SCOTUS says individuals have right to own guns

[TexasTiger 12,980]

But limiting handguns across the board is wrong. And it obviously isn't cutting down on crime in DC.

Agree with your first statement. Not sure about the second.

A careful study that compared the nine year period before the ban was enacted with the nine years following enactment, and then compared what happened in D.C. with the immediately surrounding areas in Maryland and Virginia, found that the handgun ban reduced gun-related homicides by 25% and gun-related suicides by 23 percent. Colin Loftin, Ph.D., et al., “Effects of Restrictive Licensing of Handguns of Homicide and Suicide in the District of Columbia,” 325 New Eng. J. Med. 1615 (Dec. 5, 1991). The law did not turn Washington into the Garden of Eden, and crime rates fluctuated, particularly during the last few years of the study when the use of “crack” cocaine was increasing and homicides increased dramatically. Nevertheless, the effect of the law was both immediate and sustained, and things would have been worse without it. So a dangerous city is likely to get quickly more dangerous.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/heller-discus...e-in-the-water/

[CCTAU 3,336]

So let me get this straight...if ONE vote had gone the other way, would we have to turn in our guns?

No.

One step at a time. You would have seen the libs go crazy with city gun bans. Doesn't matter that they don't work, libs always know what's best for all of us.....until it's too late.

[TexasTiger 12,980]

So let me get this straight...if ONE vote had gone the other way, would we have to turn in our guns?

No.

One step at a time. You would have seen the libs go crazy with city gun bans. Doesn't matter that they don't work, libs always know what's best for all of us.....until it's too late.

Until this decision, there was nothing keeping the "libs" from passing such bans if they wished. As Obama said, "Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country."

[TexasTiger 12,980]

As a follow up, now that you apply the 2nd amendment of the Bill of Rights - designed for States - on the District of Columbia, is it time to give the people of DC voting rights???

Actually, the Bill of Rights originally ONLY applied to the federal government. And this decision doesn't necessarily apply to the states...yet.

[AURaptor 1,125]

As a follow up, now that you apply the 2nd amendment of the Bill of Rights - designed for States - on the District of Columbia, is it time to give the people of DC voting rights???

Actually, the Bill of Rights originally ONLY applied to the federal government. And this decision doesn't necessarily apply to the states...yet.

Didn't the BoR apply to the states once they ratified it ?

[CCTAU 3,336]

You think this ruling isn't a huge win for the American public? Just look at the straws the left are still grasping for:

Pelosi Says D.C. Could Continue Gun Regulation

@ 12:29 pm by Andy Barr

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says that despite the Supreme Court decision to strike down its gun ban, the District of Columbia will still be able to regulate firearms.

"I think it still allows the District of Columbia to come forward with a law that’s less pervasive," Pelosi said at her weekly briefing Thursday. "I think the court left a lot of room to run in terms of concealed weapons and guns near schools."

INK

Since when has guns near schools been a legal owner issue? The only ones that do that are the killers. She's still looking for a loophole. These people will not be satisfied until the government has TOTAL control over our every day mundane lives.

If this had been a different ruling, there would be 500 briefs in court this morning...all asking for handguns to be banned.

I REFUSE TO BE A VICTIM!

[TexasTiger 12,980]

As a follow up, now that you apply the 2nd amendment of the Bill of Rights - designed for States - on the District of Columbia, is it time to give the people of DC voting rights???

Actually, the Bill of Rights originally ONLY applied to the federal government. And this decision doesn't necessarily apply to the states...yet.

Didn't the BoR apply to the states once they ratified it ?

No. The states sought to limit the powers of the federal government, not their own.

[Tigermike 3,046]

“The People” narrowly prevailed.

[TheDrewYouKnew 3]

So let me get this straight...if ONE vote had gone the other way, would we have to turn in our guns?

No.

One step at a time. You would have seen the libs go crazy with city gun bans. Doesn't matter that they don't work, libs always know what's best for all of us.....until it's too late.

UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE please!! I hate keeping any of my hard earned money!! Social security, welfare, and medicare dont drain us enough, take some more please!!

[TexasTiger 12,980]

So let me get this straight...if ONE vote had gone the other way, would we have to turn in our guns?

No.

One step at a time. You would have seen the libs go crazy with city gun bans. Doesn't matter that they don't work, libs always know what's best for all of us.....until it's too late.

UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE please!! I hate keeping any of my hard earned money!! Social security, welfare, and medicare dont drain us enough, take some more please!!

Didn't notice the actual topic again, huh?

[TheDrewYouKnew 3]

So let me get this straight...if ONE vote had gone the other way, would we have to turn in our guns?

No.

One step at a time. You would have seen the libs go crazy with city gun bans. Doesn't matter that they don't work, libs always know what's best for all of us.....until it's too late.

UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE please!! I hate keeping any of my hard earned money!! Social security, welfare, and medicare dont drain us enough, take some more please!!

Didn't notice the actual topic again, huh?

Yes I did, and?

[TitanTiger 20,508]

Yes I did, and?

You managed not to address it at all.

[TheDrewYouKnew 3]

Yes I did, and?

You managed not to address it at all.

