Supreme Court strikes down D.C. handgun ban, 5-4

[Wretched Excess]

response from BHO:

“I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.

“As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.”

Link

compared to his comments on the SCOTUS rape ruling, this represents a moment of clarity, despite the fact that
he seems to take at least three different positions on the issue.  this guy is really, really, REALLY beginning to bore
the shit out of me.

but he seems to miss the point, of course, that the right for citizens to own handguns is THE MEANS BY WHICH
our communities and children are kept safe.

[Chris_]

How long before the DC idiots allow handguns but ban posession of all ammunition?

[Chris_]

How long before the DC idiots allow handguns but ban posession of all ammunition?

The decisions forbids banning ammunition (by specifying possession of an "operable" firearm/handgun for self defense).....and amazingly also throws out the requirements for "trigger locks", and dissassembly.......it is much broader than I expected.

doc

[TheSarge]

By far the most moronic statement by any of the dissenting Black Robes:

Justice Stephen 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."

What. The. F**k?

[Rebel]

response from BHO:

“I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.

“As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.”

Link

compared to his comments on the SCOTUS rape ruling, this represents a moment of clarity, despite the fact that
he seems to take at least three different positions on the issue.  this guy is really, really, REALLY beginning to bore
the shit out of me.

but he seems to miss the point, of course, that the right for citizens to own handguns is THE MEANS BY WHICH
our communities and children are kept safe.

Gee, sounds kinda like, "I actually did vote for it, before I voted against it...." 

Can this moron take a position on ANYTHING?

[Chris_]

By far the most moronic statement by any of the dissenting Black Robes:

Justice Stephen 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."

What. The. F**k?

You're gonna need one of these license plates...
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,9333.0.html

[Chris_]

By far the most moronic statement by any of the dissenting Black Robes:

Justice Stephen 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."

What. The. F**k?

His comments show just how "out of touch" he is regarding both the instant issue, and reality in general.......

Where, pray tell Justice Breyer, would be a better place to own a loaded handgun than a "crime-ridden urban area".......

Typical liberal........they are Sooooo afraid that gunowners will reduce the numbers of their favorite constituants.......the criminals.

doc

[DixieBelle]

Oooobama has armed security right?

What about SCOTUS? I assume they have something akin to Secret Service.

Hypocritical much?

[Chris_]

Oooobama has armed security right?

What about SCOTUS? I assume they have something akin to Secret Service.

Hypocritical much?

Justices have security details from the US Marshals Service I believe........

doc

[DixieBelle]

Not that I would ever begrudge a high profile official the right to protection but....

we may not be high profile and incur the wrath of political assassins but we deserve to excersice our second amend. rights just the same. This should have been 9-0.

[Wretched Excess]

I wonder if the SCOTUS is bitter, and that's why they decided to cling to their guns.

[BlueStateSaint]

If I H5 everyone I agree with in this thread, I'll be here all night.

Some time ago in NY, there was a NYS Court of Appeals decision about a pistol permit holder who, when moving from one county to another, had his permit changed from full carry to "Hunting and Target Only."  The HTO restriction does not allow for carry in self-defense.

I expect the 2nd Circuit to get a case about this very provision soon.

[Thor]

As I understand it, several courts have decided that the police are not there to protect the individual, but only the general public. That said, how the hell is one to defend themselves when the police are otherwise engaged?? The DC & Chicago gun bans are just a bunch of feel-good laws that really accomplish NOTHING. They never have and never will. Sure, guns were "banned" in those cities, but seriously, did it do any good?? I think not, as both have been rife with crime for many years, ban or not. The fact that eludes the "Barfstar" is that criminal could give a shit about "laws". (Hmmm, maybe THAT'S WHY they're called "criminals"??)

Now, we as law abiding gun owners, need to work to overturn the NFA of 1934 (which may be tricky) and the one instituted by our "wonderful"   Ronald Reagan in 1986. I can see the 1986 gun laws getting possibly amended or overturned. The NFA of 1934 just placed a tax on certain weapons. (Of course, the BATF wasn't issuing tax stamps at that time and for many years afterwards, but now they do). The The GCA of 1986 has placed a defacto ban on certain guns, which, IMHO, is contrary to the 2nd Amendment. It's going to be a long, hard road to travel for the NRA and us gun owners. Hopefully, we, the PEOPLE, can keep the gun grabbers and the Nanny Statists out of office for a while.

Too bad it wasn't a 9-0 vote because the 2nd Amendment seems pretty clear to me. Just goes to show how much harm has been done by the Klinton regime.

[SemiSpook]

Even though the opinion was Scalia, the ban itself just got...

[TheSarge]

I can't wait until the people of D.C. can defend themselves and the violent crime stats come down. Fenty and Lainier will be eating crow.

Maybe when the people of D.C. can do that...Police Chief Kathy Lanier can stop her military style traffic control points she has deployed around one particularly violent neighborhood.

Perhaps then the Deputy Mayor can walk the national mall without fear of being robbed in broad daylight at gunpoint for a second time.

[DixieBelle]

Thor - that's exactly right. I think the courts actually ruled on that. And IRONY!! It was the govt of D.C. that was sued.

http://www.gunowners.org/sk0503.htm

A good summation here -

the court promptly exonerated the District of Columbia and its police, as was clearly required by the fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.

