Posted on 09/28/2009 10:53:24 AM PDT by neverdem
The Supreme Court has clearly ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution means individuals have a right to own weapons, and the justices have been asked to take up two cases that could broaden that right to include state laws.
The court’s decision on whether to take up the cases, National Rifle Association v. Chicago and McDonald v. Chicago, could come this week, before the fall term officially starts Oct. 5.
The Second Amendment is one of the most contentious provisions in the Constitution. To many, it is an unqualified guarantee of Americans’ right to defend themselves. Others see it as referring to organized defense only, and want to limit gun ownership in order to reduce the amount of crime and death brought about by guns.
Those who believe in the right to bear arms were encouraged when the Supreme Court issued its ruling last year, which was widely interpreted as the first time the court clarified that the amendment supports individuals’ rights.
Through more than 200 years of legal interpretation, the court had not ruled as directly as the 5-4 majority did in District of Columbia v. Heller, constitutional law experts said.
But Professor Dan Kahan of Yale Law School said the decision also includes a number of exceptions that allow many gun control laws.
“I think that actually it’s remarkable in two respects,” Kahan said. “One, in that it does in fact call into question handgun restrictions that a lot of jurisdictions, including big cities, are likely to have.”
But Justice Antonin A. Scalia Jr.’s majority decision also went “far, far beyond what you ordinarily normally see in a Supreme Court opinion to identify safe harbors of restriction,” he said.
Among the fundamental freedoms included in the Bill of Rights are the words, “A well regulated...”
(Excerpt) Read more at nhregister.com ...
Since when do they care about the Constitution?
Silly me, I thought words had meaning
No, Those who believe in the right to KEEP arms were encouraged when the Supreme Court issued its ruling last year.
Those who believe in the right to also bear arms were somewhat discouraged because the decision stopped short of including the uninfringed right to BEAR arms.
Naw, that is why the liberals say the Constitution is a “living document” so they can bend it to say what they want for any occasion that benefits them.
It’s part of their elitist worldview.
They believe that they, living now, have more information, and are able to decide better than those moldy old framers of the Constitution.
This is why you hear the “flintlock musket” argument.
IMHO, the vast majority of those infringements will go the way of the poll tax. I can think of two most folks will agree with: violent felons and those deemed a threat to themselves or others.
Right - as if a law professor, a State Supreme Court, or a Federal Supreme Court is going to tell millions of gun owners what the 2nd Amendment means.
I’ve read it, and it is as clear as water to me.
QED.
Which is countered by observing that only the Gutenberg press would be protected under the 1st Amendment if the protection was limited to the technology available at the time of adoption. No TV, radio, satellite, telephone or any more modern printing process would be protected. That shuts them up pretty fast.
Section 131L. (a) It shall be unlawful to store or keep any firearm, rifle or shotgun including, but not limited to, large capacity weapons, or machine gun in any place unless such weapon is secured in a locked container or equipped with a tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other safety device, properly engaged so as to render such weapon inoperable by any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user
The above is still on the books in the Gay State.I'm no lawyer but it seems to me that this is *exactly* what the SCOTUS overruled in "Heller".
also, the rest of the BoR clearly identify individuals as
the party whose rights are being confirmed. The govt does
not need its rights to be confirmed.
How much different is that from:
“Shall make no law”
“Shall not be violated”
“The right...shall be preserved”
The amendments all have pretty high bars against infringement, but that hasn’t stopped the government from enacting certain limits on those rights, some more justifiable than others.
For the issue at hand, I will never understand why the SC didn’t incorporate the entire Bill of Rights at once, and make this issue moot after Heller. Hopefully they will incorporate it, although I imagine the “reasonable limitations” language will remain.
If the 2nd was in the constitution when a state signed on to the union, how the h3ll can they get out of the 2nd 230 years later??
“Those who turn their guns into plows shall pow for those who do not”
Thomas Jefferson
opps, ‘plow’
I almost like P.O.W. better ;-)
Let's get rid of that silly free speech stuff too, huh Liz? Maybe your right to vote, get you back in the home and kitchen?
Yeah, didn't think you'd like that...
Could that be interpreted by those in power, who are abusing that power as well as ourselves, as an exception designed to protect them from an angry populace?
Just wonderin'....
CA....
The thing that immediately shoots down the ‘living document’ liberals is to agree with them.
The Constitution lays out exactly how to change it in Article V.
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.