The Second Amendment Ruling!

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by LDBennett, Jun 29, 2010.

  1. LDBennett

    LDBennett Well-Known Member

    Dec 20, 2003
    Hesperia, CA
    So finally after decades of trying we finally got the Supreme Court to affirm that the Second Amendment refers to a personal right to own and bear arms, not the right of states to raise a militia. We finally got the second amendment incorporated, along with all the other rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights, as personal rights of citizens. And they affirmed the right is extended to all citizens, not just those in Washington DC. YEA!!!

    But we are not done yet as crafty liberals will write registration laws that will attempt to make gun ownership so onerous that it will be nearly impossible to own a gun. Then we'll have to sue them and go back to court again. At some point, long after I am gone, we may get gun rights returned with no nuances. I'll not hold my breathe waiting for that day.

    I watched part of Hanity (FOX News) last night and that super liberal Democratic strategist (can't remember his name... big older guy) was on, still caught in the Militia argument and the children killed at home in gun accident argument **. It upset me so much I changed the channel. These anti-gunners just do not give up.

    Feinstein started hitting on the Supreme Court about the Second Amendment ruling during the Kagan confirmation hearings and I turned her off too. It really upsets me to think that these heavily protected nuts, like Feinstein with her security staff, don't want to allow people like Mc Donald, who has to live in a crime ridden community and suffer burglaries and intimidation from gang banger and druggies, to not have any protection at all. I'd like to drop her and that liberal Democratic strategist into Mc Donald's community and see if their outlook on self protection with firearms changes. Funny how these super liberals, who live a protected life, care little about the rest of us who have to live in the real world, sometimes surrounded by crime.

    Anyway, yesterday was a Red Letter day for gun owners but the fight is not over just yet.


    **According to the National Center for Health Statistics in all age groups from age 5 to age 24, firearms deaths are much less than 1% of the total deaths to kids and this liberal throws out some number he claims was large enough to take all firearms away from everyone.
  2. Marlin

    Marlin *TFF Admin Staff Chief Counselor*

    Mar 27, 2003
    At SouthernMoss' side forever!
    Here's an interesting commentary about the SCOTUS decision from today's American Vision Newsletter.


    Warning Shot to Liberals: Supreme Court Affirms Gun Right

    By Joel McDurmond

    Today the Supreme Court affirmed the Constitution by deciding 5-4 that the Second Amendment extends to all States and local governments. This is a victory for freedom and Constitutional history.

    The decision almost guarantees that local government gun-control laws, such as Chicago’s 28-year ban on handguns, will be eliminated soon. In fact, some groups already anticipating today’s decision immediately filed lawsuits against the windy city as the decision was delivered.

    Justice Alito authored the majority decision. Read the full decision and dissents here. In his first paragraph Alito refers to the Chicago law and bases his decision on the parallel case of Washington, DC’s handgun ban which the Court struck down two years ago (see page 1 of the decision, page 7 of the PDF).

    This, of course, should have been a no-brainer for all. The Bill of Rights delegates certain powers to the Federal Government and prohibits certain powers to the States. This is the flip-side of the Tenth Amendment so much talked about today. Yes, nothing explicitly delegated to the Federal Government (such as Health Care) should legally be enforced uniformly on all States by the Feds. BUT, what the Constitution does delegate to the Feds (enforcement of the right to bear arms) the State and local municipalities should have no right to infringe. This lesson is so simple and yet so powerful, and so essential to our freedom. And no feminist, tyrant, or wacko can take these rights away.

    The great irony therefore is why four of the justices dissented. I say “irony” not “mystery,” for we know why they dissented—their radical leftism. Does anything illustrate their activism more than a dissent on this decision, which should be so obviously clear to everyone?

    While the dissent is more complex than the small amount that has surfaced, the general objection is pitiful and quite honestly fallacious. The Wall Street Journal reports:
    Justice Stephen Breyer, in a dissent joined by justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, said the majority ruling misinterpreted history.

    “[N]othing in 18th-, 19th-, 20th-, or 21st-century history shows a consensus that the right to private armed self-defense…is ‘deeply rooted in this nation’s history or tradition’ or is otherwise ‘fundamental,’ ” Justice Breyer wrote.

    Aside from the blind idiocity of this comment (see my DVD God, Guns, and Gold: Foundations of Christian Freedom), history and tradition of gun use is not at issue here. The issue is not about interpreting history, it is about interpreting law. The issue is the nature of the Bill of Rights and how it applies to State and local governments. The logic here is like shooting red herring in a barrel. Too bad the liberal justices don’t care about logic.

    This entry was posted in American History, Articles, Ethics, Government, History, Politics and tagged gun rights, guns, justice alito, mcdonald, mcdonald vs chicago, Second Amendment, supreme court. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.

