Victory in The United States Supreme Court!

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by tracker, Jun 26, 2008.

  1. tracker

    tracker New Member

    59
    0
    0
    By a vote of 5-4, The United States Supreme Court today ruled that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees a fundamental, INDIVIDUAL right to keep a firearm in your own home.

    Voting with the majority were Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Alito, who wrote the opinion. Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter and Stevens voted to uphold D.C.’s complete gun ban.

    Buckeye Firearms Foundation, together with a coalition of private security companies, filed an amicus brief in support of Mr. Heller.

    With this decision, the Court signaled an unequivocal end to the two-decade legal charade popularly referred to as the "collectivist theory." Your right to possess a firearm in your own home is an individual right and has nothing to do with your role, or lack of role, in any militia.

    Prior to today’s decision, the majority of the federal court circuits had utilized the collectivist theory, mostly as a means to uphold criminal convictions for violations of federal firearm laws. Clearly bad facts make bad law, and today’s decision is the reprieve gun owners have been looking for.

    But what does the Heller decision mean? The easiest way to answer this question is to look to the question that the Supreme Court asked: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?

    That is the scope of the decision in a nutshell. People living in D.C. have the right to possess firearms in their own homes, and D.C.’s law, which amounted to a ban, violated that right. However, even though the decision is limited to this specific holding, the Heller case will clearly have nationwide impact in the coming years as it is tested and applied against cities in lawsuits throughout the United States.

    Buckeye Firearms Association
     
  2. mpoirier22114

    mpoirier22114 New Member

    93
    0
    0
    it's a good thing too, and about time a ruling was made on the second amendment since it was written:D
     

  3. mike481

    mike481 New Member

    20
    0
    0
    I know that no one can see me but I just wanted to let everyone know that I am doing my happy dance:D:D:D
     
  4. Dillinger

    Dillinger New Member

    23,972
    1
    0
    Well gentlemen - This calls for a small celebration. Tonight I shall be hoisting a frosty mug to Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito.

    This is very good news indeed.....

    JD
     
  5. opaww

    opaww New Member

    4,868
    0
    0
    I am reading the whole rulling now and it leaves some possable loop holes that the anti-Americans, I mean anti-gunners may be able to use to their advantage
     
  6. pioneer461

    pioneer461 New Member

    938
    0
    0
    Great news indeed, but the fight is not over. This ruling, as it was designed, is just the first step. Now that we have this ruling that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, we can now go forward with the fight to define "reasonable" restrictions.

    Celebrate, by all means, but don't get complacent. The anti gunners are still with us, and they are very well funded and motivated.

    Join in the fight, Join the NRA.

    [​IMG]
     
  7. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    Good news, indeed.
     
  8. Dillinger

    Dillinger New Member

    23,972
    1
    0
    Agreed. I said a "small celebration" - merely a battle one, but by no means time to relax and concede the war....

    JD
     
  9. mrwatch

    mrwatch New Member

    105
    0
    0
    good

    Great news indeed. I had recently heard from an retired policeman that a city in Illinois had such a ban of any guns. No body knows how they snuck that one in. True? They probably will dig for loopholes.
     
  10. fapprez

    fapprez New Member

    496
    0
    0
    Yep.

    I just finished reading the AP wire and stopped by to see what was buzzing here.

    It is a small step but at least it's a step in the right direction:)
     
  11. ckwing13

    ckwing13 New Member

    20
    0
    0
    we are glad that this has gone in a way that looks good. :D But the wording I have read worries me. It said in your home that could leed them in saying you can only have a firearm in your house. With Obama out there, Icould see the arugment that we have to hide in are homes to be able to protect are selves. Dose anyone share this thought???
     
  12. randy

    randy New Member

    24
    0
    0
    Great New's

    yes this rulling goe's in our favor, But we still will be under attack from
    a different angle.. Never give up the fight.
     
  13. notdku

    notdku Administrator Staff Member

    6,288
    9
    38
    Finally good news when I wake up!
     
  14. Ruger Redhawk

    Ruger Redhawk New Member

    114
    0
    0
    It's been long overdue. Thanks God we still have some people with common sense.
     
  15. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    Yes, that concerned me. "Self-defense in the home" is a step in the right direction, but it would have been very heartwarming to hear the Court talk about preservation of freedom, since that's what 2A says.

    Still, the acknowledgment that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right is very, very good.
     
  16. Chester

    Chester New Member

    327
    0
    0
    I LOVE IT But don't get too happy too quick, As soon as fema declares the constitution suspended what will this decision be worth.
     
  17. RL357Mag

    RL357Mag New Member

    3,250
    0
    0
    It's a small step in the right direction, but what I heard all day long is that it only allows a handgun to be kept in the home. There still is no provision in DC to obtain a CCW permit, and probably never will be since I don't think there are any pre-emption clauses in DC. Also, the majority of big city Mayors were quick to state their intent to continue pushing for more gun restrictions.http://start.localnet.com/article.php?article=D91I3B7O1.html
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2008
  18. hkusp45

    hkusp45 New Member

    119
    0
    0
    It's a good thing and will take time to evolve. Take the time to remember that this issue of a citizens right to have a gun has gone unchallenged by the Supreme Court since 1791. This is a great step forward in that fact that it has been finally acknowledged that the individual has rights and that arms are not just for the government/ militia.
     
  19. RL357Mag

    RL357Mag New Member

    3,250
    0
    0
    True, but until we can own the same guns that the "Government" owns, there is still an elitist and threatening mentality, and we are still under the thumb and under-gunned, thereby making the 2nd Amendment nothing more than a token gesture with no real teeth to it. It's nice to be allowed to defend oneself from civilian predators, but we still do not have the ability to protect ourselves from an oppressive government, be it federal or local , who seems to think they have the right to tell us what we can own and where we can carry it. People seem to forget why the 2nd Amendment was put into the Constitution to begin with - it wasn't for self defense against the citizenry, it was for the defense of the citizenry against the government.
     
  20. ScottG

    ScottG New Member

    1,614
    0
    0
    Then the remaining freedom loving citizens in those areas should start pushing to remove those criminals from office. File lawsuits, picket their houses, insult and abuse them in public at every opportunity. Fight to remove them from their nice comfy offices and put them in the local law enforcement accommodations instead. Challenge the ba$+@rds from now 'til doomsday!