Supreme Court Strikes Down DC Handgun Ban

CNSNews ^ | June 26, 2008 | Randy Hall

[Redbob]

"The language in the dissent is just silly."

You've GOT to read the whole decision:
Scalia as much as said Stevens' dissent was "silly" in more than one place!

I'm thinking there's no love lost between those two!

[SuziQ]

Let’s hope and pray the Obamanation doesn’t get in.
We need more judges like Scalia, Alito, Ronerts and Thomas.

AMEN!! We're only just now getting out from under over 30 years of liberal judicial activism. I'd sure hate to be back under it for another 30 years, and if Obama is elected President, at least two of the liberal Justices would resign immediately. Ginsburg and Stevens have held off resigning, because they didn't want President Bush to be the one to name their replacements. Obama would appoint replacements for them who are just as liberal, or more so, and change the balance of the court in one fell swoop.

John McCain may not be the most conservative person, but he's already said he'd appoint justices who would not be judicial activists, and he'd be encouraged to do so to assuage the conservative base.

[thefactor]

yeah the decision of the majority does not surprise me. what does surprise me, however, is just how severely wrong the minority is in the dissent. scary that justices worthy of respect could wish to infringe our rights so egregiously.

[Redleg Duke]

I wonder if the mayor of DC will now organize a hit squad to go around, increasing the numbers of fire arms kills to support his position?

[MrB]

This is the way the leftist judges look at their decisions.

What will be the effect of deciding one way or another?
Will that effect be desirable (to me)?
If so, rule for, if not, rule against. Then find justification through whatever tortured logic you can.

Conservative judges:
What did the Constitution mean (to the public) on this point when it was ratified?
Rule based on that, regardless of personal opinion.

[rockinqsranch]

That author took some liberties didn’t he.

[Straight Vermonter]

Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

Yeah, no one needs to protect themselves in crime-ridden areas. Stevie should crawl out of his ivory tower once in a while and visit one of these areas.

[paul51]

"The decision threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States," Breyer said.

Well, one would hope so.

[Straight Vermonter]

Something that is clearly evident to a con-law student has evaded this great legal mind.

[Stentor]

The individual right to keep and bear arms is not limited to self-defense or hunting, yet this is how it's being spun. Pisses me off!

"...the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes." I would expect that "traditionally lawful purposes" includes taking whatever steps are necessary to maintain proficiency with weapons. The bottom line is that the battles about gun use are going to have to be fought at the local and state level. There will always be voting with your feet.

Hopefully this will seriously demoralize the gun control morons.

[Mr. Lucky]

My guess is that the adjective “new” was not found in Justice Scalia’s opinion in reference to the right of citizens with regard to gun ownership, that it was inserted by the author of this article.

[beltfed308]

Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

Absolutely priceless! This guy has no business sitting in a position of authority.

[Dante3]

Ditto.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

"With today's ruling against the district's ban on handguns, the Supreme Court has increased the likelihood of violence and injury in the nation's capital," said Benjamin in a statement.

Now all he needs to do is fabricate the data to go along with this ridiculous assertion.

At least no one was killed in DC when guns were banned. /sarcasm

Another point that keeps getting lost in the left-wing media, is that the Bill of Rights in the Constitution doesn't document rights granted to us by the government, it documents rights granted to us by God, that the government can't infringe on.

To the 5 Supremes who brought us this ruling,

YAAAAAYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!

[ZULU]

Didn’t he refer to modern guns in that sense?

[TribalPrincess2U]

There’s that selective reasoning the leftist are so good at.

[TribalPrincess2U]

But while a person has a constitutional right to own guns, that new right is not unlimited, Scalia wrote.”
What Scalia actually wrote is this:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose...”

Oh I see, another leftist reporter putting words in someone’s mouth to suit his objectives?

[infowarrior]

"new" right? Is this an error - did Scalia call it a "new" right?

Justice Scalia most emphatically did not call the 2d Amendment new, this is deliberately sloppy writing on the part of the "journalist"...

the infowarrior

[infowarrior]

scary that justices worthy of respect could wish to infringe our rights so egregiously.

Sorry, but if they are willing to do the latter, then they're most definitely *not* "worthy" of the former, QED...

the infowarrior

[baltoga]

No doubt reactions are strong on both sides. However, the problem D.C. has faced is not getting a suspect when a homicide occurs. Why? law abiding citizens are afraid to speak because they can’t defend themselves. The SCOTUS ruling now changes the dynamics and I expect more citizens to speakout and get these punks off the street - for good!