Gothamist: Supreme Court Rules, 5-4, For Right to Bear Arms

JacqueMehoff

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:26:41 -0500

gun control laws are racist. thankfully Pb is still cheap.

HowBoutDemCowboys

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:32:42 -0500

"we should be protesting felony sentences, not gun possession." Amen! Plus, if legislators really cared about getting rid of crime, they would do something about poverty.

edEx

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:11:55 -0500

i do not have a problem with hand gun ownership, i have a problem with the millions of illegal guns on the streets on america and the hands of the violent criminals who possess these weapons of mass destruction. perhaps the gun isn't the problem, perhaps we should be starting within the communities with education (enter stage left, al sharpton, oops sorry folks, mr sharpton is smarching today, please welcome his stand-in, the reverend jesse jackson.) the issue isn't the gun, it isn't the ammo, it's a the douche bags who possess these arms and the law who hands out light sentences to the very people who abuse the system... we should be protesting felony sentences, not gun possession.

PBRK

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:57:26 -0500

What is the stance on a landlord banning guns from a rental building? Can an owner declare a gun-free zone?

dadoc

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:11:00 -0500

In reality, the decision is essentially inconsequential. Both sides can cool down. The Supremes have basically stayed out of the 2nd arguements because of the States' rights interpretations. DC is not a State. It's kinda like PR, Guam, etc. Special case. While it's interesting that they have accepted and decided on a 2nd case (IANAL, god they have to come up with a better acronym!), I feel it will not affect fed or states' statutes.

sonyactivision

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:33:52 -0500

#3: Entry wounds suck. But what really gets those fatalities soaring is the hydrostatic shock. So, my dear friends, if you feel like you're about to get shot, don't reach for that second can of soda.

zodak

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:16:33 -0500

plk779: you said it! JacqueMehoff: "molon labe" indeed. (i can has gunz? pyoo! pyoo!)

Tim N.

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:12:31 -0500

Should make it easier to arm the cyclists. Gotta fly...

plk779

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:00:28 -0500

To second some comments above, this is important because how else are we to revolt if the government has all the weapons? Also, more guns doesn't necessarily equal more violence (see Canada). The issues in DC run far deeper than that.

BQE

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:52:05 -0500

love it or hate it, a cool thing about the amendment allowing citizens to arm themselves is that it entitles (perhaps even places a responsibility on) american citizens to overthrow the government if they are threatened by it. Of course, the government can fight back, but it's one of the interesting ambiguities of the constitution.

JacqueMehoff

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:26:42 -0500

this is great news. molon labe.

Outter Burrougher

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:10:05 -0500

thanks for the clarification, Jen.

TKaisen

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:48:48 -0500

Correct decision based on the Constitution. Republican appointees can apparently read the text of the Constitution while Democratic ones can not.

HowBoutDemCowboys

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:25:21 -0500

"I for one support as much gun control as we can get, but problems in DC run much deeper and wouldn't have changed one way or another based on this ruling." Once the government controls all guns, we the people will be fucked!

breaknight

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:03:01 -0500

*Sigh* As a native Washingtonian, I'm not happy with the decision. But this really won't change much. Most people who want guns in DC already have them, and I doubt many of the less savory types bother to register them, so...people will keep shooting each other in SE and NE, and cops will still be able to arrest them for illegal possession of a handgun. I for one support as much gun control as we can get, but problems in DC run much deeper and wouldn't have changed one way or another based on this ruling.

jenspellnogood

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:56:27 -0500

Agree or not, this is the right decision for the same reason that trying to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage is the wrong one. The constitution was designed to enable rights, not limit them. These are very interesting times to be living in, this election cycle and the recent 5-4 splits.

Jen Chung

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:49:55 -0500

@ missmess and Outer Burrougher, Obama's reaction was in the same link as McCain's, but I clarified it. thanks.

eyekantspel

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:43:40 -0500

from Reuters.com: In the majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia said the Second Amendment protected an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Although an individual now has a constitutional right to own guns, that new right is not unlimited, wrote Scalia, a hunter. He said the ruling should not be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill or on laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in places like schools and government buildings or laws imposing conditions on gun sales.

Outter Burrougher

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:41:40 -0500

further clarification: there is definitely room though, in what they said, for reasonable people to disagree as to just how much we are limited by the 2nd Amendment.

Outter Burrougher

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:39:37 -0500

what was obama's reaction? also, as much as my gut is against this decision, it is absolutely the right one. i believe in strong regulations on gun control and completely disagree with the minority statement which implies that the framers did not intend to limit regulation. they most certainly did want to put a limit on what the government could say regarding gun ownership and that is why it's in the Constitution to begin with.

kapusta

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:35:33 -0500

guns don't kill people sucking exit wounds do

miss mess

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:34:18 -0500

why is there no link to obama's reaction?

bxbrian

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:30:43 -0500

a minor setback for handgun control i'm sure, as there are plenty more interpretations available for those seeking to limit the amount of handguns in holsters. until there is a constitutional amendment, there will be ways around this (and preceding) decisions. same applies for Roe--they can overturn the case and abortion can remain legal. don't flame me for saying this because i could back it up (at least somewhat satisfactorily), and i won't do it if someone calls me a retard or something like it!