Supreme Court rules for Gun Ownership

[thaiboxerken]

The Supreme Court just ruled that States and Local governments cannot infringe upon the 2nd ammendment. So go out and buy your guns! Whoo hoo!! Let's relive the wild west!

 

[Alferd_Packer]

So much for the 10th amendment.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

So much for the 10th amendment.

It has nothing to do with the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment reserves to states, those powers not delegated to the federal government. It doesn't give states the power to violate rights affirmed in the Bill of Rights.

 

[Cleon]

So much for the 10th amendment.

The tenth amendment does not give the states the right to overrule or ignore the rest of the Constitution.

This decision wasn't a surprise; this court has been fairly consistent about their support for gun rights. Glad to see SCOTUS finally taking this up, though; the question of what the second amendment "really means" needed to be settled.

 

[Newtons Bit]

The Supreme Court just ruled that States and Local governments cannot infringe upon the 2nd ammendment. So go out and buy your guns! Whoo hoo!! Let's relive the wild west!

My state already allows open-carry for everyone and concealed-carry by permit. Amazingly enough, we're not the wild west.

There must be something in the water, right?

 

[Juniversal]

So much for "they're gonna take are guns!!".

 

[KingMerv00]

So much for the 10th amendment.

This is more about the 14th amendment than the 10th.

 

[KingMerv00]

Here is the news story. Here is the court opinion.

5-4 decision? Without looking, I bet I can guess the breakdown...

*takes a look*

Yep. I called it.

 

[Suddenly]

This is more about the 14th amendment than the 10th.

Cross posted from the evil place:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Issue: Does the 14th amendment apply the 2nd amendment to the states?


Main opinion by Alito says little, basic idea that the incorporation doctrine in the 14th amendment applies the 2nd amendment to the states. Some mild irony in that he applies a shifting doctrine of incorporation that wasn't in use when earlier cases were decided which smells of the "living constitution" stuff that is supposed to give us all the swine flu. Reasonable analysis all in all, but....


Thomas wrote a concurring opinion that is IMO absolutely spot on (I think this may be the first time I have ever typed that) and would have reversed The Slaughterhouse Cases and Cruikshank, both of which are more or less Jim Crow enabling bull[crap] in my opinion. Also makes a compelling historical case that the ratifiers of the 14th specifically wanted to establish the right to bear arms in order to allow southern blacks to defend themselves from whitey.



The dissents strike me as liberal butthurt about Heller.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I'm a liberal who disagreed with Heller... but once you take that case as read I think this decision follows. I'd have liked them to take the opportunity to dump The Slaughterhouse Cases and the absurd construction it gave the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th amendment though.

 

[Suddenly]

Here is the news story.

Here is the court opinion.

5-4 decision? Without looking, I bet I can guess the breakdown...

*takes a look*

Yep. I called it.

I don't know. Alito has five votes as to the result, but Thomas didn't join into the reasoning as he dislikes the concept of "due process" being used in a context not involving procedure.

So we have a clear ruling as to the second amendment applying to the states, but just a plurality as to exactly why.

Or at least that is how it looks at first glance.

 

[Drudgewire]

The Supreme Court just ruled that States and Local governments cannot infringe upon the 2nd ammendment. So go out and buy your guns! Whoo hoo!! Let's relive the wild west!

This is terrible. Chicago was completely free of gun violence prior to this ruling.

 

[Bikewer]

It is odd that locations with some of the strictest laws have also been places rife with violence.
For a long time, it was virtually impossible for a private citizen in New York to own a handgun, yet the police seized and destroyed huge numbers "off the street" on a monthly basis.
We've had concealed carry (with appropriate permit) here in Missouri for several years now...No indications of Wild West shootouts...Except among the gangsters and drug dealers who don't pay a lot of attention to law anyway.

 

[Beerina]

The Supreme Court just ruled that States and Local governments cannot infringe upon the 2nd ammendment. So go out and buy your guns! Whoo hoo!! Let's relive the wild west!

How was the non-Wild West doin' for Chicago there, buddy?

 

[dtugg]

The Supreme Court just ruled that States and Local governments cannot infringe upon the 2nd ammendment. So go out and buy your guns! Whoo hoo!! Let's relive the wild west!

Yeah, because that is what happened in DC after the SCOTUS ended their ban. No, wait. In 2009 there was a significant drop in the murder rate. In fact, it is was the lowest it has been in decades.

 

[Beerina]

Here is the news story. Here is the court opinion.

5-4 decision? Without looking, I bet I can guess the breakdown...

*takes a look*

Yep. I called it.

Thanks for the text link. I love reading the details in these things.

Chicago and Oak Park (municipal respon-
dents) maintain that a right set out in the Bill of Rights applies to
the States only when it is an indispensable attribute of any “ ‘civi-
lized’ ” legal system.

Yeesh. Argument from moral intimidation, a sign of woo.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

Actually given the murder rate that we know about during the time referred to as the Wild West, I would prefer it to what is in my midwestern city of Wichita.

Unfortunately most people's opinion and knowledge of the old west seems to come from dime store novels and penny dreadfuls of the time, not anything approaching actual facts or research.

I am glad to see this decision, and no I don't own a gun, because I hate when states try to legislate away Constitutionally protected rights like the 2nd Amendment.

 

[dtugg]

Chicago and Oak Park (municipal respondents) maintain that a right set out in the Bill of Rights applies to the States only when it is an indispensable attribute of any “ ‘civilized’ ” legal system.

They actually argued that? Wow.

 

[carlitos]

Great news. A victory for individual rights.

 

[Suddenly]

They actually argued that? Wow.

Well... considering that is part of the incorporation standard used by the Court, yes.

 

[dtugg]

Well... considering that is part of the incorporation standard used by the Court, yes.

Guess I learn something new everyday. Sounds stupid to me.