Posted on 03/02/2010 6:30:33 PM PST by Steelfish
Justices Signal They're Ready To Make Gun Ownership A National Right A high court majority reviewing a handgun ban in Chicago indicates that it sees the right to bear arms as national in scope, and can be used to strike down some state and local gun regulations.
By David G. Savage March 3, 2010
Reporting from Washington - The Supreme Court justices, hearing a 2nd Amendment challenge to Chicago's ban on handguns, signaled Tuesday that they were ready to extend gun rights nationwide, clearing the way for legal attacks on state and local gun restrictions.
The court's majority appears almost certain to strike down a Chicago ordinance and rule that residents have a right to a handgun at home. Of U.S. cities, only Chicago and its Oak Park suburb have total bans on handguns. But many cities and states have laws regulating who can have a gun and where they can take it.
Gun rights advocates have said they've been waiting for the court's ruling in this case to begin challenging gun regulations nationwide.
At one point in Tuesday's argument, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. noted the city's lawyers doubted that people had a right to carry concealed weapons in public.
"Well, maybe that's right," Roberts said. But he quickly added that the question could be left for a future case, indicating that the court was not likely to sweep away additional gun regulations in this ruling.
But the clear message from the argument is that a five-member majority on the court thinks the right "to bear arms" is a fundamental right, like the freedom of speech, that cannot be unduly restricted by federal regulations, state laws or city ordinances.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
It's an Inalienable Right, meaning a natural right. This dog and pony show shouldn't even be necessary.
When you're right, you're right.
well gee. that's funny. it already is. ever hear of a thing called a second amendment? yep. we already have the RIGHT to bear arms.
That whining little *#^@^&!@$ Daley will be screaming that every time there is a gun death that it would have been prevented. But the problem is that there’s several hundred people slaughered in Chicago WITH its gun ban. Those who would kill not in self defense arent going to obey ANY law.
I also not with interest that Dickey and his family have 24/7 ARMED bodyguards.
It’s AKWAYS been a national right, Gomer.!!!!!
The Chicago mob is already thinking of ways to get around the decision.
That’s weird...I know the CONSTITUTION ALREADY gives us that right....
Anything the government can give you, the government can take away (later)
Exactly. Typical liberal moron wrote that headline. Justices don’t make law (not properly, anyway). They interpret it. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
They had better hurry up and do it before Obama gets a chance to load the Court.
Don't count your chickens just yet. The LA Times most likely is publishing this to lull gun rights supporters into a false sense of security.
I am fully confident that the Supreme Court will rule with the scumbag mayor because they don't want to cause a ruckuss around the country.
It was that way until 1968.
“Its already a national right. Theyve signaled they are going to stop the government from interferring with that right.”
True - the Constitution does not “grant” any rights. Being God-given, hey are not available for any person or organization to give.
Hmmm...if it's declared unconstitutional, won't there be some legal/financial problems for Chicago, involving past deprivation of constitutional rights?
Justices Signal They’re Ready To Make Gun Ownership A National Right
Are these people a holes ? IT ALREADY IS
Headline is totally FUBAR.
The only thing they can do is UPHOLD the right. Only liberals write like the court can ‘create’ rights. The courts uphold/affirm the rights we already possess. When they get it wrong they deny us the rights we have.
The right to self-protection/self-defense is inherent in the right to life. You cannot have the right to life without being able to defend and protect that life. Our right to life comes from God and we acknowledge that in our Declaration of Independence. We make it tangible in the Second Amendment, which protects our Constitutional rights and all the other amendments. We further affirm in the 14 Amendment than no sovereign state can deny any of their citizens any of their Constitutional rights.
Yes. Bush was far from perfect on several issues. We had to put pressure on him to get him back into reality a few times (Harriet Myers anyone?). Least he got it right with Roberts and Alito. Wish he would have used his veto pen a little more when it came to huge budgets. Let them have to override his veto or start over.
We were far better off with him than anything Gore or Kerry could have done.
It is and not a moment to soon for this decision. Crime is coming our way big time as the dopies will be breaking and entering into more homes to steal, I will feel bad about having to use my stuff to protect my wife and home, but not as bad as I wd feel if I did not
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.