US Supreme Court extends gun rights

[Netto Azure]

US Supreme Court extends gun rights

Some cities like Chicago have strict firearms rules
​

The US Supreme Court has restricted the rights of state and city governments to enforce controls on gun ownership.

The US's highest court ruled by 5-4 that a ban on handgun ownership in Chicago was unconstitutional.

Justices said the US Constitution protected the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defence.
The ruling could potentially change laws on gun ownership in many of the US states.
Debate over the exact meaning of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms has raged for years in the US.


Two years ago, the court ruled a ban on handguns in Washington DC was unconstitutional - declaring that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess guns, at least for purposes of self-defence in the home.
But Washington is a federal city, with a unique legal standing. Gun rights proponents almost immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging gun control laws in Chicago, Illinois, and its suburb of Oak Park, where handguns have been banned for nearly 30 years.
In Monday's ruling on that challenge the justices said the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states".

As per usual, the 5-4 decision of the Activist Conservative justices are so obvious I didn't even have to guess the outcome. And as per usual one can point out the Militia clause in the 2nd Amendment, or wonder how we can simply rebuke the 14th Amendment while love the 2nd. :/

​

 

[Red1530]

It is about time that the Supreme Court incorporated the Second Amendment. I found it funny that collective right supporters ignore the phrase "right of the people" in the Second Amendment. That phrase is found in the First and Fourth Amendments and I bet they believe the First and Fourth Amendments are referring to individual rights.

 

[twocows]

Good. The second amendment explicitly protects the rights of the populace to own handguns, and for good reason.
Situation 1: guns banned
Criminal: doesn't care about ban, has gun
Me: no gun
Me == dead
Situation 2: guns not banned
Criminal: trouble getting gun due to criminal background checks
Me: gun
Me == fine

I'm planning on buying a handgun soon for protection, and possibly a shotgun for home defense. Meanwhile, my combat knife will have to do the job.

 

[Legobricks]

The amendment right is "to keep and bear arms", it does not refer to which type of arms; therefore, as the USA is a federation, yes it does seem each individual state should be allowed to enforce its own rules to what definition of 'arms' may be kept for the so-termed 'militia', which I might add is itself not "well regulated" as it is suggested to be of necessity. To be such, the armed citizenry would have to at least have a command structure, and ideally use consistent weapons and/or cartridges, have means and places of training, and so forth. The average US citizen has none of this save a weapon for self defence — self defence isn't what a militia exists for, rather, defence of a given settlement or area the military can't be present at, or to directly assist the military in such an effort. Since the US doesn't demonstrate itself as possessing a "well regulated militia", although it's open to interpretation I'm not seeing it at all, might it be fair to say nobody has the right to bear arms until one does exist?

Edit: After I've read a version with different punctuation which was apparently since made into the current official one, it seems the clause defines the mentioned militia as in fact being, in effect, anyone armed. Even so, how this can be deemed well regulated is still beyond me.

 

[Netto Azure]

Well the "well regulated militia" is already formed under the US National Guard System.

Although now that I've gotten over the initial hyperventilating, this ruling is quite narrow in that it only explicitly allows for keeping arms in the household. And as free speech has it's limits the states counties and cities can still regulate outside the household.

 

[Esper]

The second amendment is so outdated. It says, paraphrasing, "because a militia is necessary, we can have guns." Since in this century a militia isn't necessary (I know some people think the US is a totalitarian government, but it's not) the amendment is moot by failing to meet its own criteria and should be crossed off the list.

Anyway, it may cause laws that ban ownership outright to be overturned, but I hope this doesn't cause existing and sensible gun control laws to be also overturned. That would be silly. Absolute freedom to own guns would be dangerous.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that a "well-regulated militia" does not apply when in ruled in 2008 stricking down the Washington D.C. gun ban becuase the 2nd Amendment says "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms". This ruling simply extends that ruling to apply to state and local governments. All it does is guarantee citizens the right to keep a handgun in their homes loaded and ready for use for legal purposes such as self-defense. States and local governments are still able to regulate gun carrying and use (including concealed carry) in public and can also regulate assault weapons and can still ban convicted criminals from having firearms.

This isn't activist at all. This ruling doesn't allow me to carry an AK-47 out in public or anything like that. It's actually very reasonable.

 

[Legobricks]

Well the "well regulated militia" is already formed under the US National Guard System.

Most armed citizens aren't a member of it.

I seem to have dragged this thread into being a militia discussion... sorry about that. :S
Whatever works though, this is a forum after all...

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Seriously, gun control laws only stop law-abiding citizens from owning guns. Criminals, who mostly get their guns illegally anyway, are unaffected.

Statistics have shown that as gun laws get more restrictive, violent crime and gun crimes go up. So the liberals are causing the very problems they claim they are attempting to prevent.

 

[EpsilonE]

Good. The second amendment explicitly protects the rights of the populace to own handguns, and for good reason.
Situation 1: guns banned
Criminal: doesn't care about ban, has gun
Me: no gun
Me == dead
Situation 2: guns not banned
Criminal: trouble getting gun due to criminal background checks
Me: gun
Me == fine

I'm planning on buying a handgun soon for protection, and possibly a shotgun for home defense. Meanwhile, my combat knife will have to do the job.

I fully agree with this post

take the guns of the civilians, criminals get them illegally, and then they have more power over the unprotected person, knowing they won't have any means of self defense

i'm proud to be conservative

 

[.Gamer]

How did this take 2 years to come to a 5-4 verdict?

