Supreme Court to rule on gun ownership.

[YesterdayAgain]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/11/20/scotus.handguns/index.html

From the article:

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to decide whether the District of Columbia's sweeping ban on handgun ownership violates the Constitution's fundamental right to "keep and bear arms."

Also:

At issue is one that has polarized judges and politicians for decades: Do the Second Amendment's 27 words bestow gun ownership as an individual right, or do they bestow a collective one -- aimed at the civic responsibilities of state militias -- making it therefore subject to strict government regulation.

Could be interesting, but with a conservative SCotUS, I have no worries.

Thoughts?

 

[svtfocus2cobra]

With Roberts and Elito on there, there shouldn't be anything to worry about.

...But I have been disappointed in the past.

 

[logan_yomtov]

i really don't know why this is in question.....In history, i recall reading about it people common for people to have a gun on their person...This being in the 17th and 18th centuries.....

If the 2nd amendment wasn't meant to address an individuals right to bear arms, then i'm sure we all wouldn't be having this arguement now as it would have been settled 200yrs ago.

 

[SWThomas]

It seems like our rights are being taken away a little at a time.

 

[Snowboarda42]

It seems like our rights are being taken away a little at a time.

x 45,000

 

[werstlna]

We cannot allow our rights to be whittled away based upon some new interpretation of the Constitution and its Amendments. It is clear to all serious scholars of our American history that the 2nd Amendment is meant to assure each citizen's right to keep and bear arms; there is no reason why the founders would enumerate this right of the militia. Why on earth do you need to say the militia has the right to keep and bear arms?!? Further, the amendment states the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. In all other Amendments "people" refers to the individual citizen. It is inconsistent and ethically shameful to propose that the founders meant "people" to be a collective right in the 2nd Amendment but an individual right in all the other Amendments (e.g. speech, religion, peacable assembly, search & seizure).

The Constitution and its Amendments affirm those rights which we as Americans are born with. These rights are inalienable, meaning they cannot be separated from the citizen - particularly not be an over-zealous government. Our founders were very careful to place strict limitations on the powers of government and left those powers not specifically granted to the government to stay with the people.

 

[gump]

Leftists love our 2nd Amendment like OJ loved Nicole!

 

[harry gilbert]

Be afraid, be verry afraid.

 

[gump]

Be afraid, be verry afraid.

oh but no Harry, these leftists will provide for us.

Free everything at the expense of those eViL rich people who hoard all the wealth.

Hitlery will rid Mother Earth of those people while Al Goregasm will clean Mother Earth.

 

[bugmenot]

While this is a good thing, the question that they are answering is rather narrow. However, if it is upheld, this is a good win for the pro-gun people. Just have to hope they read the 2nd amendment for what it is, not what a lot of people want it to be. Still don't know how its a question, it is clearly stated "shall not be infringed", cant get any clearer than that IMO.

 

[bullitt890]

i wish ted nugent was on the supreme court right now!!

 

[SpectorV]

Yup... take our guns so we are less able to defend ourselves when the ones that dont give a **** rob us.

 

[terrible one]

2nd ammendent - was created so that when the government isnt doing their job citizens have the right to overthrow it using granted weapons.

hmmmm..... wonder why democrats want to take away your guns? cause they cant do the job they were put in office to do and are scared that one day the American people are going to have enough of it and kick their ass out with guns!

 

[thomas91169]

2nd ammendent - was created so that when the government isnt doing their job citizens have the right to overthrow it using granted weapons.

hmmmm..... wonder why democrats want to take away your guns? cause they cant do the job they were put in office to do and are scared that one day the American people are going to have enough of it and kick their ass out with guns!

+1

everyday i see the day above coming sooner and sooner, likely within our lifetime, and likely within the next 10-20 years i see a Revolution of epic proportions as more and more people get sick of the current government and its actions (or lack thereof).

