Supreme Court Strikes Down DC Handgun Ban

CNSNews ^ | June 26, 2008 | Randy Hall

[Mr. Mojo]

"The decision threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States," Breyer said.

That's precisely the idea, Stevie.

[ZULU]

Let’s hope and pray the Obamanation doesn’t get in.

We need more judges like Scalia, Alito, Ronerts and Thomas.

[Paul Ross]

But while a person has a constitutional right to own guns, that new right is not unlimited, Scalia wrote.

Uh, since when is the 2nd Amendment particularly NEW??

[Tribune7]

In dissent, Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons." Such evidence "is nowhere to be found," he stated.

"Shall not be infringed" can be hard to understand for some people. "Infringed", after all, is two syllables.

Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

Umm. Oooookay. Steve, move into a house in a crime-ridden urban area. See if your position changes.

"The decision threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States," Breyer said.

cool.

[baltoga]

The District of Columbia had a weak argument for keeping the ban. They cited high murder rate, but the rate when higher after the ban. Can’t win me over with that type of logic.

[beezdotcom]

But while a person has a constitutional right to own guns, that new right is not unlimited, Scalia wrote.

"new" right? Is this an error - did Scalia call it a "new" right?

That's rather ominous, actually - I still think we're begging for crumbs from the SCotUS table, they just happened to give us one THIS time.

[Mr. Mojo]

I suspect it's an error by the author (Randy Hall). ...a major one.

[TribalPrincess2U]

“But while a person has a constitutional right to own guns, that new right is not unlimited, Scalia wrote.
Uh, since when is the 2nd Amendment particularly NEW??”

Yeah, I don’t quite understand that statement. Is he leaving doors open?

[Buffalo Bob]

Americans have the right to own guns for self-defense and hunting.

The individual right to keep and bear arms is not limited to self-defense or hunting, yet this is how it's being spun. Pisses me off!

[TommyDale]

5 to 4 runling? Gee, what a surprise!

[messierhunter]

Yeah, I don’t quite understand that statement. Is he leaving doors open?

From what I can tell, that phrase is nowhere to be found in the actual opinion, but originated with Reuters' James Vicini. The words "new right" do not even appear. Obviously Mr. Vicini thinks that we did not used to have a constitutional right to bear arms and he projected his bias onto Scalia's opinion. Mad libs lol.

[Mr. Lucky]

My guess is that the adjective “new” was not found in Justice Scalia’s opinion in reference to the right of citizens with regard to gun ownership, that it was inserted by the author of this article.

[Redbob]

Regardless of what the “Brady Bunch” may say in their little press releases today, they know in their hearts they’re defeated, since the fundamental ruling here is that, yes Virginia, there IS a Second Amendment, and it means just what it plainly says.

(Slap, slap) Take that! Justice Stevens!

[David]

"In dissent, Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons." Such evidence "is nowhere to be found," he stated."

The express purpose of the Bill of Rights and specifically the definition of such rights expressed in the Second Amendment is to "limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to" limit the rights of citizens to engage in the conduct or acts described.

That's what the Second Amendment is in the book to do. The language in the dissent is just silly.

[Redbob]

""The decision threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States," Breyer said."

One of the few things Breyer has ever gotten completely right!

[Billthedrill]

In dissent, Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons." Such evidence "is nowhere to be found," he stated.

I find this a little disturbing coming from a Supreme Court justice, frankly. The entire Constitution is nothing but a collection of choices to limit the tools available to elected officials. What on earth does "Congress shall make no law" mean in the First Amendment but a limitation on the tools available to elected officials? What is the entire Bill of Rights but a limitation on the tools available to elected officials?

In point of fact, it's bad law to refuse to overturn bad law because it might be inconvenient. Moreover, the government is not run for the convenience of its occupants, hard as that might be to grasp from the vantage point of Washington DC.

[Billthedrill]

LOL! 90 seconds. GMTA.

[oflyboy]

5 to 4 runling? Gee, what a surprise! Not a surprise. It's downright scary when you think about it. The power Judges have assumed over the years is frighting. The fact that only five out of nine beleive the 2nd admendment means what it says, is incomprehensible. The American people have allowed the court to invent rights. The people shouldn't be surprised when the day comes, the court removes a right.

[SuziQ]

Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

EVERY citizen should have the tools to defend themselves, ESPECIALLY in crime ridden urban areas. I would think that the more folks actually have that ability to defend themselves, there won't be as much crime, because the criminals won't have free reign. They might be much less likely to try kicking in some old lady's door if they weren't sure whether or not she had a nice little gun to ventilate them when they did. ;o)

[Redbob]

"But while a person has a constitutional right to own guns, that new right is not unlimited, Scalia wrote."

What Scalia actually wrote is this:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose..."