In all technicalities, you are correct. I pledge that I will from now on be sure that all my responses, as well as those of others, address the thread topic in some way. Sorry again for speaking a truth that was not on topic. I clearly would be a great politician.

[quietfan 233]

But four justices voted against the constitution.

Uhhh? Since the Supreme Court is the body that decides what the Constitution means, how can any of them be said to be voting against it? Are you implying that all decisions by the Supremes must be unanimous?

Of course, there are some hard core extremely conservative strict constitutionalists who still believe the Court usurped the powers of judical review with Marbury vs. Madison, when they pretty much said for themselves "We have the power to determine what is constitutional." The Constitution doesn't actually explicitly grant the Supreme Court this power, but the reality is that some group has to do this--i.e., somebody will make decisions about the contitutionality of statues--and common sense and the history of common law says the courts are the most obvious place for this to happen.

As a follow up, now that you apply the 2nd amendment of the Bill of Rights - designed for States - on the District of Columbia, is it time to give the people of DC voting rights???

Actually, the Bill of Rights originally ONLY applied to the federal government. And this decision doesn't necessarily apply to the states...yet.

Didn't the BoR apply to the states once they ratified it ?

Well, technically, it was the 14th amendment that extended the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states and individual "persons". (Note that it says "persons', not "citizens"--a key point in the treatment of "enemy combatants" & Guantanamo Bay.) There are still those who try to argue, for example, that since the 1st amendment only says "Congress shall make no laws" prohibiting freedoms of the press, speech, or religion, the states are free to do so. It has been repeatedly ruled, however, that the 14th amendment protects us all from such abuses by individual state governments.

Back to the gun issue:

This DC ban has been around for 32 years and is only just now being challenged? I'm surprized it took so long!

For me personally, although I proudly admit to being a "bleeding heart liberal", the "libertarian" part of my liberalness makes me believe there are some things that just aren't the government's business. As long as I'm not hurting other individuals or stepping on their rights, I don't think it's the government's business what kind of firearms I own, drugs I use, movies I watch, books I read, or gender I have sex with. I personally don't happen to have any guns, drugs, pornography, seditious literature or gay lovers in my home, but I don't think it's the government's business if I wanted to. (I do recognize that guns have a slightly different Constitutional status since there is no amendment specifically protecting pornography or drugs by name, but philosphically it's all the same to me.)

[channonc 466]

Back to the gun issue:

This DC ban has been around for 32 years and is only just now being challenged? I'm surprized it took so long!

Actually, I think the law has been challenged several times, but that this is the first case the Supreme Court has agreed to hear on the DC gun ban. I could be wrong, but I think I remember reading in the newspaper when the Court was getting ready to hear oral arguments.

[TexasTiger 12,980]

But four justices voted against the constitution.

Uhhh? Since the Supreme Court is the body that decides what the Constitution means, how can any of them be said to be voting against it? Are you implying that all decisions by the Supremes must be unanimous?

Of course, there are some hard core extremely conservative strict constitutionalists who still believe the Court usurped the powers of judical review with Marbury vs. Madison, when they pretty much said for themselves "We have the power to determine what is constitutional." The Constitution doesn't actually explicitly grant the Supreme Court this power, but the reality is that some group has to do this--i.e., somebody will make decisions about the contitutionality of statues--and common sense and the history of common law says the courts are the most obvious place for this to happen.

As a follow up, now that you apply the 2nd amendment of the Bill of Rights - designed for States - on the District of Columbia, is it time to give the people of DC voting rights???

Actually, the Bill of Rights originally ONLY applied to the federal government. And this decision doesn't necessarily apply to the states...yet.

Didn't the BoR apply to the states once they ratified it ?

Well, technically, it was the 14th amendment that extended the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states and individual "persons". (Note that it says "persons', not "citizens"--a key point in the treatment of "enemy combatants" & Guantanamo Bay.) There are still those who try to argue, for example, that since the 1st amendment only says "Congress shall make no laws" prohibiting freedoms of the press, speech, or religion, the states are free to do so. It has been repeatedly ruled, however, that the 14th amendment protects us all from such abuses by individual state governments.

Just to further clarify, the 14th amendment provides the framework for incorporating particular rights listed in the BoR as applying against the states, but has not been ruled to automatically extend all of them. The Court has not yet ruled that all rights enumerated in the BoR are protected against state action, including the second amendment in this case.

[quietfan 233]

Well, technically, it was the 14th amendment that extended the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states and individual "persons". (Note that it says "persons', not "citizens"--a key point in the treatment of "enemy combatants" & Guantanamo Bay.) There are still those who try to argue, for example, that since the 1st amendment only says "Congress shall make no laws" prohibiting freedoms of the press, speech, or religion, the states are free to do so. It has been repeatedly ruled, however, that the 14th amendment protects us all from such abuses by individual state governments.

Just to further clarify, the 14th amendment provides the framework for incorporating particular rights listed in the BoR as applying against the states, but has not been ruled to automatically extend all of them. The Court has not yet ruled that all rights enumerated in the BoR are protected against state action, including the second amendment in this case.

Thanks for the clarification--I'm not a constitutional law professor, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn last night!