Breaking news: U.S. Supreme Court extends gun ownership rights nationwide

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Constitution's "right to keep and bear arms" applies nationwide as a restraint on the ability of the federal, state and local governments to substantially limit its reach.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court, said the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states."

The court was split along familiar ideological lines, with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and the four liberals, opposed.

Two years ago, the court declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess guns, at least for purposes of self-defense in the home.

That ruling applied only to federal laws. It struck down a ban on handguns and a trigger lock requirement for other guns in the District of Columbia, a federal city with a unique legal standing. At the same time, the court was careful not to cast doubt on other regulations of firearms here.

Gun rights proponents almost immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging gun control laws in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill, where handguns have been banned for nearly 30 years. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence says those laws appear to be the last two remaining outright bans.

The Supreme Court already has said that most of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights serve as a check on state and local, as well as federal, laws.

Link to article

Thank God Elena Kagan is not on the Court.:)

Stay safe,stay 2nd amendment.

Thats good. Rather have too much gun rights then not enough. Honestly, I don't see why a citizen should have an Ak47, all they really need is a 12 guage shot gun and the house will stay safe, and a pistol if you want safety on the go. One of the few issues I agree with conservatives strongly on.

Thats good. Rather have too much gun rights then not enough. Honestly, I don't see why a citizen should have an Ak47, all they really need is a 12 guage shot gun and the house will stay safe, and a pistol if you want safety on the go. One of the few issues I agree with conservatives strongly on.

Grodus5

But but but... What if the commies invade?

I'll never understand this country's obsession with guns.

I'll never understand this country's obsession with guns.

worlock77

But but but... What if the commies invade?

chaplainDMK

I'll never understand this country's obsession with guns.

worlock77

...even the pandas will have guns...muwhahahahahaaaaa!

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

I'll never understand this country's obsession with guns.

Welkabonz

Yeah, because Patrick Henry could envision AK-47's and hollow point bullets. :roll:

[QUOTE="Welkabonz"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

I'll never understand this country's obsession with guns.

-wildflower-

Yeah, because Patrick Henry could envision AK-47's and hollow point bullets. :roll:

[QUOTE="Grodus5"]

Thats good. Rather have too much gun rights then not enough. Honestly, I don't see why a citizen should have an Ak47, all they really need is a 12 guage shot gun and the house will stay safe, and a pistol if you want safety on the go. One of the few issues I agree with conservatives strongly on.

But but but... What if the commies invade?

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

I'll never understand this country's obsession with guns.

Vandalvideo

But in today's day and age, what are the chances that citizens with guns are going to keep any powers in check? The government could squash any revolts if they really wanted.

I'll never understand this country's obsession with guns.

worlock77

Prior to our winning the Revolutionary War and setting up a Federal Constitutional Republic, we were under the rule of a monarchy (UK). The King could place any law he wanted on us. Americans don't like the idea of supreme power vested in one person, which is why we have three branches of government.

When the Constitution was written, it was decided that the rights we felt individuals must have were the ones the King wanted to limit (or not grant at all).

But in today's day and age, what are the chances that citizens with guns are going to keep any powers in check? The government could squash any revolts if they really wanted.JML897

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

I'll never understand this country's obsession with guns.

Vandalvideo

Sorry, but I don't buy that argument. For one: the framers gave us the power to remove those in government non-violently. It's a power we exercise frequently. Two: the 2nd Amentment is vague with its wording. Is the right to bear arms an individual right, or a collective. The 2nd Amendment seems to suggest both. Three: I believe that the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to insure that the populace could arm themselves in the event of an invasion by a foreign entity. Considering that at the time this was a weak and fledgling nation and didn't really have a standing professional army. It wold be up to the people to protect the land in such an event.

Besides: I said nothing of the right itself, I spoke about the obsession with guns. The idea that a person must keep a stockpile of weapons to defend themself. The idea that any regulation is an assult on the right. I grew up around guns. My dad was a hunter and owned a couple of revolvers. I use to sit there at the kitchen table while he cleaned his guns. He was an NRA member who eventually left the organization because of the very kind of extremism I just spoke of.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

I'll never understand this country's obsession with guns.

