Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: CCTAU on June 28, 2010, 03:00:47 PM
-
Yahoo! News
Fast facts: High court's gun-rights ruling at a glance
Mon Jun 28, 11:43 am ET
By LAURA E. DAVIS, Yahoo! News
With its decision Monday in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court forever changed the terms of debate over the right to bear arms. The 5-4 vote extends principles the court laid out in 2008, when it struck down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C. In finding that the Second Amendment extends to state and local laws, the court has unequivocally affirmed an individual right to own handguns for self-defense, and has restricted every city and state in the kinds of gun-control laws they may enact.
Of course, there will still be limits on the right to keep and bear arms — and plenty of litigation to redefine them after this landmark decision. But if you're wondering about the decision's immediate legal effects, here are some plainspoken answers.
What are the specific terms of the ruling?
The court essentially said state and local laws banning handguns (which preclude citizens from owning handguns for self-defense in the home) are too strict. The decision flows directly from the court's ruling in the 2008 case, District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down Washington, D.C.'s blanket ban on handguns. While that case already addressed the meaning of the Second Amendment by affirming the right of citizens to own handguns, it applied only on a federal level. (D.C. is under federal jurisdiction.) This case — by way of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment — extends the same interpretation of the Second Amendment to state and local levels. Taken together, these rulings say that the Constitution bars various levels of government from banning handgun ownership.
Will this ruling affect gun laws where I live?
For now, this Supreme Court ruling is only likely to affect gun laws in Chicago and Oak Park, Ill. — there is no immediate effect on any other laws. So if you live in another city that restricts gun possession in some way, that law remains in effect for the moment. Both the National Rifle Association and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence say no other communities currently ban handgun possession in the home, so no other laws are clearly rendered unconstitutional. However, this Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment can be used to challenge other gun laws in cities and states. So this case may result in incremental change across the country as gun laws are challenged one by one.
If I live in a city where handgun ownership is restricted, can I buy a handgun now?
No, you will still be subject to the restrictions that were already in place. So if you had to get a license to buy a handgun, you will still need to go through that process. Even in Chicago and Oak Park, the cities where the handgun bans were challenged, the restrictions remain in place for now. The high court interpreted the Constitution but left the actual decision regarding the cities' laws to a lower court. It's likely under the Supreme Court's ruling that the lower court will find the laws unconstitutional, and at that time the cities will probably be able to rewrite their laws to comply with the ruling while still enacting some gun restrictions.
Does this mean I can purchase any kind of gun I want?
A: No. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that ownership of many kinds of guns, such as assault weapons, can be banned.
Does this mean felons can purchase guns?
No. Just as the Supreme Court has allowed restrictions on the kinds of guns people can own, it has permitted some restrictions on who can own them. The Brady Center notes that the federal Gun Control Act of 1968 explicitly bars felons from buying guns.
How does the ruling affect carrying weapons in public?
It doesn't. This ruling affects only handgun ownership, not where you can take that gun. So laws that prohibit guns in public still stand.
Could other pending cases further expand what's allowed under the Second Amendment?
None are before the Supreme Court right now, but UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh told Yahoo! News that the McDonald case "will doubtless trigger a new round of litigation" — for example, challenges to local restrictions on gun possession by people younger than 21 or by noncitizens. And D.C. isn’t out of the legal woods: A plaintiff from the Heller case is trying to gain the right to carry weapons in public, while other gun-rights advocates are challenging the new D.C. law that was written to comply with Heller.
— Laura E. Davis is an editor for Yahoo! News.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100628/pl_ynews/ynews_pl2876 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100628/pl_ynews/ynews_pl2876)
-
This is outstanding news CCT.
AWK - isn't your famous lawyer saying "Its the supreme law of the land" kicking in on this case? It seems that is the case on this ruling.
-
It would have been the case if they had decided it the other way, as well.
-
Glad that you posted this good news, CCT, however I find it disturbing that this was not a unanimous vote in support of the Second Amendment Rights.
-
Glad that you posted this good news, CCT, however I find it disturbing that this was not a unanimous vote in support of the Second Amendment Rights.
Doesn't have to be unanimous to be law, but I understand what you mean.
-
It would have been the case if they had decided it the other way, as well.
Eggzactly.
-
It would have been the case if they had decided it the other way, as well.
True. But that would have pissed me off. THIS...made me happy.
-
True. But that would have pissed me off. THIS...made me happy.
