Supreme Court Protects 2nd Amendment!

It’s about time someone in government defended and protected the Constitution!!

Kudos to the Supreme Court Justices who clearly understood that the 2nd Amendment gives individual citizens the “right to own and bear arms” and stood by “We The People” in this very important issue! The Supreme Court has issued its decision regarding the DC ban on hand-gun ownership by declaring it UNconstitutional!! The Supremes agreed that reasonable restrictions are acceptable and sensible (no need for citizens to own nuclear warheads or UZIs), BUT the Supremes upheld our Constitutional right to arm ourselves with handguns.

The Justices who deserve our thanks are: Chief Justice John G. Roberts; Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr.; Justice Antonin Scalia; Justice Anthony Kennedy; and Justice Clarence Thomas.

As reported on CNN today:

High court strikes down gun ban

From Bill Mears
CNN Supreme Court Producer

WASHINGTON (CNN) — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a sweeping ban on handguns in the nation’s capital violated the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

A gun ownership supporter holds a placard in March outside the Supreme Court in Washington.

A gun ownership supporter holds a placard in March outside the Supreme Court in Washington.

The justices voted 5-4 against the ban, with Justice Antonin Scalia writing the opinion for the majority.

At issue in District of Columbia v. Heller was whether Washington’s ban violated the right to “keep and bear arms” by preventing individuals — as opposed to state militias — from having guns in their homes.

“Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security and where gun violence is a serious problem,” Scalia wrote. “That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”

Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, who are all considered conservative voices on the court. Justice Anthony Kennedy, often seen as a swing vote, also joined the majority.

© 2008 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Read the FULL STORY here.

In the decision, Justice Scalia says:

“Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security and where gun violence is a serious problem,” Scalia wrote. (bold emphasis is mine)

And there are some who would argue just that point. However, they would be wrong in their argument for THE POLICE HAVE NO DUTY TO PROTECT INDIVIDUALS! I only learned this a few months ago myself. Since we really cannot depend on the Police to protect us (there aren’t enough of them to do that anyway), we should, AND DO, have the right to protect ourselves.

Washington DC’s argument about gun crime and number of gun-related deaths is hysterical because their ban on private citizens owning handguns has been in effect since 1976 and the number of gun-related deaths HAS RISEN SINCE THEN. In fact DC has the STRICTEST gun laws and the HIGHESTdeath by firearms” in the nation. So how does DISarming the people help again? Seems to me that the criminal element, who never use legally obtained handguns to start with, are the ONLY ones with guns in DC and are NOT afraid to use them because they know the rest of the law-abiding citizens are UNarmed.

This isn’t rocket science. It doesn’t take a dozen degrees in physics to see the absurdity and stupidity of DCs gun ban…..but then we are talking about Washington DC, seat of the stupidest people, passing laws, trying to claim high education and intelligence, in the country.

Thank God/Goddess that saner heads prevailed in this decision.

The Justices (they don’t deserve that title) that deserve a great big WTF for wanting to strip the citizens of their Constitutional 2nd Amendment right to protect themselves, their homes and families, are:

John Paul Stevens; David Souter; Ruth Bader Ginsberg; and Stephen Breyer.

Interestingly enough, in the 5th Amendment case of Kelo v. New London, Justice Souter ALSO was against the people and the Constitution, as was Justice Ginsberg.

268 Conn. 1, 843 A. 2d 500, affirmed.

Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Kennedy, J., filed a concurring opinion.

O’Connor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Scalia and Thomas, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Exactly what part of Constitutional rights don’t they get?

At least where our 2nd Amendment rights are concerned, the Supremes ruled FOR the people and deserve KUDOS for that!

Advertisements

~ by swfreedomlover on June 26, 2008.

9 Responses to “Supreme Court Protects 2nd Amendment!”

  1. While I agree with the decision on constitutional grounds, I think you’re shortchanging the nuances of the issue. This isn’t as cut-and-dried as you seem to believe. The liberal wing of the court voted to uphold the ban on solid policy arguments, backed up by plenty of statistics about gun violence and the effect of gun control laws. They’re irrelevant to any constitutional analysis, but to flippantly dismiss them as if there weren’t two sides to this issue–or that the side you disagree with is simply a bunch of knuckle-dragging morons–doesn’t help your case.