JML897

But in today's day and age, what are the chances that citizens with guns are going to keep any powers in check? The government could squash any revolts if they really wanted.

Sorry, but I don't buy that argument. For one: the framers gave us the power to remove those in government non-violently. It's a power we exercise frequently. Two: the 2nd Amentment is vague with its wording. Is the right to bear arms an individual right, or a collective. The 2nd Amendment seems to suggest both. Three: I believe that the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to insure that the populace could arm themselves in the event of an invasion by a foreign entity. Considering that at the time this was a weak and fledgling nation and didn't really have a standing professional army. It wold be up to the people to protect the land in such an event.

Besides: I said nothing of the right itself, I spoke about the obsession with guns. The idea that a person must keep a stockpile of weapons to defend themself. The idea that any regulation is an assult on the right. I grew up around guns. My dad was a hunter and owned a couple of revolvers. I use to sit there at the kitchen table while he cleaned his guns. He was an NRA member who eventually left the organization because of the very kind of extremism I just spoke of.

worlock77

Very nicely said! Kudos!

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

I'll never understand this country's obsession with guns.

JML897

But in today's day and age, what are the chances that citizens with guns are going to keep any powers in check? The government could squash any revolts if they really wanted.

Sorry, but I don't buy that argument. For one: the framers gave us the power to remove those in government non-violently. It's a power we exercise frequently. Two: the 2nd Amentment is vague with its wording. Is the right to bear arms an individual right, or a collective. The 2nd Amendment seems to suggest both. Three: I believe that the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to insure that the populace could arm themselves in the event of an invasion by a foreign entity. Considering that at the time this was a weak and fledgling nation and didn't really have a standing professional army. It wold be up to the people to protect the land in such an event.worlock77

Besides: I said nothing of the right itself, I spoke about the obsession with guns. The idea that a person must keep a stockpile of weapons to defend themself. The idea that any regulation is an assult on the right. I grew up around guns. My dad was a hunter and owned a couple of revolvers. I use to sit there at the kitchen table while he cleaned his guns. He was an NRA member who eventually left the organization because of the very kind of extremism I just spoke of.

Fear the government that fears you.

[QUOTE="JML897"]

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] One need merely look a ta history of oppression at the hands of a tyrant to understand that. Guns are a force equalizer against an overly tyrannical leadership who goes beyond their "proper" powers. It allows for people to keep in check the powers that be. LJS9502_basic

But in today's day and age, what are the chances that citizens with guns are going to keep any powers in check? The government could squash any revolts if they really wanted.

Especially the "revolt" that's coming at the voting booths in November...good-bye incumbents.:P

The issue comes down to personal freedom and exactly how much control you want the government to have over your life. You can certainly make the argument that guns are dangerous and that gun proliferation is a bad thing. I don't own a gun. I likely never will. But I appreciate the fact that I have the right to make that decision. I don't want the government deciding what is best for me. I like to play violent video games. Studies have shown that they can adversely affect people. Would you want the government banning those for public safety? How about certain music that's been shown to be detrimental? How about eliminating bicycles and swimming pools since hundreds of children yearly die from them or suffer severe brain injuries. Would you rather have the right to make those decisions or would you want some bureacrat -supposedly acting for the "greater good" -making those choices for you? Certainly living in any society means some sacrifice, but I'd rather have the chance to make most of my own decisions.

