High Court Will Decide Whether Strict Gun Laws Violate Second Amendment Rights

High Court Will Decide Whether Strict Gun Laws Violate Second Amendment Rights

www.foxnews.com

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to decide whether strict local and state gun control laws violate the Second Amendment, ensuring another high-profile battle over the rights of gun owners.

The court said it will review a lower court ruling that upheld a handgun ban in Chicago. Gun rights supporters challenged gun laws in Chicago and some suburbs immediately following the high court's decision in June 2008 that struck down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia...

(visit the link for the full news article)

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld ordinances barring the ownership of handguns in most cases in Chicago and suburban Oak Park, Ill.

Judge Frank Easterbrook, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, said that "the Constitution establishes a federal republic where local differences are to be cherished as elements of liberty rather than extirpated in order to produce a single, nationally applicable rule."

"Federalism is an older and more deeply rooted tradition than is a right to carry any particular kind of weapon," Easterbrook wrote.

So here we go again, but this time, with a new SC Justice....yeah, you know the one.

This ruling certainly has the potential to affect all of us interested in our 2nd Amendment.



www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

It should be pretty obvious that any barrier preventing the ownership and carrying of firearms anytime, anywhere is a violation.

Can't wait to see how they weasel their way around the issue to come to a pseudo-conclusion like they did with D.C..

Wow, obvious setup on this. I figured it would be only a matter of time before the 2A went back to SC after that "new" SC justice was appointed. You could literally see her frothing at the mouth at the chance to get her hands on this subject. The Constitution will take another hit, and the traitors in Washington will drink wine in celebration.

reply to post by KSPigpen


Isnt the supreme court make-up stil 5-4 with conservatives holding the majority??

Why is "shall not be infringed" so misunderstood? It is quite clear.

Infringe: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of anothers.

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by KSPigpen

 

Isnt the supreme court make-up stil 5-4 with conservatives holding the majority??

That is correct. Unless one of them steps down and retires or meets an untimely death, then Conservative SC Judges still have the majority.

However, the Supreme Court is far less partisan than other branches of our government. Just because a Judge was appointed by a particular president and approved by a similarly partisan Congress doesn't mean that they will tow the party line. They aren't supposed to. Their job is to look at the facts, and only the facts, and interpret whether or not, or how the Constitution applies to the particular case they are hearing.

For the most part the SC makes good decisions. Every once in a while they'll throw out a stinker of a ruling, but those are generally the exception to the rule, rather than the rule itself.

This is a pretty big decision and will be considered a landmark ruling one way or the other. Now would be a good time to cross your fingers.

map

Check out this map for info on the gun laws for each state. It also shows that mass murders involving firearms have all taken place in so-called "gun free zones", where criminals are the only ones armed and thus enjoy a "target rich environment".

I wonder what will happen in this country if the S.C. upholds the gun ban.

And people wonder why some are stocking up on guns and ammo. The government wants us defenseless for a reason.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that not only is the banning certain types of firearm unconstitutional, but also taking away a person's "right" to bear arms because of a crime. I do not wish to have murders with guns, but the vast majority of todays felons are for non-violent crimes. Those people should be allowed the right to defend themselves just as any other individual in this country.

reply to post by ninthaxis


Not to mention those violent criminals who will get one regardless of legality anyway making the whole notion of using legislation to keep guns out of their hands a pointless exercise in futility.

reply to post by KSPigpen


At least nothing is at risk.

If they uphold it to be constitutional then things will stay the same. If they don't? Then Things get better.

reply to post by ninthaxis



You're right, I've held this opinion too for some time. The constitution says shall not be infringed. not.. Shall not be infringed unless you've done a felony.

But in most states, it's still not too difficult to get a gun anyways.

Originally posted by ninthaxis
I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that not only is the banning certain types of firearm unconstitutional, but also taking away a person's "right" to bear arms because of a crime. I do not wish to have murders with guns, but the vast majority of todays felons are for non-violent crimes. Those people should be allowed the right to defend themselves just as any other individual in this country.

They also lose their Right to Vote as well, thus doubling the insult to injury to those who have paid their dues and done their time. Of course, they have no say therefore in losing their Right to Bear Arms as they are unable to vote officials into office that represent them. Felons are ruled by a government with which they have no representation.

Considering 1,000,000 people are convicted a year of a Felony, with that figure growing 24% annually since 1996 (According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics), it does not take long before the majority of people in the United States have been convicted of a Felony at some point in their lives. Currently 1 in 10 people in the United States have been convicted of a Felony at some point in their lives. That figure will not take long to double.

Only 18% of Felony Convictions are for Violent Crimes (or 180,000 out of 1,000,000 convictions annually). If you drive drunk, you lose your Right to Bear Arms and your Right to Vote. If you write a bad check, you lose your Right to Bear Arms and your Right to Vote. If you have a Fake ID, you lose your Right to Bear Arms and your Right to Vote. If your friend gets busted in your car with some weed, you lose your Right to Bear Arms and your Right to Vote.

I agree that the punishment should suit the crime. If you are a Non-Violent Felon who has served their time, then in 6 months of being re-integrated with society (as almost all repeat Felons will break the law again within 6 months this makes a valid differentiation between a lifetime Felon and a reformed Felon) you should be able to have your record expunged and have your Right to Bear Arms and your Right to Vote returned to you.

So how many times do we have to revisit this issue before they understand it was already decided back in December 15, 1791.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Do we really need a court to reinterpret it?

Originally posted by Digital_Reality
So how many times do we have to revisit this issue before they understand it was already decided back in December 15, 1791.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Do we really need a court to reinterpret it?

Exactly.

And I personally am getting tired of people throwing up the "well regulated militia" clause as an argument against a citizen's right to bear arms.

After all the classes I've taken, all the paperwork I've filled out and all the fees I've paid, I feel quite "well regulated" - thank you very much!

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Digital_Reality
So how many times do we have to revisit this issue before they understand it was already decided back in December 15, 1791.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Do we really need a court to reinterpret it?

Exactly.

And I personally am getting tired of people throwing up the "well regulated militia" clause as an argument against a citizen's right to bear arms.

After all the classes I've taken, all the paperwork I've filled out and all the fees I've paid, I feel quite "well regulated" - thank you very much!

The context of the word "regulated" meant something entirely different in 1776. Being well regulated meant that you were well equipped. Not how they try to construe the meaning now,to be under close controll.
The gun grabbers are for the most part excellent word smiths,and can twist the true meaning of words to fit their adgenda.

reply to post by centurion1211


No doubt! Ive done plenty to qualify for my already established right to own a firearm. Protection of life and liberty is an individual responsibility.

Originally posted by daddyroo45

The context of the word "regulated" meant something entirely different in 1776. Being well regulated meant that you were well equipped. Not how they try to construe the meaning now,to be under close controll.
The gun grabbers are for the most part excellent word smiths,and can twist the true meaning of words to fit their adgenda.

I can and do also play the "wordsmith" game.

I've also found that one of the biggest weaknesses of elitist liberals is that most of them are arrogant enough to never even consider that someone might be playing their very own games against them.

reply to post by fraterormus


It needs to be clearly understood that a Felony is not the only crime you will loose you gun rights. They are lised at the link below.

This is particularly egregious.

It shall be unlawful for any person -who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

You don't have to have served a day in jail. Probation for a misdemeanor carrying a possibility of one year is enough.

18 U.S.C. Sec 922

The only remedy is a pardon.