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.

 

It's Official: High Court's Big Ruling For Gun Rights...

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Nevermind

I searched and nothing showed yet...

ATSLink


[edit on 6·28·10 by DrMattMaddix]




posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   
So let me guess, those Repugs here who have had such a hard on for States rights, now are all gung ho happy that the Supreme Court will not allow states to choose for themselves if they want guns banned or not.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

Even back in the hay days of the old west a Sheriff was allowed to ban guns in town for the sake of security.

Now the suburbs of Chicago can become gun fight central again.

I never again want to hear the term Liberal Activist Judges when point in fact that is all this Conservative Supreme court has been.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by AllexxisF1
 



Now the suburbs of Chicago can become gun fight central again.


sounds like a personal issue to me. I'm grateful that my right to bear arms to protect myself from lunatics and criminally minded invaders has been upheld by the courts.

check mark under the Constitutional rights list!

So let's see... constitutionalists 1, fascist corporatists 203... wow, what tha heck happened to the score?!



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by AllexxisF1
 


That has nothing to do with it.

It has everything to do with Constitutional Rights.

Learn the hierarchy.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by AllexxisF1
 


The states rights argument is based in the 10th Amendment.


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Given that the 2nd Amendment is a part of the Constitution, the 10th Amendment and States rights do not apply. Lay off the lefty sauce for a minute. Do you actually think the states have a right to ban freedom of speech, religion, and press? Or how about the right to a jury trial, or protection from unreasonable search and seizure, or any of the other rights guaranteed by the Constitution and its amendments? That's what you'd also have to believe if you think the states can choose to nullify the 2nd amendment.

[edit on 28-6-2010 by vor78]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by AllexxisF1
So let me guess, those Repugs here who have had such a hard on for States rights, now are all gung ho happy that the Supreme Court will not allow states to choose for themselves if they want guns banned or not.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

Even back in the hay days of the old west a Sheriff was allowed to ban guns in town for the sake of security.

Now the suburbs of Chicago can become gun fight central again.

I never again want to hear the term Liberal Activist Judges when point in fact that is all this Conservative Supreme court has been.



yes we are for states rights but the amendments apply to all states!

Amendment 2
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.

this is a great win for the U.S.A today!



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by camaro68ssthis is a great win for the U.S.A today!


No it isn't because last I checked you were still able to have your guns yesterday with no ill effect or problem.

The great lost today were for the citizens in those Chicago suburbs who put those restrictions in place to save lives. Now because of this ruling its the wild west in the worst part of Chicago all over again.

Any reasonable person would agree that when crime is out of control in a small geographical area the community at large should be able to put reasonable measures in place. In this case they wanted a gun band so they and most importantly the police could get a hold of their community once more.

But no, the NRA has to stick in their noses and disrupt what the people of that community are trying to do.

This decision makes ZERO difference in the lives of millions of gun owners who never were threatened with the loss of their guns (only in their head) but instead now a small community lost the one decidedly useful tool in clawing back simple peace and safety for their streets.

Bravo, F-ing Bravo. I hope you are thrilled with yourselves.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Can someone please tell me what this means for someone in NYC.

2nd line

Thanks again.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by AllexxisF1

Originally posted by camaro68ssthis is a great win for the U.S.A today!


No it isn't because last I checked you were still able to have your guns yesterday with no ill effect or problem.

The great lost today were for the citizens in those Chicago suburbs who put those restrictions in place to save lives. Now because of this ruling its the wild west in the worst part of Chicago all over again.

Any reasonable person would agree that when crime is out of control in a small geographical area the community at large should be able to put reasonable measures in place. In this case they wanted a gun band so they and most importantly the police could get a hold of their community once more.

But no, the NRA has to stick in their noses and disrupt what the people of that community are trying to do.

This decision makes ZERO difference in the lives of millions of gun owners who never were threatened with the loss of their guns (only in their head) but instead now a small community lost the one decidedly useful tool in clawing back simple peace and safety for their streets.

Bravo, F-ing Bravo. I hope you are thrilled with yourselves.



I’m thrilled with the ruling. The only thing gun control does is takes guns away from law abiding citizens. What was it just last week a gun man shot 54 people and killed 12 of them in Chicago. Yep gun control helped there a lot! It made it a lot easier for the criminal to go on his rampage un opposed knowing no one has a gun.

Just imagine, one of the 54 people having a gun, the gun man would not have shot so many people without being shot at himself.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by AllexxisF1
No it isn't because last I checked you were still able to have your guns yesterday with no ill effect or problem.



If that were true for the citizens of Chicago, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now, and if everyone agreed with the ban, these Chicago citizens would not have brought suit. The lead plaintiff, Otis McDonald, is a Democrat, BTW.

However you may feel about it, the Supreme Court's job isn't to determine what's popular. Its to determine the applicability of the Constitution to laws such as this.

Personally, I think its a good decision on all fronts. Maybe now the citizens of Chicago will have a better chance to defend themselves. It seems pretty clear that the criminals were already ignoring the Chicago gun ban and the only result was that the law abiding citizens were being disarmed and made more vulnerable.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by navione
 


Little to nothing in the short term. The court has always upheld that some 'reasonable' regulations can be implemented by states and municipalities, but not an all-out ban of all firearms or a class of firearm that is in common use for self-defense or sporting purposes.

Someone would have to bring suit against NYC so that the courts could determine if the city's laws met the ambiguous label of 'reasonable' or not.

[edit on 28-6-2010 by vor78]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Wow 5-4 was a real squeaker. Hope that majority stays put.

Taking away the right to bear guns from the entire citizenry because some cities can't control the root issues that propagate the misuse of arms in their towns is not a valid argument. In fact, one might argue that if more non-criminal types in Chicago carried guns and made it known, the crime rate might just go down. I know because I lived in Kennesaw, GA, and I was never a believer until I saw this principle in action.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by AllexxisF1
 





The great lost today were for the citizens in those Chicago suburbs who put those restrictions in place to save lives. Now because of this ruling its the wild west in the worst part of Chicago all over again.

The problem with that reasoning stems in the fact that restrictions on guns would not affect criminals. They don't obey the law, which is the definition of criminals, so they certainly would not obey a law that says that they can't own guns.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Existing thread here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Please add further comments to the ongoing discussion.
Thank you







-thread closed-



for future reference:
Search ATS



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join