Its in plain black and white (well off white because the constitution is old and dirty) that anyone can own a gun (providing the right age, and not being a felon etc). I don't understand how it could have taken them 2 years. :|

 

[Spinor]

This isn't activist at all. This ruling doesn't allow me to carry an AK-47 out in public or anything like that. It's actually very reasonable.

^_^

I'm not a gun kind of person except for FPS games. But I think guns should be a right just for self defense in homes.

 

[Imperfect]

I fully agree with this post

take the guns of the civilians, criminals get them illegally, and then they have more power over the unprotected person, knowing they won't have any means of self defense

i'm proud to be conservative

What you say is correct in a sense and in the US, guns are a way of life so if guns were made illegal, it's easy for criminals to get them, better to make it easy all round.

Take the UK for example, guns are difficult to come by, even for the criminals hence gun crime is wayyyy down, if you were to just work percentages of the UK and US for gun crime then the UK wins.

Surely, it's better to have 1 out of 10000 people have a gun than 9000 of 10000?

I'm only using the UK as an example since I live here, you could fit any developed civilized country where guns are illegal in the UK's place and get similar results.

Anyway, my conclusion is, for me...a country where guns are illegal is better *but* in a country where guns have been legal for so long, there's no way to remove them without the market just going underground, so it's better to keep them and allow civilians to own a weapon.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

What you say is correct in a sense and in the US, guns are a way of life so if guns were made illegal, it's easy for criminals to get them, better to make it easy all round.

Take the UK for example, guns are difficult to come by, even for the criminals hence gun crime is wayyyy down, if you were to just work percentages of the UK and US for gun crime then the UK wins.

Surely, it's better to have 1 out of 10000 people have a gun than 9000 of 10000?

I'm only using the UK as an example since I live here, you could fit any developed civilized country where guns are illegal in the UK's place and get similar results.

Anyway, my conclusion is, for me...a country where guns are illegal is better *but* in a country where guns have been legal for so long, there's no way to remove them without the market just going underground, so it's better to keep them and allow civilians to own a weapon.

Right, the culture surrounding guns in the US is different that the rest of the world. Although the strictest of registration and waiting period laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, It is rare to see guns 100% banned anywhere. Courts, even a usually liberal Superior Court in San Francisco, strike down complete gun bans as unconstitutional.

It is easy to get a gun illegaly, especially if you a member of a gang or some other organized crime group.

 

[Imperfect]

Right, the culture surrounding guns in the US is different that the rest of the world. Although the strictest of registration and waiting period laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, It is rare to see guns 100% banned anywhere. Courts, even a usually liberal Superior Court in San Francisco, strike down complete gun bans as unconstitutional.

It is easy to get a gun illegaly, especially if you a member of a gang or some other organized crime group.

Yep, sorta my meaning.

Thanks for not getting offended, I've stated my beliefs in a similar way that I did there and been torn apart for them, but a lot of folks do get really worked up about stuff like this sometimes, in that sort of way it's a bit like religion, or politics.

Well, I guess it sorta IS politics lol

xx

 

[Åzurε]

Situation 1: guns banned
Criminal: doesn't care about ban, has gun
Me: no gun
Me == dead
Situation 2: guns not banned
Criminal: trouble getting gun due to criminal background checks
Me: gun
Me == fine

Truth.

The thing is, people have guns in the United States. So, if they did manage to ban firearms, only people who didn't respect the law would have them. I've seen people post here about how they'd be goners in a zombie apocalypse, because their home country (read: UK) has banned guns for personal use. An unrealistic situation, but it illustrates the point.

 

[Red1530]

According to an July 3, 2009, article in the Mail Online, the United Kingdom is the most dangerous country in the EU. In fact it is more dangerous then South Africa. In another Mail Online article from October 27, 2009, gun crime has increased 89% in the last decade!

Back here in the United States Chicago has been sued over its new gun restrictions that were enacted after the McDonald decision. The new lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the new restrictions.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I have heard that about the UK being the most dangerous nation in the EU but I don't wanna quote that until I see concrete facts.

The UK's legal system is more community based while the US legal system is more individual based. Guns are banned in the UK and they also have "hate speech" laws that in American views would be stricken down in a heartbeat as a violation of freedom of speeech. Our legal system focuses on what rights individuals should have (i.e. the aforementioned freedom of speech and right to bear arms). The UK is more liberal than the US. Even most American Democrats would be considered center-right by UK standards. Liberalism tends to focus on socialism. I'm not saying that to call any one a communist but that they look at what they believe will benefits society as a whole while conservatives look at what benefits individual people. Liberals aslo tend to have a more optimistic view of things while conservatives have a more pessimistic/harsh reality view. That's why liberals see banning guns or restricting legal access to them as the solution to gun violence while conservatives see giving people the right to defend themselves from the harsh reality of gun violence with a gun as the solution. I wish it didn't have to be that way, but in America's case, the conservatives are right when it comes to guns and gun violence.

 

[Throat]

I don't think gun ownership allowed work out everywhere. Many people die due to stupid fights here such as a minor car crash and there're many other situations which may drive one mad enough to shoot an idiot that didn't deserve. Plus, you have more changes to go through a robbery alive if you don't try to react.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I don't think gun ownership allowed work out everywhere. Many people die due to stupid fights here such as a minor car crash and there're many other situations which may drive one mad enough to shoot an idiot that didn't deserve. Plus, you have more changes to go through a robbery alive if you don't try to react.

But if you had a gun, you have a much better chance of both surviving the robbery and keeping your belongings.