Supreme Court strikes down DC gun ban

B

blackascoal

The Force is With Me
Justices: Gun Right Guaranteed to Individuals
by Ari Shapiro and Renee Montagne

Morning Edition, June 26, 2008 · The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Second Amendment of the Constitution guarantees an individual right to bear arms. That's a huge shift in constitutional law. It is the first time the Supreme Court has unequivocally taken this position on the Second Amendment.

The decision came in a challenge to Washington, D.C.'s gun ban. The nation's capital has one of the strictest gun laws in the country.

It's been almost 70 years since the Supreme Court ruled on the Second Amendment. In that decision, the justices suggested that the amendment is limited to a collective right to own weapons. That's the position the Justice Department has generally held, but this Justice Department, under President Bush, has taken a different position.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91911666&ft=1&f=1001

I don't know his position on this, but somehow I get the feeling Obama is going to agree with it.
 
"I don't know his position on this, but somehow I get the feeling Obama is going to agree with it."

As he should. Guns shouldn't be banned.
 
Obama might have to say he agrees with it for now, but I know he doesn't. The sooner guns are removed from America the better!!!
 
Ok .. now I know .. Obama is just going to float around somewhere in the mushy middle on this.

Obama Camp Disavows Last Year's 'Inartful' Statement on D.C. Gun Law

When Obama has been asked on multiple occasions to weigh in on the D.C. gun case he has regularly maintained that the Second Amendment provides an individual right while at the same time saying that right is not absolute and that the Constitution does not prevent local governments from enacting what Obama calls "common sense laws."

Although he has been willing to describe his general views on this topic, Obama has sidestepped the question of whether the ban in the nation's capital runs afoul of the Second Amendment.

Asked by ABC News' Charlie Gibson if he considers the D.C. law to be consistent with an individual's right to bear arms at ABC's April 16, 2008, debate in Philadelphia, Obama said, "Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven't listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence."

more at link --

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/06/obama-camp-disa.html
 
DNC said:
Obama might have to say he agrees with it for now, but I know he doesn't. The sooner guns are removed from America the better!!!
Click to expand...

Yep. Absolutely. Because once all guns are taken from the hands of law abiding citizens, the the criminals will just turn theirs in and all will right with the world. Then you can begin to dismantle the rest of the Constitution. Curb free speech, burn books, ban religion. Fuck it, just burn the Constitution and start over.

What a moronic and simplistic view.



Fear the government that fears your guns.
 
The main point to this ruling is that the US Supreme Court has finally handed down a ruling on what the 2nd Amendment really means. All this does is remove complete bans.

There is still plenty of room for restrictions. This will be left up to individual jurisdictions.

But having the Supreme Court rule that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and not a collective right is a landmark decision.
 
blackascoal said:
Ok .. now I know .. Obama is just going to float around somewhere in the mushy middle on this.

Obama Camp Disavows Last Year's 'Inartful' Statement on D.C. Gun Law

When Obama has been asked on multiple occasions to weigh in on the D.C. gun case he has regularly maintained that the Second Amendment provides an individual right while at the same time saying that right is not absolute and that the Constitution does not prevent local governments from enacting what Obama calls "common sense laws."

Although he has been willing to describe his general views on this topic, Obama has sidestepped the question of whether the ban in the nation's capital runs afoul of the Second Amendment.

Asked by ABC News' Charlie Gibson if he considers the D.C. law to be consistent with an individual's right to bear arms at ABC's April 16, 2008, debate in Philadelphia, Obama said, "Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven't listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence."

more at link --

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/06/obama-camp-disa.html
Click to expand...
LOL....

The politico dance! Fricking weird.
 
Nothing in the Constitution says you can own a gun, only the Militia.
 
DNC said:
Nothing in the Constitution says you can own a gun, only the Militia.
Click to expand...

The law abiding citizens of this country ARE the militia that to which the US Constitution refers.

That is what has been being argued for years, and this decision settles it.
 
law is the law.. this chipping away at legally owning handguns in certain parts of cities is against the law. Obamas anti gun stance was one of the things i didnt like about him.. but one thing i also knew theres nothing he could really do about. Just like bush cant make illegal abortion.
 
You have to love politicians. This shows a handful of responses from various ones but this response is the best...

"Today, President Bush's radical Supreme Court justices put rigid ideology ahead of the safety of communities in New Jersey and across the country. This decision illustrates why I have strongly opposed extremist judicial nominees and will continue to do so in the future." — Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/06/26/national/w083822D50.DTL
 
DNC said:
Nothing in the Constitution says you can own a gun, only the Militia.
Click to expand...

The militia? You mean the military?

Well thanks founding fathers, for clarifying the militaries right to have guns. We really needed to put that in the bill of rights. I was worried that liberal judges would strip our military of the ability to wield guns.
 
after having Bush as president I am firmly in the camp of gun ownership for Americans.

I also think there should be reasonable laws about what guns.
 
Desh said:
after having Bush as president I am firmly in the camp of gun ownership for Americans.

I also think there should be reasonable laws about what guns.
Click to expand...

The ownership of fully automatic firearms (machine guns) and other items like bazookas or rocket launchers is already extremely limited.

The rest is now up to state and local lawmakers.
 
Damocles said:
I find it funny that it has suddenly become more obvious.
Click to expand...


Well then you haven't been paying attention. Below is his response, in full, to the D.C. handgun case when asked in one of the debates. It's quite clear that he is hedging quite a bit on the issue, recognizing that the Constitution likely confers the right to individual gun ownership, recognizing that state and local governments have the ability to limit or regulate gun ownership and refusing to address the specific question of the D.C. handgun ban:

MR. GIBSON: Senator Obama, the District of Columbia has a law, it's had a law since 1976, it's now before the United States Supreme Court, that prohibits ownership of handguns, a sawed-off shotgun, a machine gun or a short-barreled rifle. Is that law consistent with an individual's right to bear arms?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven't listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence.

As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, and, you know, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.

And I think that it is going to be important for us to reconcile what are two realities in this country.

There's the reality of gun ownership and the tradition of gun ownership that's passed on from generation to generation. You know, when you listen to people who have hunted, and they talk about the fact that they went hunting with their fathers or their mothers, then that is something that is deeply important to them and, culturally, they care about deeply.

But you also have the reality of what's happening here in Philadelphia and what's happening in Chicago.

And...

Mr. GIBSON: But do you still favor the registration of guns? Do you still favor the licensing of guns?

And in 1996, your campaign issued a questionnaire, and your writing was on the questionnaire that said you favored a ban on handguns.

SENATOR OBAMA: No, my writing wasn't on that particular questionnaire, Charlie. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.

What I think we can provide is common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don't have guns in their hands. We can make certain that those who are mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns. We can trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets.

The point is, is that what we have to do is get beyond the politics of this issue and figure out what, in fact, is working.

Look, in my hometown of Chicago, on the south side of Chicago, we've had 34 gun deaths last year of Chicago public school children.

And I think that most law-abiding gun owners all across America would recognize that it is perfectly appropriate for local communities and states and the federal government to try to figure out, how do we stop that kind of killing?
Click to expand...


It's the same dance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top