 

[TrueBlueGT]

I don't think it's fair to say that our rights (within the realm of gun ownership/possession) are being whittled away. Just this past weekend I took the training course for my CCH license for the state of KS. More & more states are opening up to the idea of allowing concealed carry because it IS statistically proven to reduce crimes committed against fellow citizens.....or maybe the states are just caving to their constituents' pressure. Either way, it's happening & I'm getting mine. I'll be toting my favorite flavor of .45 legally soon enough.

 

[My Cobra]

I have my CCL also. The rights are being taken away. They can put on paper that we are not allowed to carry or have guns but it takes more than a paper to get people to stop.

 

[bugmenot]

Maybe in your state they are being lenient, but come to the republic of CA. It is VERY VERY hard to get concealed carry where I live, and most of the surrounding area. On one of the gun forums I visit, someone got denied and their job had them carry around large sums of money. Its a joke, and they just keep slowly chipping away. Maybe you do not notice due to where you live, but every year they try and pass some bs. This year it was the stamp on the casing. This was not a shot at you, just explaining how it is here, shitty.

 

[Rochard]

We cannot allow our rights to be whittled away based upon some new interpretation of the Constitution and its Amendments. It is clear to all serious scholars of our American history that the 2nd Amendment is meant to assure each citizen's right to keep and bear arms; there is no reason why the founders would enumerate this right of the militia. Why on earth do you need to say the militia has the right to keep and bear arms?!? Further, the amendment states the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. In all other Amendments "people" refers to the individual citizen. It is inconsistent and ethically shameful to propose that the founders meant "people" to be a collective right in the 2nd Amendment but an individual right in all the other Amendments (e.g. speech, religion, peacable assembly, search & seizure).

The Constitution and its Amendments affirm those rights which we as Americans are born with. These rights are inalienable, meaning they cannot be separated from the citizen - particularly not be an over-zealous government. Our founders were very careful to place strict limitations on the powers of government and left those powers not specifically granted to the government to stay with the people.

Your wrong.

The Constitution was written hundreds of years ago. It was written in a time when you had to carry a gun for protection because there was no law enforcement, and in the event we were invaded by another country it would take months for an armed miltia to respond. The framers of the Constitution had no idea we would become a nation with millions of people.

I'm a former United States Marine. I've fired every gun under the sun from handguns, rifles, shotguns, sub machine guns, and machine guns so big I couldn't carry them.

Someone explain to me why we need guns?

Are you worried about someone breaking into your house? Then perhaps you need to move or get a very large dog. I keep my doors locked, my home alarm on, and I own a dog.

Do you really mean to tell me that if someone breaks into your house your going to suddenly wake up, pull a handgun out of the nightstand, and kill someone? Chances are by the time you wake up it's already too late. And if you tell me that thirty seconds after you wake at 3am in the morning your perfectly alert and able to handle a gun - I'll tell you your high.

Then comes my favorite part.... You shoot someone who breaks into your house, there's a good chance your going to jail. And if you don't - the intruders family will sue you.

Hunting is the only reason anyone should own a gun. And you don't go hunting with handguns.

 

[svtfocus2cobra]

^ I'm sorry but that was some of the worst logic I've ever heard against owning guns.

 

[Rochard]

^ I'm sorry but that was some of the worst logic I've ever heard against owning guns.

If you got something better, bring it.

I'm guesing that most people who own guns aren't really trained to use them. Oh, they took their safety course five years go...... I'd love to see them trying to shoot another person in the dark after being waken up from a dead sleep.

I have a friend of mine locally who as an AK47 and AR15. Can someone explain to me why anyone who is not in law enforcement needs an assult rifle? Does he need to protect his apartment?

The best one was my programmer Phil. This was a few years ago in Phoenix. He got pulled over for running a stop sign. The officer asked him if he had any guns in his car and I nearly crapped in my pants when he said "Yes, officer, I have multiple guns in the car". This kid, barely legal drinking age, had enough guns in his car to start a small war. He had rilfles, shotguns, handguns, and assult rfiles - including a MAC10?

Yeah, we need more people like him owning guns.