, a Federally governed area. The US government can and sometimes has overuled the DC city government. Second amendment righs have still not been extended to state citiizens through the 14th amendment. Until that happens all this second amendment ruling does is keep the Federal government from taking away our guns (unless you live in DC). The 14th amendment is the mechanism that brought school integration, elimination of school prayer, bussing, civil rights acts etc... It doesn't seem a stretch to apply the 2nd amendment through the 14th to the rights of citizens in the states but it still hasn't been done and this ruling doesn't do it.

Someone from Chicage would have to challenge the law arguing the 14th amendment prohibited Chicago from curbing their 2nd amendment gun rights.

Best,

Mike

best thing on the surface of it is the official recognition that the 2nd is an individual right and not a collective privelege.

The decision will have to work it's way down thru the lower courts as individual federal/state/local ststutes are challenged in part or whole.

I believe that the only immediate law overturned would be the DC ban that was the subject of the appeal. From what i understand there are only one or two other similar complete/absolute bans in place which would obviously be the initial "easy pickins" targets of litigation. After that would come all the grey/partial legal challenges and counters of "new/improved" political twistings to accomplish the same thing without actually saying so directly (IT all depends on what the meaning of "is" is).

I have only heard the blurbs from the poeple who have read the initial entry statement of the decision and the dissent. What will be interesting is all the fine points inside of it and how they play out downstream.

a couple of thoughts are; The main ruling says that it is based on the right to keep a gun for hunting and self defense that is not dependant on membership in the (gov't) "militia" (ie Nat'l guard, reserve, etc).

Does it make the case that there is a right of actual self defense and not just to have the tools available to do so? Some states/localities directly or indirectly say that is NOT the case and that you MUST retreat when threatened. NJ Supreme court recently ruled that way but left the door slightly open so that if you cannot retreat and it is your life that is in immediate danger you MIGHT be able to defend yourself. a secndary matter is whether that right of self defense extends to other people who you would defend and property and to what extent.

That would also beg the question if the law states that the gun must be locked away, unloaded &/or disassembled to prevent easy access (You might hurt yourelf or some tow headed fidget) when needed for self defense can that be shot down due to this ruling? I did hear that part of the ruling and dissent addressed that portion of the DC laws but haven't gotten the in-depth analysis on it yet.

I would also like to see the analysis of the ruling and whether it addresses/clarifies the meaning of "Militia" and the term "well regulated" as written. at the time of writing the bill of rights "well regualated" did not mean controlled/managed/licnesed by laws/bureaucrats but the form of military defense where "regulated fire" by a line of soldiers was a primary tactic of armies and to be well regulated would mean the efficient/accurate/repetitive use of this tactic during a battle.

While on the general subject was the historical definition of a Militia addressed since at the time of writing it was not a government paid/controlled standing/ready/reserve army (or police force) as the current national guard/reserves/etc are configured but more of every able bodied civilian man who would come to the local/state/national defense in time of need.

And I am sure that there are many other hair splitting/grey areas that will arrise to keep lawyers on all sides as well as shifty politicians with new twisted schemes busy for a very long time.

Opinions/speculation from the lawyers and histroians would be appreciated.

I'm glad to hear that our "Supremes" voted to uphold the 2nd. Amendment, as they should-I watched with interest the News tonight and it was 5-4.I was hoping for a 9-0 vote in favor would possibly 'send a message" to the Sarah Brady, Diane Feinstein and Hillary Clinton crowd- doesn't mean they will stop Good time to be a lawyer though- you'll see the courts full of cases and appeals and motions to overturn- and the criminal element will continue to steal guns from the law-abiding, just as before-!! But at least we won the "first round" I'm waitin' for the "Fat Broad to Sing however"!!!

Wisconsin, a few years ago, passed an amendment to the State Constitution giving residents "the right to keep and bear arms'.-Dick

The vote was 5-4.

nothing will change the opinions of the Brady/Schumer/daily Koss bunch.
they will simply adapt their arguments (or squeel louder and hold their breath until they turn blue). The offical ruling says that it is a individual right but they will simply take a different tactic and say it doesn't matter anyway since it is for your own safety if they do so.

No doubt that you will see/hear the perpetual hissy fits from their end just as they perpetully argue that they REALLY won the 2000 election so.........

Needless to say I was pleased with this ruling, but it was scary to me that four Justices of our Supreme Court voted to get rid of the 2nd Amendment. Thank God Justice Kennedy was in the right mood today.

Wait till Barack Hussien get to appoint some new judges with his Pelosi puppets help.We are screwed when that happens.