I didn’t bump it though because a history making Supreme Court like this deserves it own thread.
The highest court in the US has now officially ruled that the 2nd Amendment gives INDIVIDUALS the RIGHT to bear arms. This is huge.
Love GW or hate him, if you support gun owner rights say thank you to him because with a 5-4 split this would have gone the other way without his recent conservative court picks.
Not true. Most of the gun cases decided by state supreme courts have ruled based on the idea that gun ownership is not an individual right. That all went out the window today.
A good read, though the article was written before today’s decision.
In celebration, I’m going out and buying relodading components!
This ruling is more than a yes or no. It explains the courts decision, to the point that it opens the door for future legal action. Same that Roe did for abortion, we can use this.
I was worried about the future of this case after the ‘no death for child rapists’ ruling. I’m glad they made the right decision.
Here’s a quote from a fun little site I found a while ago. :shoot:
…the gun not only belongs in the hands of the agents of the state (they can never be disarmed) but in the hands of the people as a whole. This is the surest way of maintaining the correct balance of power between state and citizen. The mad rush of government to create a ‘gun free’ Utopia will not, of course, have any effect on the crime rate. The criminal, by definition, does not obey the law and is therefore unaffected by any anti firearms legislation. Gun control will, however, create more and more victims of violent crime as long as we allow ourselves to be disarmed behind the smokescreen of ‘Crime control’. This is the unpalatable truth you will never read in the media or hear from any politically correct politician.
Be careful in what you read into this ruling - although Scalia wrote that there’s an individual right to bear arms, he did say it’s not an unlimited right.
From the NY Times:
Most state and city gun restrictions appear to be allowed under the ruling, including licensing laws, limits on the commercial sale of guns, restrictions on guns in places like schools and government buildings and prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill. “Dangerous and unusual” weapons can also be banned, although that phrase was not fully defined…
…Justice Scalia wrote that the Second Amendment’s protections apply only to weapons in common use, like rifles and pistols…
[And]
…Because the case before the court arose from the District of Columbia and thus involved only federal law, the court did not resolve the important question of whether the Second Amendment’s protections apply to state and local laws.
Oh, and SoraNezumi - the “balance of power” between the State (e.g. Federal Government), and the average citizen will arguably not exist unless the average citizen has access to cluster bombs, tanks or nukes. Ruby Ridge and Waco proved that.
.
.
.
<-------- This guy says it would be safer if guns were outlawed.
He was also a vegatarian who liked drugs.
I just like to remind people of that once in a while.
The average citizen on his own cannot go against the government. But look at numbers, 300 million americans can do so real damage with shotguns, and AR-15’s (one of the best selling weapons in the US). If the government decided one day that they want to pull some crap like in the former USSR, pre-war Germany… they have to take our guns away first, because if we are armed, its not going to be allowed to happen.
We have gotten into this mindset that guns are for hunting. When the real truth is that the framers of this country designed that guns would really allow for self defense, from criminals, and a corupt government.