The issue comes down to personal freedom and exactly how much control you want the government to have over your life. You can certainly make the argument that guns are dangerous and that gun proliferation is a bad thing. I don't own a gun. I likely never will. But I appreciate the fact that I have the right to make that decision. I don't want the government deciding what is best for me. I like to play violent video games. Studies have shown that they can adversely affect people. Would you want the government banning those for public safety? How about certain music that's been shown to be detrimental? How about eliminating bicycles and swimming pools since hundreds of children yearly die from them or suffer severe brain injuries. Would you rather have the right to make those decisions or would you want some bureacrat -supposedly acting for the "greater good" -making those choices for you? Certainly living in any society means some sacrifice, but I'd rather have the chance to make most of my own decisions.

sonicare

Well said.:)

[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"]

[QUOTE="Grodus5"]

Thats good. Rather have too much gun rights then not enough. Honestly, I don't see why a citizen should have an Ak47, all they really need is a 12 guage shot gun and the house will stay safe, and a pistol if you want safety on the go. One of the few issues I agree with conservatives strongly on.

brett256N

But but but... What if the commies invade?

Especially the "revolt" that's coming at the voting booths in November...good-bye incumbents.:P

*sigh* I really cannot wait until one of Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, Saclia, or Thomas leaves (particularly one of the latter four) and we get to appoint a more reasonable justice.chessmaster1989

Wait, aren't those the "consevative/moderate" judges alluded to in the OP? :lol:

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

Especially the "revolt" that's coming at the voting booths in November...good-bye incumbents.:P

Engrish_Major

Voter turnout in primaries has always been historically lower than general elections.

I predict that there will be a resurgence of conservatives showing up to vote...tie that in with a significant number of independents and Democrats who have joined the Tea Party, Reid and Pelosi will be voted out of office.

Voter turnout in primaries has always been historically lower than general elections.

I predict that there will be a resurgence of conservatives showing up to vote...tie that in with a significant number of independents and Democrats who have joined the Tea Party, Reid and Pelosi will be voted out of office.

The issue comes down to personal freedom and exactly how much control you want the government to have over your life. You can certainly make the argument that guns are dangerous and that gun proliferation is a bad thing. I don't own a gun. I likely never will. But I appreciate the fact that I have the right to make that decision. I don't want the government deciding what is best for me. I like to play violent video games. Studies have shown that they can adversely affect people. Would you want the government banning those for public safety? How about certain music that's been shown to be detrimental? How about eliminating bicycles and swimming pools since hundreds of children yearly die from them or suffer severe brain injuries. Would you rather have the right to make those decisions or would you want some bureacrat -supposedly acting for the "greater good" -making those choices for you? Certainly living in any society means some sacrifice, but I'd rather have the chance to make most of my own decisions.

sonicare

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]*sigh* I really cannot wait until one of Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, Saclia, or Thomas leaves (particularly one of the latter four) and we get to appoint a more reasonable justice.-wildflower-

Wait, aren't those the "consevative/moderate" judges alluded to in the OP? :lol:

The issue comes down to personal freedom and exactly how much control you want the government to have over your life. You can certainly make the argument that guns are dangerous and that gun proliferation is a bad thing. I don't own a gun. I likely never will. But I appreciate the fact that I have the right to make that decision. I don't want the government deciding what is best for me. I like to play violent video games. Studies have shown that they can adversely affect people. Would you want the government banning those for public safety? How about certain music that's been shown to be detrimental? How about eliminating bicycles and swimming pools since hundreds of children yearly die from them or suffer severe brain injuries. Would you rather have the right to make those decisions or would you want some bureacrat -supposedly acting for the "greater good" -making those choices for you? Certainly living in any society means some sacrifice, but I'd rather have the chance to make most of my own decisions.

Yes, because following the constitution is a bad thing. I'd prefer having a judge that just makes up their own laws as they go. :roll: Yes, the constitution is a living document whose rules and laws are not really meant for anything. Just for show. :lol:sonicare

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

The issue comes down to personal freedom and exactly how much control you want the government to have over your life. You can certainly make the argument that guns are dangerous and that gun proliferation is a bad thing. I don't own a gun. I likely never will. But I appreciate the fact that I have the right to make that decision. I don't want the government deciding what is best for me. I like to play violent video games. Studies have shown that they can adversely affect people. Would you want the government banning those for public safety? How about certain music that's been shown to be detrimental? How about eliminating bicycles and swimming pools since hundreds of children yearly die from them or suffer severe brain injuries. Would you rather have the right to make those decisions or would you want some bureacrat -supposedly acting for the "greater good" -making those choices for you? Certainly living in any society means some sacrifice, but I'd rather have the chance to make most of my own decisions.