  2. IF gun control laws are so effective then explain how “right to carry” states have LOWER gun crime rates than those cities/states with handgun bans. Look up the stats for gun crimes, and you’ll see that DC with the strictest gun control and handgun ban has the HIGHEST rate of firearms crime/death than any other city.

    Also look up the duty of the police to protect individuals, especially in their own homes. There is NO duty for them to do that. The job of the police is to enforce the laws, catching criminals in the process. There are several cases out there regarding this and even the Supreme Court has decreed that the police have NO duty to protect individuals. Besides which there aren’t enough police to do that anyway.

    Given that, why can’t a law abiding citizen be prepared to defend himself and his family in their own home? Why shouldn’t someone who is not physically strong, be able to learn how to shoot, to buy a gun and keep that handgun in their home for their self-defense?

    Then there is the issue that our founding fathers knew the people also needed a way to defend themselves against a government that became too powerful and tried to remove the freedoms and liberties this country was founded on. They wanted to be sure that “the people” were capable of defending themselves against just that. Besides which an armed citizenry is also useful should the country be attacked from several fronts.

    It’s not the guns that are dangerous, it’s some of the idiots handling them. Proper training would cut down on accidents and problems. People getting back to respect for others and common sense would do even more.

    I just don’t trust any government who does NOT want its people capable of defending themselves.

  3. “IF gun control laws are so effective then explain how “right to carry” states have LOWER gun crime rates than those cities/states with handgun bans. Look up the stats for gun crimes, and you’ll see that DC with the strictest gun control and handgun ban has the HIGHEST rate of firearms crime/death than any other city.”

    Yes it does. But you’ll find that blue-state NY has a lower violent crime rate per capita than red-state Texas. Red-state Arkansas is higher than both. Ultra-blue state Vermont (with some fairly lax gun laws) has the lowest (only 136 per 10,000 people). Of course, very-blue California (though it has lax gun laws) has a very high rate. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/

    I’m not drawing any hard and fast conclusions from this data, since it would be falling into an oversimplification trap to do so. The only conclusion we can draw is that none can be drawn. Also, I’m not sure where you get the idea that I think gun control is “so effective” at anything, as I didn’t say it was. I said there were “solid policy arguments” in favor of limiting access to guns. Pages 14-20 of Breyer’s dissent get into them. While you may not agree with Breyer or the statistics–and I’m not saying that you should–I am saying that you should at least consider them instead of spouting vitriol as if there were no intelligent arguments other than your own.

    “Also look up the duty of the police to protect individuals, especially in their own homes. There is NO duty for them to do that. The job of the police is to enforce the laws, catching criminals in the process. There are several cases out there regarding this and even the Supreme Court has decreed that the police have NO duty to protect individuals. Besides which there aren’t enough police to do that anyway.”

    All well and fine, and I read it the first time in the original body of your blog entry. However, I don’t see it as relevant to my point.

    “Given that, why can’t a law abiding citizen be prepared to defend himself and his family in their own home? Why shouldn’t someone who is not physically strong, be able to learn how to shoot, to buy a gun and keep that handgun in their home for their self-defense?”

    I never said they shouldn’t.

    “Then there is the issue that our founding fathers knew the people also needed a way to defend themselves against a government that became too powerful and tried to remove the freedoms and liberties this country was founded on. They wanted to be sure that “the people” were capable of defending themselves against just that.”

    Again I direct you to Breyer’s dissent, wherein he runs down a history lesson regarding revolutionary-era gun control laws in major cities (they existed). Back then, however, if the government went rogue, a militia may have been able to do something about it. Not so today, unless you happen to know a lot of people who keep tanks in their garages or aircraft carriers in their wading pools. If the government were to turn on us, we’d be in serious trouble. Any revolution we could mount would have to be fought covertly, and not with guns.

    Nevertheless, one of this is relevant to my point, which is, specifically, that you haven’t bothered to consider the other side yet.