As the phrase "fundamental principle of American law" suggests, this holding is not some legal aberration unique to the District of Columbia.  It is universal, being enuciated by formal statute as well as judicial decision in many states.  Nor is it simply a cynical ploy for government to avoid just liability.  The proposition that individuals must be responsible for their own immediate safety, with police providing only an auxiliary general deterrent, is inherent in a high crime society.

[Thor]

Dixie, actually, there were several court cases:

Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit,
                  686 F.2d 616 (1882)
Cal. Govt. Code Sections 821,845,846
Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (S.Ct. Ala. 1985)
Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup. Ct. Penn. 1981)
Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197,185 Cal. Rptr. 252,649
                                 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982)
Hartzler v. City of San Jose, App., 120 Cal. Rptr 5 (1975)
Ill. Rev. Stat. 4-102
Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill App 2d 460 (1968)
Keane v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 567 (1977)
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)
Marshall v. Winston, 389 S.E. 2nd 902 (Va. 1990)
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. App. 1983)
Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984)
Reiff v. City of Philadelphia,  477F. Supp. 1262 (E.D.Pa. 1979)
Riss v. City of New York, 293 N.Y. 2d 897 (1968)
Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1977)
Silver v. Minneapolis 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn, 1969)
Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansvill, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.)
Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal. Rep 339 (1980)
Warren v. District of Columbia, D.C. App., 444 A.2d 1 (1981)
Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978)

  "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect
  individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty
  is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection
  of the general public."  (Lynch v. NC Dept. Justice)


   The law in New York remains as decided by the Court of Appeals case
Riss v. New York: the government is not liable even for a grossly negligent
failure to protect a crime victim. In the Riss case, a young woman telephoned
the police and begged for help because her ex-boyfriend had repeatedly
threatened "If I can't have you, not one else will have you, and when I get
through with you, no one else will want you." The day after she had pleaded
for police protection, the ex-boyfriend threw lye in her face, blinding her
in one eye, severely damaging the other, and permanently scarring her
features. "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to
understand", wrote a dissenting opinion, "is that, in conformity to the
dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus
by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City
of New York which now denies all responsibility to her." Riss v. New York,
22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).

   Ruth Brunell called the police on twenty different occasions to beg
for protection from her husband. He was arrested only one time. One evening
Mr. Brunell telephoned his wife and told her he was coming over to kill her.
When she called police, they refused her request that they come to protect
her. They told her to call back when he got there. Mr. Brunell stabbed his
wife to death before she could call the police to tell them that he was
there. The court held that the San Jose police were not liable for ignoring
Mrs. Brunell's pleas for help. Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App.
3d 6 (1975).

http://www.rkba.org/judicial/no-police-protection

[DixieBelle]

thanks! I knew there were more. I have bookmarked rkba.org now.

[Thor]

Dixie, you're welcome !!

Gun advocate sends.....



Also, I must wonder if the ACLU will change their tune, now that the 2nd Amendment has been clarified and affirmed as an individual right??

Gun Control

Why doesn't the ACLU support an individual's unlimited right to keep and bear arms?

BACKGROUND
The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.

IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." — Policy #47

ARGUMENTS, FACTS, QUOTES

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
— The Second Amendment to the Constitution

"Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm."
— U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)

Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to own all kinds of arms, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on handguns, Uzis or semi-automatic rifles.

If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms. Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction.

http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html


Will they start backing violations of 2nd Amendment rights now ?? If so, I may have to join!!!   

[Airwolf]

Oooobama has armed security right?

What about SCOTUS? I assume they have something akin to Secret Service.

Hypocritical much?

I personally got to meet Justice Clarence Thomas last year when he came to Omaha . He was escorted by the U.S. Marshalls. If there were any others then I didn't see them and probably wouldn't.

[Airwolf]

This was a good day for gun owners. Still it's just the beginning. The brady buch won't stop till they get what they want. I'm sending the NRA the payment for mt EPL Lifetime membership. I still have over 300 dollars to go. If I had the cash I'd pay it in full now.

[Rebel]

This was a good day for gun owners. Still it's just the beginning. The brady buch won't stop till they get what they want. I'm sending the NRA the payment for mt EPL Lifetime membership. I still have over 300 dollars to go. If I had the cash I'd pay it in full now.

As someone on my military board said, is it? 4 justices were willing to shitcan a right we've had since the founding of this country. We were 1 away. It SHOULD have been 9-0. I will have no reservations about voting for McCain now. None, whatsoever.

[Jim]

Also, I must wonder if the ACLU will change their tune, now that the 2nd Amendment has been clarified and affirmed as an individual right??

Will they start backing violations of 2nd Amendment rights now ?? If so, I may have to join!!!   

I wouldn't hold my breath on it

[Splashdown]

Any of you die-hard conservatives thinking about sitting out this election, please remember that we almost lost the second amendment. It was saved by one vote. This election matters!

 

[Rebel]

Any of you die-hard conservatives thinking about sitting out this election, please remember that we almost lost the second amendment. It was saved by one vote. This election matters!

 

Very much agree. Emphasis on very.