F1_2004

[QUOTE="sonicare"] Yes, because following the constitution is a bad thing. I'd prefer having a judge that just makes up their own laws as they go. :roll: Yes, the constitution is a living document whose rules and laws are not really meant for anything. Just for show. :lol:Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="sonicare"] Yes, because following the constitution is a bad thing. I'd prefer having a judge that just makes up their own laws as they go. :roll: Yes, the constitution is a living document whose rules and laws are not really meant for anything. Just for show. :lol:Vandalvideo

Texan here...so whatever. :D

I predict that there will be a resurgence of conservatives showing up to vote...tie that in with a significant number of independents and Democrats who have joined the Tea Party, Reid and Pelosi will be voted out of office.

topsemag55

Democrats in the Tea Party? I don't think so.

[QUOTE="-wildflower-"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]*sigh* I really cannot wait until one of Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, Saclia, or Thomas leaves (particularly one of the latter four) and we get to appoint a more reasonable justice.sonicare

Wait, aren't those the "consevative/moderate" judges alluded to in the OP? :lol:

I guess there's only one interpretation of The Constitution. In fact, it must be the only written document in human history that has only one interpretation but, be that as it may, I guess we're just fortunate that it's those well-educated tea-baggers like, say, Sarah Palin or the average Faux News watcher, who hold the key to the one and only interpretation and can enlighten the rest of us. Oh, how special they are indeed!

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

[QUOTE="-wildflower-"]

Wait, aren't those the "consevative/moderate" judges alluded to in the OP? :lol:

-wildflower-

I guess there's only one interpretation of The Constitution. In fact, it must be the only written document in human history that has only one interpretation but, be that as it may, I guess we're just fortunate that it's those well-educated tea-baggers like, say, Sarah Palin or the average Faux News watcher, who hold the key to the one and only interpretation and can enlighten the rest of us. Oh, how special they are indeed!

[QUOTE="-wildflower-"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]*sigh* I really cannot wait until one of Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, Saclia, or Thomas leaves (particularly one of the latter four) and we get to appoint a more reasonable justice.sonicare

Wait, aren't those the "consevative/moderate" judges alluded to in the OP? :lol:

It's meant to be interpreted, that is the purpose of the Supreme Court is. We don't know what the "correct" interpretation is... :|

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

[QUOTE="-wildflower-"]

Wait, aren't those the "consevative/moderate" judges alluded to in the OP? :lol:

chessmaster1989

It's meant to be interpreted, that is the purpose of the Supreme Court is. We don't know what the "correct" interpretation is... :|

Wow...pretty amazing..

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

[QUOTE="-wildflower-"]

Wait, aren't those the "consevative/moderate" judges alluded to in the OP? :lol:

chessmaster1989

It's meant to be interpreted, that is the purpose of the Supreme Court is. We don't know what the "correct" interpretation is... :|

I believe that the Constitution was left intentionally vague so that it could be interpreted by future generations in context of their own society. I do not think the founders were vain enough to suppose that what was right for them would be right for all generations.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"] Yes, because following the constitution is a bad thing. I'd prefer having a judge that just makes up their own laws as they go. :roll: Yes, the constitution is a living document whose rules and laws are not really meant for anything. Just for show. :lol:

worlock77

It's meant to be interpreted, that is the purpose of the Supreme Court is. We don't know what the "correct" interpretation is... :|

I believe that the Constitution was left intentionally vague so that it could be interpreted by future generations in context of their own society. I do not think the founders were vain enough to suppose that what was right for them would be right for all generations.

Democrats in the Tea Party? I don't think so.

wstfld

CNN did a poll in February of this year, of those who participated in Tea Party activities.

4% stated they considered themselves to be Democrats.