    “Besides which an armed citizenry is also useful should the country be attacked from several fronts.”

    We’re not talking about an “armed citizenry,” we’re talking about the right to bear arms. You could knock away every impediment in existence to the Second Amendment, and you still wouldn’t have an “armed citizenry.” You’d simply have wide-open access to guns. The majority of people today who don’t have guns don’t want them, so righteously upholding the Second Amendment wouldn’t create many more armed citizens than we have now (unless you count felons, who I’m sure would love to be able to purchase guns legally.)

    “I just don’t trust any government who does NOT want its people capable of defending themselves.”

    I don’t either, but if they decided to clamp down on us, I doubt there’s much we could do about it.

  4. “The majority of people today who don’t have guns don’t want them, so righteously upholding the Second Amendment wouldn’t create many more armed citizens than we have now”

    Precisely, which is why I don’t understand the uproar over the SC decision. I saw that decision as making clear that IF the average citizen does not have a criminal record, is not mentally impaired, that they should be allowed to get a license to own a gun. Hence MY reaction.

    You are right though in that I haven’t looked into the other side of this issue, and was realizing after your first comment that I need to do that to find out why some are so appalled by this. And I will be. I’ll also do a follow-up posting on it within the week as well.

    My reaction stems from the fact that I see so many of our freedoms and liberties being stripped away from us under the guise of “crime control”, “to protect the children”, “to protect the sickly”, “to thwart terrorists” that I’m wondering, or rather fearing, that this country will turn into what the USSR used to be. I see our government using the same control tactics that they condemn other countries for using. S. 1959 is a bill about “security”, yet when you read it, they consider the internet to be terrorist breeding grounds, and then another section which basically translates that even sharing your thoughts or opinions that our government is wrong can be construed as “dissent” and have you labeled a “domestic terrorist threat”.

    All this has me RE-acting lately before actually researching and I admit this is my bad.

    I will re-visit both sides of this gun issue and see which side I end up on. For the record, I don’t own a gun now nor have I ever wanted to……………though I have considered it during the past year. What stops me now is needing to find out how and where I can go to learn about care and use of the gun, and practice. Not having a car here in Phoenix, that gets a little difficult unless there is someplace in the downtown area I can go (which I haven’t found yet).

    I thank you for making me stop and think though.

  5. Freedoms continue to go the way of the public smoking….celebrate this victory for our constitution, no matter how small!

    Besides, even if we HAD tanks, we couldn’t afford to gas em up. 🙂

  6. “You are right though in that I haven’t looked into the other side of this issue, and was realizing after your first comment that I need to do that to find out why some are so appalled by this. And I will be. I’ll also do a follow-up posting on it within the week as well.”

    I look forward to reading it.

    “My reaction stems from the fact that I see so many of our freedoms and liberties being stripped away from us under the guise of “crime control”, “to protect the children”, “to protect the sickly”, “to thwart terrorists” that I’m wondering, or rather fearing, that this country will turn into what the USSR used to be. I see our government using the same control tactics that they condemn other countries for using.”

    I agree. Our civil liberties are extremely important, and deserve the highest protection, which is several rungs above where they are now. But I don’t think anyone realistically believes they’re absolute.

    “All this has me RE-acting lately before actually researching and I admit this is my bad….I thank you for making me stop and think though.”

    Nobody’s perfect. I need some readers to keep me honest too, and they do.

  7. 5-4 is not he most comfortable ruling. The court is not always going to have the “tilt” is has now.

    I am either not as pleased with this ruling as I thought I would be or I am just overly paranoid and continue to look at the glass as being half empty.

  8. …yes a scary majority on this ruling….it ought of been a non-issue …sad day when we the people forget what our rights really are and have to have the courts reaffirm….but the ruling was just and right…..I too miss my country…apple pie and the 4th of July….we need to keep up the good fight and sow the seeds of truth and opinion…its our duty as a free people….congrats on the webmasters achievements and personal growth..thanks for sharing!

  9. […] ruling on the DC gun ban case, which I along with everyone else who was waiting for this decision, immediately posted on! In their close call ruling (5-4) the Court held: 2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: