Fair
48°F
High: 68°F
Low: 42°F
Currently : Partly Cloudy
4 Dec 2008
> Five-day forecast
 Search
   
 
   

Business Directory
Add your Business
Coupons
Add your Coupon
Classifieds
Add Your Classified
Subject: The Second Ammendment Prevails!!
Prev Next
You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 1 of 3123 > >>
AuthorMessages
jhallUser is Offline

Posts:1342


06/26/2008 7:57 AM Alert 

This is a great day for America! Now who are the four who voted against it?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns

WASHINGTON - TheSupreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck downWashington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks.

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.

Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck downWashington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.

The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.

Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.

Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. TheWashington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.

 


All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
--Edmund Burke
chessmanUser is Offline

Posts:251


06/26/2008 8:07 AM Alert 
That is great! It is a shame that it ever even had to go to the supreme court, but at least there are five sitting that understand the constitution.

This message was composed entirely of 100% recycled electrons; minimum 35% post-consumer content.
Java LoverUser is Offline

Posts:159


06/26/2008 8:43 AM Alert 
Very good news indeed!

I was afraid to watch the story, thinking what were they going to compromise to now. However, I was greatly surprised, relieved and delighted that they upheld the constitution.
Smokin AceUser is Offline

Posts:246


06/26/2008 9:56 AM Alert 

High court strikes down gun ban - CNN.com

Best Decision ever!!

"The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check."

How ignorant can people be? We are not going to "undo" the law that says felons can have a gun. -Sure mister Mod hit man you are out of jail go to the sporting goods store and buy yourself another gun! Come on.  -Sure mister gang member here is your 50 cal Machine gun go take out your rival gang. It is amazing that stupid weak minded people can we swayed by those who are smooth talkers and put fear into the weak. Here is the leaders of our country talking like morons!


Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. ~Lord Acton
Cactus RobUser is Offline

Posts:1155


06/26/2008 10:09 AM Alert 

Four of the five justices who recently voted for rights for war criminals at Guantanamo have now voted in this case to deny U.S. citizens one of their rights.   Interesting!

Smokin AceUser is Offline

Posts:246


06/26/2008 10:21 AM Alert 
Posted By Cactus Rob on 06/26/2008 10:09 AM

Four of the five justices who recently voted for rights for war criminals at Guantanamo have now voted in this case to deny U.S. citizens one of their rights.   Interesting!


Very interesting I missed that. Thanks for pointing that out.


Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. ~Lord Acton
drummer72User is Offline

Posts:3886


06/26/2008 12:38 PM Alert 
Yeah, now if they can all just kill themselves that'll be great.

"Everything for everyone and nothing for ourselves"
OBG IIUser is Offline

Posts:629


06/26/2008 1:59 PM Alert 

second amendment protects the first amendment!


What me worry?


drummer72User is Offline

Posts:3886


06/26/2008 2:07 PM Alert 
second amendement can be used to inforce the 27th amendment.

"Everything for everyone and nothing for ourselves"
AuntieEmUser is Offline

Posts:159


06/26/2008 4:25 PM Alert 

Photobucket


I'm walking 60 miles over three days in the Arizona Breast Cancer 3-Day because everyone deserves a lifetime! http://08.the3day.org/goto/emma
drummer72User is Offline

Posts:3886


06/27/2008 1:12 AM Alert 
That's funny!

"Everything for everyone and nothing for ourselves"
jhallUser is Offline

Posts:1342


06/27/2008 7:30 AM Alert 
Posted By Cactus Rob on 06/26/2008 10:09 AM

Four of the five justices who recently voted for rights for war criminals at Guantanamo have now voted in this case to deny U.S. citizens one of their rights.   Interesting!


Who were they? Who were they appointed by... It's terrible that this was even going to vote, kind of shows you the state of things.


All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
--Edmund Burke
Cactus RobUser is Offline

Posts:1155


06/27/2008 9:39 AM Alert 

The dissenting justices were John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and David Souter.   I'm not sure who appointed them, but they're known as the liberals on the panel.   

   

jhallUser is Offline

Posts:1342


06/27/2008 9:41 AM Alert 
I wonder if they have the constitution printed on their toilet paper?

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
--Edmund Burke
jhallUser is Offline

Posts:1342


06/27/2008 9:46 AM Alert 

John Paul Stevens Appointed by Ford
Stephen Breyer Appointed by Clinton
Bader Ginsberg Appointed by Clinton
David Souter Appointed by George H. W. Bush

This is enough reason for me to vote for McCain simply to keep out the swine Barak would appoint if the chance came up. What is truly disappointing was that two of these traitors were appointed by republicans.


All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
--Edmund Burke
alanfUser is Offline

Posts:1590


06/27/2008 10:50 AM Alert 
Posted By jhall on 06/26/2008 7:57 AM

This is a great day for America! Now who are the four who voted against it?

 



Try reading the article you posted jhall. It lists all the dissenters. What a tool.

jhallUser is Offline

Posts:1342


06/27/2008 10:55 AM Alert 

Geez you are such a grumpy old man. I'm sorry I read over that and missed it. Maybe if I was sitting at home pissed off at the world yelling at kids to get off my lawn like yourself, I would have caught it.


All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
--Edmund Burke
desertgalUser is Offline

Posts:147


06/27/2008 4:53 PM Alert 
Posted By chessman on 06/26/2008 8:07 AM
That is great! It is a shame that it ever even had to go to the supreme court, but at least there are five sitting that understand the constitution.


I agree, chessman. But if Barack Hussein Obama ever becomes president and gets to choose Supreme Court nominees, the balance is likely to eventually be 7 liberals to 2 conservatives or worse.

Kennedy is the wild card on this Supreme Court. The others pretty much vote along their liberal or conservative lines. Thank God he was on the right side of the fence on this one.


Proud conservatives happily living on our acreage in the beautiful mountains of Hidden Valley with no HOA.
drummer72User is Offline

Posts:3886


06/27/2008 5:39 PM Alert 
Honestly, what is the reasoning behind using Barack"s middle name? You trying to make a point? If it was Jones and Micheal would you still be using it??

"Everything for everyone and nothing for ourselves"
desertgalUser is Offline

Posts:147


06/27/2008 5:57 PM Alert 
Posted By drummer72 on 06/27/2008 5:39 PM
Honestly, what is the reasoning behind using Barack"s middle name? You trying to make a point? If it was Jones and Micheal would you still be using it??


It IS his name, is it not? And, yes, I am trying to make a point. I think that name should stay in front of the people up until the election. Do you have a problem with that too?


Proud conservatives happily living on our acreage in the beautiful mountains of Hidden Valley with no HOA.
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 1 of 3123 > >>

Forums > General Discussion > Politics > The Second Ammendment Prevails!!



ActiveForums 3.6