BREAKING NEWS: DC Handgun Ban Overturned!

[asgardshill]

How does this not effect current laws?
If I have a right to carry arms for self-defense, how can the government demand I have a permit? (permission)

Ask the protesters at the upcoming Democratic National Convention in Denver. They'll be easy to find, in one of the designated "free speech zones", encaged in chain link.

 

[fr33domfightr]

Weak. It's my understanding right now that the SCROTUS only held that hunting and self-defense are protected reasons for owning guns....not resisting tyranny or anything similar.

I'm guessing your undestanding is based in part from this quote:

“It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense.”

This was probably directly related to allowing citizens in southern states to keep guns, post civil war. That they couldn't be taken away because they at least need them for self-defense.

This only states what they found through research. I would suggest self-defense in this case, was only 1 reason for the right, not the only reason. It almost seems obvious the reason to have a right to guns (at the time of the writting of the Constitution) was certainly to allow citizens the right to protect themselves from tyranny, from a king.


FF

 

[SnappleLlama]

bump and digg for liberty!

http://digg.com/politics/Court_A_constitutional_right_to_a_gun

 

[FreedomFighter8008]

Weak. It's my understanding right now that the SCROTUS only held that hunting and self-defense are protected reasons for owning guns....not resisting tyranny or anything similar.

Self-defense is self-defense. The key is that this seems to remove the restrictions on what types of guns can be owned. I'd like to see the exact wording of the decision. This looks to me like you can own whatever you want as long as it's intended use is for self-defense or hunting and you're not a convicted felon or "mentally ill". This is a big win!

Now if more states would just invoke states rights . . .

 

[SnappleLlama]

bumpity bump bumpity bump!

 

[SnappleLlama]

bump because I want this to hit the front page

http://digg.com/politics/Court_A_constitutional_right_to_a_gun

 

[SnappleLlama]

more selfish bumping!

 

[SnappleLlama]

Come on, everyone...over 70 diggs, now...we have enough numbers to make this front page material (as it should be)!

http://digg.com/politics/Court_A_constitutional_right_to_a_gun

 

[asgardshill]

Come on, everyone...over 70 diggs, now...we have enough numbers to make this front page material (as it should be)!

http://digg.com/politics/Court_A_constitutional_right_to_a_gun

Bumped, Dugg, smothered and scattered.

 

[SnappleLlama]

Bumped, Dugg, smothered and scattered.

LOL!! Nice!! Thank you! Everyone should be celebrating this victory.

 

[Truth Warrior]

I was told that if the SCOTUS declared the 2nd amendment an individual right that the states could no longer require you to pay any fee to own or carry a gun.

Interesting thought.

 

[Truth Warrior]

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
-- Thomas Jefferson

 

[dude58677]

We still have the right to own guns even if the Supreme Court said that we do not. They didn't but we can enforce the Constitution through jury nullification.

 

[SnappleLlama]

94 diggs and counting...let's do this!

http://digg.com/politics/Court_A_constitutional_right_to_a_gun

 

[Truth Warrior]

Does this SCOTUS decision, repeal and invalidate the Federal Brady law and all of the other associated CRAP gun restriction laws ( so called )?

What about the BATF?

 

[Matt Collins]

From somewhere else on the web:


"This supreme court rulling is completely meaningless and will change nothing.

They ruled it is a citizen's RIGHT (not priviledge) to own and bear arms.

Yet if this rulling had any effect on actual laws, all gun permits and licenses would now be abolished, because you don't need the government's permit or license in order to excersise a true RIGHT.

Permits and licenses are for priveledges, such as driving an automobile or operating your Ham radios.

Before anyone celebrates this as a victory, ask yourself why you need the government's permission (permit) in order to own a gun, if the supreme court said it is your RIGHT to own one.

It would be like saying you have the right to free speech or to vote, and need a permit or license in order to exercise those rights.

So long as a permit or license is required in order to own a gun, the government (and supreme court) really is saying it is NOT a right, even if the Constitution says it is.

And in the real world, it doesn't matter what the Constitution says, but what your local police officer says.

Until the supreme court rules that it is unconstitutional for the federal, state or local governments to require permits (government permission) to own a gun, the supream court is a farce that doesn't understand the difference between a RIGHT and a government allowed PRIVELEDGE."

 

[yongrel]

Woooooooooooooo

 

[ARealConservative]

We still have the right to own guns even if the Supreme Court said that we do not. They didn't but we can enforce the Constitution through jury nullification.

government does not give us our rights. never has and never will.

Of course, without them defending our rights, it is harder to exercise them.

 

[acroso]

hell ya

Alito and Roberts were the onyl good thing Bush has done.

 

[amy31416]

Great news, thanks for sharing.