    Printed from:

  3. LDBennett

    LDBennett Well-Known Member

    Dec 20, 2003
    Hesperia, CA
    It is too bad that these decision are so finely tuned to each specific case rather than give a full ruling on the application of entire law or in this case the Second Amendment. It seems so sensible that the limits for the states (cities, counties and the federal government) should be specified in any interpretation of the Second Amendment so we don't have to keep coming back for further interpretation, like:

    Is registration legal?

    Is onerous regulations on gun ownership not allowed?

    Is "Shall Issue" legislation mandatory because of this freedom to bear arms granted by the Second Amendment?

    Is limiting the kind of guns permitted (like assault weapons bans and phony safety requirement as in the "certified guns only CA laws)?

    Is the ban of certain ammo types or registration of ammo purchases allowed?

    All of these issue (and others) will come up in the future, for sure, and addressing them now rather than later seems prudent. But I guess the law doesn't work that way. The law and the resultant regulations often times contain no common sense and seem only to be part of the game that is "the law" that lawyers and judges like to play at our expense.

  4. dbrodin

    dbrodin New Member

    Apr 15, 2009
    Duluth MN
    They had a choice between using "due process" and "rights and immunities" for the basis of the ruling. They used "due process". In my non-lawyer mind, that route leaves the door wider open to end run legislation. One of the key things they did do was reject the premise that other "civilized nations" ban guns, therefore it can not be an "inherent right". I'm tired of courts ruling based on what other countries do.

  5. Nortranman

    Nortranman New Member

    Dec 11, 2005
    Last time I checked, the U.N. and all those other countries that have banned firearms don't live in this country under our form of government. The libs are just itching to prove how "evil" guns are so they can join with the U.N. in banning them!
  6. belercous

    belercous Former Guest

    Aug 7, 2009
    Chicago v. McDonald did 2 things: 1.0 It outlawed blanket prohibitions on handgun ownership in the home, and 2.0 It "incorporated" the 2nd Amen. under the "priviliges & immunities" clause of the 14th. Amen., but not as a full-fledged right as are other amendments.
    The 2nd is still subject to restrictions, but then again, so are all amendments. (e.g., "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." Yet, it is illegal to yell "fire" in a moviehouse. {But still legal to yell "movie" in a firehouse} And this plainly contradicts the text of the 1st Amen. The "plain & clear" language of the Const. is not absolute.)
    The right to "bear" arms has not yet been addressed by the Court. We need to take this one step at a time. Chicago's blanket ban on handguns will soon be history. (It's not yet, as the Court remanded {not overturned} to the trial {District} court for review in accordance with Chicago v. McDonald. It will be soon, but not yet.)
    The inevitable seating of Ms. Kagan will do nothing to change the compostion of the Court, Justice Kennedy will still be the swing vote. It is to him that any close case will be argued to.
    We are ahead and winning, but not by much. No dramatic/sweeping cases ought to be brought now lest we lose momentum. The key is small, incremental advancements of the 2nd, in STATE COURTS, (primarily Ill, Cal, & N.J.) so that when a case comes before the Court we can show that the states & public sentiment are behind it and the few areas of restriction are outliers. The Court needs to see that public opinion is on our side. We need to favor stricter enforcement laws against crimminals using guns
    Now is not the time to get cocky, we need to consolidate our winnings. Perhaps wait a year or so and then challenge "open" carry under the 2nd Amen. as the part (not addressed in McDonald) of "bearing" arms. Really, what does "bearing" arms mean? We know what to "keep" arms means (ala McDonald), and if the word "bear" has no meaning, why did the 1st Congress use it? It must mean something as the Founding Fathers knew what words meant and did not use extra/superfluous verbiage.
    Again, and I cannot stress this enough, now is not the time to bring a case, which if decided against us could set us back decades, but rather we should take baby-steps toward increasing our 2nd Amen. rights via the states before we go federal. Let's not risk losing what we can get tomorrow by demanding it all today. We will get there, be patient. The freed slaves did not get all of their rights for over 100 years, we've just got the first 2 steps, more will follow if we don't rush it.
    And I'm as eager to C.C. as can be, I live in Ill., but I don't want to blow it, espescially now that we are so close. (BTW, southern Ill. {where I live}) is all for C.C., we just need to overcome Chicago. And we can, in time)
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum House Passes Bill to Protect Second Amendment Rights of America’s Veterans Mar 18, 2017
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Second amendment: a good deal, but a deal nonetheless. Aug 13, 2016
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Miss South Carolina Digs Second Amendment Sep 17, 2015
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Court Says Waiting Period in CA Violates The Second Amendment Aug 25, 2014
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Court Ruling: Waiting Periods a "Burden" on Second Amendment Rights Dec 20, 2013