SCOTUS: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide (!!!!!!!!!!!)

[Alamo Ann]

http://www.registercitizen.com/articles/2010/06/28/news/doc4c28b20a2e125728792604.txt


WE KNOW WHAT A HUGE VICTORY THIS IS FOR LAW ABIDING AMERICAN CITIZENS.
I AM SO THANKFUL THAT WITH ALL THE CIVIL RIGHTS WHITTLING THAT WE WITNESS EVERYDAY UNDER THE PRESENT ADMINISTRATION, THAT OUR NATION'S CONSTITUTION WAS INTERPETED IN THE LIGHT THAT OUR FOUNDING FATHERS' INTENDED IT TO BE FOR ALL GENERATIONS!

 

[majormadmax]

There's about 2-3 threads on this already, but it's such joyous news that I for one don't mind another one!

Cheers! M2

 

[Alamo Ann]

ty majormadmax- found one, sent a shout out!
God Bless!

 

[big_bad_kitty]

5/4 is troubling! The incorporation of the Bill of Rights to individuals should be a 9/0 vote even by the liberals. If this does not scare the h*** out of you nothing ever will. To think we as a nation have had our young men go to war and fight for the very thing this ignorant bunch of liberal left wing entitlement grubbers have just cast four votes against! I never in my life thought I would live to see this. Somebody better get up off their arses and make a showing at the ballot boxes or what is left will be gone before you know it!

 

[West Texas]

5/4 is troubling! The incorporation of the Bill of Rights to individuals should be a 9/0 vote even by the liberals. If this does not scare the h*** out of you nothing ever will. To think we as a nation have had our young men go to war and fight for the very thing this ignorant bunch of liberal left wing entitlement grubbers have just cast four votes against! I never in my life thought I would live to see this. Somebody better get up off their arses and make a showing at the ballot boxes or what is left will be gone before you know it!

I agree, 5-4 is VERY troubling! Rush had a few things to say about this today. If we do NOT step up in November, gun control won't be an issue because we could find ourselves defending ourselves from the Govt, just as our founding fathers hoped we would never have to do.

 

[zembonez]

5-4 SHOULD be troubling even though the decision went our way (for now)... It could easily switch over to 4-5 if citizens continue to sit on their hands and let the Libritards continue to make the rules.

 

[BT1911]

Not a shocker. You'd expect a 5-4 ruling with Breyer, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Stevens (soon to be Kagan) dissenting from the left. The present SCOTUS is as partisan as the present House and Senate.

 

[zembonez]

I guess that, by the thinnest of margins, the Justices have decided to uphold the constitution they are sworn to abide by.

 

[Major Woody]

After several rulings on this basic right, this does not need to be debated again. Until Kagen gets in.

 

[zembonez]

After several rulings on this basic right, this does not need to be debated again. Until Kagen gets in.

So true.

The gun control crowd will keep regurgitating this issue forever. Sadly it has worked in other countries. We need to remain vigilant here.

 

[texas1willy2]

So true.

The gun control crowd will keep regurgitating this issue forever. Sadly it has worked in other countries. We need to remain vigilant here.

Whats worse than that is OUR justices used the rest of the world as an example on how their decision was made!

JUSTICE STEVENS goes a step farther still, suggesting that the right to keep and bear arms is not protected by the “liberty clause” because it is not really a liberty at all, but a “property right.”

Never mind that the right to bear arms sounds mighty like a liberty; and never mind that the “liberty clause” is really a Due Process Clause which explicitly protects “property,” see United States v. Carlton, 512 U. S. 26, 41–42 (1994) (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment).
Quote:
No determination of what rights the Constitution of the United States covers would be complete, of course, without a survey of what other countries do.

When it comes to guns, JUSTICE STEVENS explains, our Nation is already an outlier among “advanced democracies”; not even our “oldest allies” protect as robust a right as we do, and we should not widen the gap. Never mind that he explains neither which countries qualify as “advanced democracies” nor why others are irrelevant. For there is an even clearer indication that this criterion lets judges pick which rights States must respect and those they can ignore: As the plurality shows this follow-the-foreign-crowd requirement would foreclose rights that we have held (and JUSTICE STEVENS accepts) are incorporated, but that other “advanced” nations do not recognize—from the exclusionary rule to the Establishment Clause.

A judge applying JUSTICE STEVENS’ approach must either throw all of those rights overboard or, as cases JUSTICE STEVENS approves have done in considering unenumerated rights, simply ignore foreign law when it undermines the desired conclusion.

Alido ripped Stevens up over this.

 

[zembonez]

Where the heck are we headed and why am I in this handbasket?