So you're against States' Rights? :poke:
-
Doesn't have to be unanimous to be law, but I understand what you mean.
I understand what you mean also and I do not intend to be provocative to you (or the other Lawyers on the board) but it doesn't take a person with a law degree to understand the meaning and the intent of the 2nd Amendment. Why this is so difficult for liberal justices to understand is beyond me other than their hatred of guns in general and their scorn of the Second Amendment and an armed citizenry as being the ultimate "check and balance" to a tyrant (yes, I said it!) blinds them to the purpose as intended by the Founders.
Justice Sotomayor herself was asked about this very issue by Senator Leahy (D-VT) during her Confirmation Hearing:
...
LEAHY: I've owned firearms since my early teen years. I suspect a large majority of Vermonters do. I enjoy target shooting on a very regular basis at our home in Vermont. So I watched that decision rather carefully and found it interesting.
Is it safe to say that you accept the Supreme Court's decision as establishing that the Second Amendment right is an individual right? Is that correct?
SOTOMAYOR: Yes, sir.
...
She was unequivocal in her answer. It was the shortest answer she gave during her hearing.
Obviously she was lying.
Full transcript (of her interview by Leahy):
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/14/leahy_questions_sotomayor_hearing_transcript_97451.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/14/leahy_questions_sotomayor_hearing_transcript_97451.html)
-
I understand what you mean also and I do not intend to be provocative to you (or the other Lawyers on the board) but it doesn't take a person with a law degree to understand the meaning and the intent of the 2nd Amendment. Why this is so difficult for liberal justices to understand is beyond me other than their hatred of guns in general and their scorn of the Second Amendment and an armed citizenry as being the ultimate "check and balance" to a tyrant (yes, I said it!) blinds them to the purpose as intended by the Founders.
Justice Sotomayor herself was asked about this very issue by Senator Leahy (D-VT) during her Confirmation Hearing:
She was unequivocal in her answer. It was the shortest answer she gave during her hearing.
Obviously she was lying.
Full transcript (of her interview by Leahy):
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/14/leahy_questions_sotomayor_hearing_transcript_97451.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/14/leahy_questions_sotomayor_hearing_transcript_97451.html)
Could that be perjury?
-
Could that be perjury?
Of course it is but do you think that The ONE or any of his orcs in the Justice Dept. or the obsequious sheep in Congress can or will do anything about it? Do you think that the sycophantic media will call her out?
-
Of course it is but do you think that The ONE or any of his orcs in the Justice Dept. or the obsequious sheep in Congress can or will do anything about it? Do you think that the sycophantic media will call her out?
I may have to back off of the 'obsequious sheep in Congress' comment because Sen. Harry Reid and Gov. Sarah Palin were in virtual agreeance:
...
In a Facebook post titled “Another Victory for the Second Amendment,” Palin wrote that the case “should leave little doubt that our individual right to keep and bear arms applies everywhere and is a right for everyone.”
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) essentially agreed, calling the right to bear arms “one of the essential freedoms on which our country was founded.”
...
Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/39142.html#ixzz0sGP2vP1G (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/39142.html#ixzz0sGP2vP1G)
*Edit: Sen. Reid's remark begs the question yet again why the liberal justices cannot seem to understand this 'essential freedom'.
I rather like the fact that Justice Thomas in his statement recalled or cited the decision made by the Supreme Court to grant to right of gun ownership to former slaves (after the War Between the States) as the ultimate acknowledgment of their true freedom.*
-
I may have to back off of the 'obsequious sheep in Congress' comment because Sen. Harry Reid and Gov. Sarah Palin were in virtual agreeance:
Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/39142.html#ixzz0sGP2vP1G (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/39142.html#ixzz0sGP2vP1G)
*Edit: Sen. Reid's remark begs the question yet again why the liberal justices cannot seem to understand this 'essential freedom'.
I rather like the fact that Justice Thomas in his statement recalled or cited the decision made by the Supreme Court to grant to right of gun ownership to former slaves (after the War Between the States) as the ultimate acknowledgment of their true freedom.*
You know why. The left is about having power over people, and have been throughout history. They don't believe its a govt for the people, by the people. And the best way to get power over people is to disarm them. This was one of the first things Hitler convinced the German people to do - give up there guns. Of course (by design), after they forked them over, he turned bad cop and it was too late to go back at that point. The rest is history.
I find it funny too that Chicago and DC are the 2 of the highest crime cities in the US. They also have historically banned guns too.