It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gun Rights Among Supreme Court's Final Decisions

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Gun Rights Among Supreme Court's Final Decisions


www.newsmax.com

The Supreme Court is handing down eagerly awaited rulings on gun rights and three other remaining cases in its last meeting until the fall and the final day of Justice John Paul Stevens' long service.

The court is meeting Monday morning just a couple of hours before high court nominee Elena Kagan goes before the Senate Judiciary Committee for her confirmation hearing.

The justices could decide that the Second Amendment's right to "keep and bear arms" serves as a check on local and state
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 08:25 AM
link   
It's always scary when our gun laws are being questioned by the Supreme Court but at least they did this before the anti-gun Kagan is confirmed (not that it would really matter as the balance will be maintained for the time being). Thank god that the Supreme Court actually ruled that our Constitution can't be thwarted by those to ignorant to realize the importance of a well armed population. Even after this SCOTUS ruling, I will still be worried about future attempts to disarm us as I truly believe that if Obama gets a second term, it will be at the top of his agenda.

--airspoon


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

[edit on 28-6-2010 by airspoon]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   
Kagan has to be rejected here. Without a doubt she is the least qualified candidate for SCOTUS in the last 50 years. Not to mention her stance on gun ownership. If she makes it, rest assured she will team up with the like minded Sotomayor.

FILIBUSTER BABY!! She must be be stopped.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 08:46 AM
link   
I'm guessing it will be another 5-4 decision just like in '08 and that Chicago's gun ban will be struck down. Unfortunately, I also expect that Chicago will just ignore it if that happens.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   
I only have this to say:
"They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead hands".



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Wow, they actually upheld the 2nd Amendment!

Full opinion found here



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Great ruling by the Supreme Court,Hopefully this will lead to a lot of Laws being struck down!



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by brainwrek
 


That's one bit of good news this morning, that's for sure. Still, a 5-4 decision, as predicted. Its scary to think that 4 of 9 justices think you can just pick and choose the elements of the Constitution you agree with and discard the rest.

And surprise, surprise: Sotomayor votes the anti-2nd amendment position and against individual rights. I'm stunned



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


Do you think it will take lawsuits to get Chicago,DC or NYC to drop their gun laws?



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Sounds pretty final.......does this mean that all states and city,or municipal, gun laws are struck down?
How does this judgement effect the average mans right to carry?
Concealed, or otherwise, it seems that this is a supreme right and priviledge and that in actuality CANNOT be regulated by anyone
ie,The right of the people to KEEP....AND BEAR(carry anywhere anytime?)"ARMS"shall NOT be INFRINGED>>>>>!
Or am i really out to lunch here?

[edit on 28-6-2010 by stirling]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by BigDaveJr
 


That's about the only recourse the citizens have, but whether it actually works or not depends upon how far the city is willing to go to resist. Most likely, when they lose, they'll scrap the offending law and replace it with something very similar. Since its not *exactly* the same, it'll likely have to go through the entire 5-10 year process again unless the courts expedite it, and in the meantime, that new ban will be in effect. That's a process they'll repeat as often as necessary to keep a ban in effect.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Well this is good news. Maybe instead of trying to "NWO" you to death, they are gonna need you after all. Especially when the Chinese invade.
Haha.

Either way, seems like good news for responsible gun owners.

www.msnbc.msn.com...



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 


Not quite. It simply means that the right to bear arms cannot be totally preempted by state and local law. However, the Supreme Court has also held that they may pass 'reasonable' regulations of that right both in this decision and in the '08 Heller vs DC decision.

What they can't do is pass a blanket ban on firearms, or, as Heller vs DC decided, a classification of firearm, such as handguns, that are in widespread use for home defense, hunting or other sporting purposes.

[edit on 28-6-2010 by vor78]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   
This means that Chicago LOST and will have to obey the law. As soon as any citizen is arrested for owning a gun there it will be tossed and an injunction placed by a Federal court barring Chicago from any further arrests. If they do not obey they will be held in contempt and have to answer to a Federal judge.

Of course the crooked politicians in Chicago, led by the gangster Daley, will scream and bluster and threaten...but none of them want to get handed their heads bu a Fed judge...they will relent. Game over.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Now, we just need Illinois to allow conceal carry.

Such a travesty. Illinois is just one of two states that doesn't allow for this in any form. I like being a victim!

If we truly were the "Land of Lincoln", then this wouldn't be an issue. However, we're more the "Land of Obama", so it makes perfect sense.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Hopefully, this ruling releases some of the tension in the City of Chicago caused by wanton gang violence, and shoot outs in the streets on a daily basis. The city has been getting pummeled with homicides and gun related injuries. Then a Mayor who thinks of himself as king of the city has the gall and audacity to champion one of the most draconian gun bans in the country.

Expect Mayor Richard Daley and his band of lawyers to fight this one tooth and nail. The lawyers will be working overtime and burning the midnight oil to find loopholes on this one. This is good news and thank goodness this ruling was handed down before controversial lawyer, Elena Kagan, is enrobed in the black garb. I have a bad feeling she is going to get confirmed with little to no opposition.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   


Expect Mayor Richard Daley and his band of lawyers to fight this one tooth and nail.

Thing is the BILL OF RIGHTS AND THE CONSTITUTION was made exactly for the purpose of STOPPING THE SCUM OF THE EARTH FROM TAKING RIGHTS AWAY USING LIARS...Ooops I meant LAWYERS.

Any federal judge should arrest any politician who try to enforce those gun control BS and arrest for treason if they even try to pass bills for gun control.


Don't like the constitution? DON'T TRY TO CHANGE IT, GET THE HELL OUT.

[edit on 28-6-2010 by Vitchilo]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   
This is really great right here.

This is one of my favorite parts.




The Privileges or Immunities Clause of the FourteenthAmendment declares that “[n]o State . . . shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” In interpreting this language, it is important to recall that constitutional provisions are “‘written to be understood bythe voters.’” Heller, 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 3) (quot-ing United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931)).Thus, the objective of this inquiry is to discern what “ordi-nary citizens” at the time of ratification would have un-derstood the Privileges or Immunities Clause to mean. 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 3).


www.supremecourt.gov...

-Al



new topics

top topics



 
8

log in

join