Happy dance...happy dance...

Though it should never have had to go to the SCOTUS in the first place...though it does my heart good to see at least five of them know what the Constitution is supposed to be. And as long as its five or more, we're golden.

Happy dance...happy dance.

Oh dear, oh dear. Only the US could consider this a step forward...

Originally posted by seagull
Freedom of speech? Freedom to assemble? Freedom of religion? Freedom to be safe in your own home? Something else? Or maybe you'd just prefer that nannystate take care of everything for you? Including choosing which freedoms you have.

That's the real issue, isn't it? If they can nullify the 2nd Amendment and the rights it protects, what's to stop them from nullifying the others. Be careful of that slippery slope.

There's also another point that needs to be made. The 2nd Amendment doesn't actually grant the right to individual firearm ownership, just as it doesn't really grant any other rights. It recognizes and protects them from the government (or, at least, its supposed to). If the 2nd Amendment were stripped away tomorrow, you would still have that right, subject to the local and federal laws on the books. There would just be nothing stopping them from passing a complete gun ban.

Originally posted by Smokersroom
Freedom is what you make of it. Unfortunately this is one freedom that will ultimately see people dying.

Could you please tell us how this will lead to "more people dying?"

This is if the first (I believe, but could be wrong) major decision on the Second Amendment since 1790. Since that time, most thinking on the Second Amendment is that it did confer an individual's right to possess a firearm. What the decision yesterday did was not grant a new right to the people, but rather confirmed a right we've considered ours for 220 years. Further, the decision did not say that states and localities did not have the right to regulate the ownership of firearms; Scalia's opinion confirmed their authority to do so. The opinion allows states and cities to regulate gun ownership, but does not allow them to legislate them out of existence.

I am so hyped about this good news, that I just joined the NRA to give them my support in the good work that I feel that they do. I have been planning on joining soon anyway, put this just pushed me a little earlier than I had planed.

I don't even own a weapon yet, but that is on my agenda as well. I intend to purchase one in the next few months. I am counting on my friends to guide me in the right direction on that.

I have been reading this thread since Grady put it up. It is so exciting to read all of you and to see so many lovers of our Constitution in one place. It has renewed my faith in all the "true patriots" that are actually out there. Sometimes it seems that patriotism is fading, but then when something comes up to bring it to the forefront, it can be overwhelming how wrong I was.

Any way, if I could, I would do the Happy Dance with Seagull!



[edit on 6/27/2008 by PORCUPINEPIE]

Originally posted by Smokersroom
Oh dear, oh dear. Only the US could consider this a step forward...

Yes it is a step towards liberty.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.



Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"



-- Benjamin Franklin



Roper

Now time for the government to plan another terrorist attack by abusing this new law... Then NO ONE will have guns...

Originally posted by doctormcauley

This is horrible, they ruled that we can own guns, but must get a permit (in D.C.)...

However, it is up to the Government to decide whether or not to issue any
permits, and how many.

Please guys, Read the Ruling itself. It is scary; the amount of double-think they use... Good ol' Delphi technique

I haven't stayed up to date on the gun laws and I know they vary from state to state. In Massachusetts in 1978 I had to have an FID for rifle or shotgun and a pistol permit for handgun. Though I had no problem getting them I was finger printed for the pistol permit. All guns had to be unloaded and in plain sight when being transported. As best as I remember I could've been denied for a criminal record or mental illness.
There wasn't a limit on how many could be issued.

In Arizona in 1984 the only resriction was on handguns and that only concerned carrying a concealed weapon, permit needed. You could carry a loaded pistol on your hip into a public establishment and though you might get some stares (there are antigunners in Az.) it was acceptable.


"However, it is up to the Government to decide whether or not to issue any permits, and how many."

This is the statement that concerns me. I assume you speak of the Federal govt. Does it apply to FIDs and does it apply at all to the states?

The "how many" part sounds new and the same question applies.

Finally, what are the reasons given for denying permits? Are they the usual mental illness and criminal record or have they added to the list?

I wouldn't be surprised if the Supreme Court did find a way to chip away at the second amendment because they and many states as well do it every chance they get. If they did chip away this time it's amazing to hear
from so many happy gun rights people about the great victory in the Supreme Court. I truly hope they weren't fooled again. By "fooled again" I mean having to apply for permits in the first place. Let's be real, the term "apply for permission" already negates any "right". But the govts. (sneaky as they've been in the past) are experts at giving with the one hand, taking with the other, and keeping the populace happy at the same time. Could it be the same in this case? Or could it be worse? This time the people are not just happy they are overjoyed with a great victory.

Thank you for your post doctormcauley. You have piqued my curiousity on this matter and I will look into it further. Hope to read more about it from you as well.