:tup: Ruling is the first to state the 2nd amendment is an individual right that the states many not infringe upon.
Edit… Changed the title because this ruling doesn’t actually strike down Chicago’s handgun ban. It invalidates the lower courts opinion, validates the nationwide gun owner rights, and send the case back to the lower court. Based on the ruling though the lower court will have no choice but to declare the ban unconstitutional.
Screw handguns. Completely unnecessary to own. Want home protection (since that seems to be the big argument), get a shotgun. 2nd amendment is entirely outdated.
Unfortunately yes, because this is the mentality of some states/cities…
Chicago and Oak Park (municipal respondents) maintain that a right set out in the Bill of Rights applies to the States only if that right is an indispensable attribute of any “‘civilized’” legal system. Brief for Municipal Respondents 9. If it is possible to imagine a civilized country that does not recognize the right, the municipal respondents tell us, then that right is not protected by due process. Ibid. And since there are civilized countries that ban or strictly regulate the private possession of handguns, the municipal respondents maintain that due process does not preclude such measures. Id., at 21–23.
That’s a direct quote from the majority opinion. If you have any interest in Constitutional law the full opinion is a fascinating read. Don’t let the CNN’s and the Fox New’s dumb it down and add spin for you. Go read the real thing, straight from the justices.
while i want to own a handgun just because some of them are kind of cool… i dont see the point for HD just like the posted above said…
Shotguns are where its at for HD… the cocking sound alone is probably enough to send any intruder out your front door… and if not… you dont even need to aim well to put one down…
Shotguns are great for home defense except for the little issue of storage. Any defensive weapon needs to be kept in a ready state. Keeping a shotgun nearby in that state is tough to do while keeping it secure. My handgun on the other hand is kept within quick access in a biometric safe. Immediate access as well as being kept secure from anyone I don’t give explicit access to.
Im looking at a couple of in wall rifle cases to put next to the bed and hang a full length mirror in front of… seems like the best solution ive found sofar… i dont have any kids, so i dont need to have it locked up yet…
Right now its just in the closet, which is kind of a PITA in a hurry, but im not too worried about it
Not unexpected here - just following their own precedent set in D.C. vs. Heller
Bigger question is where the Constitutional boundary is - the 14th Amendement works both ways in this case. What’s at question is the “due process” part. Just as the First Amendment can be limited by due process (re: libel/slander, child porn), so can the Second.
Of note, in the majority opinion:
“It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at – (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms.” (McDonald vs. Chicago, page 39-40, bold mine)
It is these ongoing measures that will be tested over the next few years. Heller is already suing D.C. again, claiming that the licensure requirements “violate the spirit of the ruling” from 2008.
I am sort of confused about this, mainly how it affects upstate ny. afaik any one can get a pistol permit (basically). my buddy just got his permit and has 4-5 pistols already. i didnt see any issue with the second amendment here.
yes there is a problem with the second amendment here, hey keep restricting my rights as a American citizen. Ill keep my freedom, guns and money. You keep the change.
