Thank You Justices for Interpreting the Second Amendment Correctly
Politics June 26th, 2008Thank you for doing the right thing today. The fact is that if someone breaks into your home the police cannot protect you. Its virtually impossible. This ruling ensures that I can protect my own home as I wish.
Justice Scalia nailed it. “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
.
.
.
“The American people consider the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon.” He went on to argue: “There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: it is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper-body strength to lift and aim a long rifle; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.”
.
.
.
“We hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.”
June 26th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Tony Tony Tony - no no no no no!!!
Firearm homicide rate per 100,000 pop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_crime):
England = 0.12
US = 2.97
Dude, guns are bad, not good.
June 26th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
I’ll keep my guns thank you.
June 26th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
I forgot to add the smilie on to the end:
June 26th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Compare the violent crime rate between UK and US and get back to me.
June 26th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Then compare it per capita for UK versus states that allow concealed weapon permits like NC.
June 26th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Not needed. I knew the smiley was implied.
Here we go again with the guns talk. hehehehhee
Seriously though, this is one of the most important rulings by the court to me that I can recall.
June 26th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Good compilation of data:
http://wheelgun.blogspot.com/2007/01/crime-in-uk-versus-crime-in-us.html
Its not all love and peace over there and wild gun tooting maniacs over here like yall all seem to think.
June 26th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Good God.
“London’s crime rate is about 7 times that of New York”
Kinda wish I hadn’t read that.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
two words jury nullification , if you dont like a law ,or don’t believe in the case you are sitting thru jury duty on, vote not guilty ,this is your greatest power and you do not have to explain yourself to no one for the way you vote
June 29th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
From CBS News Sunday Morning today:
76% of American’s agree with the ruling
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:50 pm
1. “76% of American’s agree…”: They also do not understand the implications, which will remove many publicly supported gun-control measures. Remember, the people of DC supported the gun ban.
2. I think this was the wrong decision. The language of the 2nd Amendment is very porous and ill-conceived. Stevens wrote in the dissent… ‘It was adopted to protect the right of the people to maintain well-regulated state militias. That does not involve a right to “use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense,”‘. Why else would our Framer’s include that phrasing? Why provide a specific reason/purpose to qualify the right unless you intended it to conceive what that right is? Every other qualification in the Bill of Rights is held that way (protection against quartering soldiers is only in peacetime, for example. The use of the phrase “in peacetime” was there to specify when the right applied. Same situation here).
3. It is, frankly, audacious that Scalia and friends decided to make such an important ruling in a 5-4 split court. Historically, courts and legislatures made decisions about gun rights on a case-by-case basis, while the SCOTUS has now made an absolute, sweeping precedent despite clear dissent.
3. Scalia continued with his incredibly weak cop-outs with his caveat… “Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places, such as schools and government buildings.” You know an judge is talking bullshit when they carve themselves out of any future harm due to a ruling. Scalia has protected himself from being around unfettered gun ownership by supporting bans in government buildings, just like he protected himself and his party via a no-precedent clause in his opinion in Gore vs. Bush.
I see no place in the Constitution granting states or the U.S. the authority to regulate individual arms ownership (such as from felons, mentally handicapped, or in public institutions) UNLESS you interpret the 2nd Amendment as being limited to State Militias.
Do you?
I hate to say it, but the Constitution is a terribly written contract. It needs much updating. I have no problem with America deciding that people have the right to bear arms for self defense, hunting, or whatever else. I do have a problem with that right being legislated from a bench. This decision will not stand once it is revisited by a liberal-heavy Supreme Court. If you want to protect your rights, you better get an Amendment.
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:39 am
“Scalia has protected himself from being around unfettered gun ownership by supporting bans in government buildings, just like he protected himself and his party via a no-precedent clause in his opinion in Gore vs. Bush.”
Or perhaps he was just doing the right thing to ensure that the NRA couldn’t go to extremes when they take this to lower courts? I think so.
““use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense,”
It think the founding fathers were quite outspoken about their belief that all people should have the right to bear arms for various reasons including hunting, self defense, AND a militia of the people who would keep the federal government in check.
Its been a heck of a long time but if I remember correctly the Federalist Papers are good reading on this topic and make it quite clear they did intend for citizens to bear arms for reasons other than a militia to defend the union.
I do agree with you that the document is poorly written and indeed we do need a stronger Amendment…. ensuring my right to keep a Glock in my home.
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:50 am
“They also do not understand the implications, which will remove many publicly supported gun-control measures. Remember, the people of DC supported the gun ban.”
And I think you are wrong about that. Typical liberal attitude. These poor little simple people are incapable of understanding the ramifications.
BS. The facts are there will be more accidental deaths when there are more guns at home. But, I think the lawyer that brought the case, Robert Levy put it best:
“Well of course, it matters,” he said. “And I think it’s indisputably true that there will be people who die because of this ruling. There will be other people who would have died were it not for this ruling, and so one has to take into account not just the cost but the benefits.”
I prefer for responsible adults to have the right to make their own decisions. Yes there are idiot parents out there but the same idiot parents that will keep unlocked weapons in their homes also let their children play in busy roads.
(Mr. Levy’s story is a fascinating one by the way. This was his first case and he went to law school in his 50’s!)
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:19 pm
What we REALLY need to focus on is forcing students to tuck in their shirts!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9FF3LQlhBs
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:10 pm
“…legislated from a bench….”
Sounds a lot like the gripes from us conservatives in the Clinton era of the rampant problem of “judicial legislation”.
Funny how things go around. Anyhoo, in my mind this court was designed to interpret the constitution and Scalia did just that.
July 10th, 2008 at 6:17 am
They did not have any buisness interpeting it it is a given. There is nothing to interpet.