Thread: Supreme Court finds individual right to own guns

"For the first time in U.S. history, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that individual Americans have the right to own guns for personal use, and struck down a strict gun control law in the U.S. capital."

And there was much rejoicing as individual rights, at least temporarily, came off life support.

YIIIPPPEEEEE!!!

Originally Posted by JMS

YIIIPPPEEEEE!!!

The only sad part is that it was even a close vote.

Yeah Tim, I wish it hadn't been so close too. At least it passed and a good precedent has been set. This should protect our basic rights for a while, plus make Congress shove off when it comes to wimpy feel good legislation.

In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote, "The decision threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States."

Yes it does. I wonder what DC citizens are thinking about the ruling. Are handgun sales exploding yet?

It's too bad such intelligent judges can't all read the Constitution and come to the same conclusions.

I've been worrying about this. I was so elated when I heard it went in favor of the people's right. The 5 to 4 decision is troubling. It should have been unanimous .

THIS IS A GREAT READ!!!

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Matt

This was actually a very serious constitutional question for a very long time. The actual amendment reads somewhat ambiguously, starting off as it does by mentioning a "well-armed militia." There was a real question for a long time whether that meant that there was a right to have local militias, without necessarily an individual right to bear arms, or an individual right to bear arms and that local militias was one reason that was a good idea.

I'm actually somewhat disappointed by this ruling because I think it hamstrings local governments in dealing with their problems. I don't think the same rules governing firearm ownership and use are going to work equally well in the cities as they are in the suburbs or rural areas.

Indeed, I fear this ruling will harm the future of gun-rights, as this interpretation of the 2nd Amendment makes the guarantee of this right highly anachronistic in the 21st century for many locales. It will end up being rather like a right to travel the roads by horse. The need to limit gun ownership and use in suburban and urban areas will quickly begin to outstrip the enjoyment of gun ownership in rural locations where it is more easily tolerated. This might lead to a grassroots effort, born out of the cities, to abolish the 2nd amendment. It would have been far better for gun rights advocates had the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the alternative interpretation, as it would have freed local governments to tailor their gun laws to meet their needs and desires, and everyone can still have what they want and need.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

It will end up being rather like a right to travel the roads by horse..

I don't know about that - what weapon is safer, more powerful, and faster than a handgun that you can relate to the horse / automotive vehicle analogy?

Anyway, I've often wondered if someday a huge bloc of voters would actually repeal the 2nd amendment. Madison seemed to think that such rights were necessary to the security of a free state. And yet other states seem to get by in the security department without giving their citizens that right.