Posted on 06/26/2008 12:00:41 PM PDT by Pyro7480
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court declared for the first time on Thursday that the Constitution protects an individual’s right to have a gun, not just the right of the states to maintain militias.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the landmark 5-to-4 decision, said the Constitution does not allow “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.” In so declaring, the majority found that a gun-control law in the nation’s capital went too far by making it nearly impossible to own a handgun....
The National Rifle Association and other supporters of rights to have firearms are sure to use the decision as a launch pad for lawsuits. The N.R.A. said it would file suits in San Francisco, Chicago and several Chicago suburbs challenging handgun restrictions there. “I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom,” Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the N.R.A., told The Associated Press.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
From what I have read, the decision could have been a whole lot better. On the other hand it could have been worse too.
Time for Conservatives to get their THANG on! The Libs took a real beating today, perhaps the momentum has shifted? One can only hope!
Seems to me that the clarifying that the amendment refers to individuals and not just the rights of states to have militias is an important, important statement, since there was a growing tendency to interpret it the other way, with gun ownership being seen as a privilege granted by the states, like driving...
even if we don’t necessarily like everything else they said, that is important.
Yep, it sure could have been worse.
I expected to see a very limited ruling that only applied to DC. I didn’t expect to see the wording afirming the individual right to keep firearms in the home for defense. It’s much better than I had anticipated.
In hope they spend my dues money wisely.
It was not as good as I had hoped, but FAR better than the mealy-mouthed double-speak I EXPECTED from the Gang of Nine.
Scalia absolutely shredded Steven’s dissent into so much used toilet paper.
The decision was cogent persuasive and spot on.
The anti-gun crowd with their collective right whine got positively hammered.
Yeah, they’ll be back like any ill treated disease, but they took it in the shorts today.
I loved this line:
“Constitutional rights are enshrined with
the scope they were understood to have when the people
adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes)
even future judges think that scope too broad.”
That should be the 11th commandment....
Oddly, if this had been a ruling striking a law that LIBERALS hated in D.C., San Francisco, New York, et al. that had similar laws (say, parental notification of prescribing birth control) would immediately announce that their laws were also stricken and celebrate the brilliance and fairness of the Supreme Court.
Don’t foresee that happening in this case.
the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
This means cities can license and regulate. This means you have a privilege that can be taken away and not a right. You can't be half pregnant and you can't have half a right.
With the liberal courts out here (CA) the NRA will probably have to take it almost all the way to the SC all over again. Libs are going to fight this tooth and nail, in the courts, at the ballot box, and in the media, every step of the way. Even if they lose a hundred court fights, they'll still be quibbling and throwing up roadblocks.
Any reference in the dissent to that flawed reasoning by the stupid appellate judge that said the 2d didn’t apply to the District because it wasn’t a state?
It’s about time the liberal CITIES are the ones being sued for a dammed change!! Let tidal wave begin!!!!!!
The difference is between “can” and “must”. DC has no choice in the matter, they MUST allow him to register and carry his firearm in his home.
Well that is nice, but I would guess most DC homicides don't happen in the home.
Excellent news! It’s nice to look at the news and see something good for the country every once in a while. :-)
That is ANOTHER lawsuit. Along with one making the SC clarify how the government can heavily tax, regulate, and force burdensome licensing of a machine gun and then ban it altogether and then declare that the REASON the ban is constitutional is because the guns are not commonly owned by citizens. Even Stevens in his dissent slammed Scalia for that circular logic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.