[EdReform]

Bang

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

I don’t care what the local laws proscribe. I am prepared to protect my family, my home, and myself! Damn the consequences!

[shooter223]

“the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” ........ SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED ..... what is so hard to understand?

[TBP]

The Supreme Court has laready ruled that the Second Amendment confers an individual right, whcih means that the Federal government can’t take away your guns.

The courts have previously ruled that via the Fourteenth Amendment, the entire Bill of Rights applies also to states and localities.

Thus, local gun bans are clearly unconstitutional.

[apillar]

Hopefully the five justices that voted the right way in the first case stay healthy over the next few months and decide the same way in this case, because we can pretty much guess how any Obama appointment will decide...

[DoughtyOne]

If the U.S. Constitution doesn’t guarantee the rights of citizens concerning guns, then it doesn’t guarantee them any other rights.

Either the Constitution is a valid document that guarantees U.S. Citizens certain rights, or it is a worthless document that doesn’t guarantee individual citizens any rights at all.

The left is playing a very dangerous game here, because civil rights are a part of this document, by amendment.

If there are no gun rights, then there are no free speech rights, no civil rights, and no rights of protection from any search any police agency should wish to carry out.

A ruling that would allow states to deny gun rights would by precedent nullify any granting of federal rights via the U.S. Constitution, on the whim of any of the 50 states.

The Supreme Court cannot deny the universality of gun rights, or it destroys this founding document, and therefore the very fabric of the nation.

[Joe Brower]

I note that this article does not make mention of how this case would never have seen the light of day if the NRA had not been pushing for cert so aggressively.

[wastedyears]

Didn’t I read somewhere that you could appeal for a redress of grievances against state laws?

[William Tell]

From the linked article: In 1939, the court upheld a federal restriction on the trafficking of sawed-off shotguns. The justices said then that the Second Amendment concerned state militias, whose members typically provided their own weapons, and that no evidence had been presented to show that a sawed-off shotgun was "any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

The Court did not "uphold" the federal restriction. The case was remanded to the lower court. Also, the quoted text above improperly suggests that there was a requirement that the defendant, Miller, be a member of a Militia. The Supreme Court concerned itself with the usefulness of the specific type of weapon, and not with the status of the person possessing it.