[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.

[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!

[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.

[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)

[thefactor]

yeah the decision of the majority does not surprise me. what does surprise me, however, is just how severely wrong the minority is in the dissent. scary that justices worthy of respect could wish to infringe our rights so egregiously.

[MrB]

This is the way the leftist judges look at their decisions.

What will be the effect of deciding one way or another?
Will that effect be desirable (to me)?
If so, rule for, if not, rule against. Then find justification through whatever tortured logic you can.

Conservative judges:
What did the Constitution mean (to the public) on this point when it was ratified?
Rule based on that, regardless of personal opinion.

[Straight Vermonter]

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."

Yeah, no one needs to protect themselves in crime-ridden areas. Stevie should crawl out of his ivory tower once in a while and visit one of these areas.

[paul51]

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

Well, one would hope so.

[beltfed308]

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."

Absolutely priceless! This guy has no business sitting in a position of authority.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

"With today's ruling against the district's ban on handguns, the Supreme Court has increased the likelihood of violence and injury in the nation's capital," said Benjamin in a statement.

Now all he needs to do is fabricate the data to go along with this ridiculous assertion.

At least no one was killed in DC when guns were banned. /sarcasm

Another point that keeps getting lost in the left-wing media, is that the Bill of Rights in the Constitution doesn't document rights granted to us by the government, it documents rights granted to us by God, that the government can't infringe on.

To the 5 Supremes who brought us this ruling,

YAAAAAYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!