SCOTUS extends RTKBA to all 50 states!

[handejector]

A good day worthy of celebration, so I left this here instead of moving it to the 2A area.

Contact your Senators about the current nominee for the court.
Stay vigilant.
Support the NRA- like 'em or not, they are your best hope in DC.
VOTE this fall.

 

[Bat Guano]

Just got done reading/scanning the decision. Thank God for Scalia and Thomas.

Some of what Thomas mentions in his opinion is chilling. Check out the "Colfax Massacre" on Wikipedia; that incident gave rise to the Cruikshank case. Justice was somewhat served today, but about 140 years late...

Tomorrow's another day that freedom will need defending again.

 

[Hondo44]

Yet another landmark 2nd amendment decision!

I'm sure most if not all have heard this news by now. As bad as things are going for the government, environment, taxpayers, economy, our soldiers, the unemployed, healthcare on and on infinitum, at least there is a bright spot for the basic safety of Americans. Reading the decisions and dissents of these Supreme Court rulings is always riveting. Each of these resolved court cases can be a mini education. I for one thank God and continue to pray for the insight and understanding in enough of our leaders' minds to prevail on certain key issues of our times. In this case a basic right. I know the concept of more legal firearms equates to less crime and more safety is counterintuitive to many and counter ideology to a few. But the "unmassaged" statistics do support it as does a scholarly contextual and period-correct reading of the second amendment. The bolding of the section below is mine and speaks to the heart of the matter. There are different reasons for the "Byzantine labyrinths" referenced below. One reason is an honest ignorance of the issue, another is political gaming and yet another is purely disingenuous and dishonest subterfuge by those with anti-constitutional not-so-hidden agendas and everything in between. Few issues appear so simple on the surface with such a quagmire of torrential undercurrents.

The road ahead is still a perilous journey, fraught with controversy and adversity of course. But I am encouraged today that a major safeguard built into our constitutional republic by our forefathers has gained another slight elevation and justification in the rule of law.

Just my humble but informed opinion,
Jim

 

[Gutpile Charlie]

"The sad news is that four Justices dissented. They want to do away with our God given right that's outlined in the Bill of Rights."

___________________________________________________

Yes, it was a good decision today....but what about those four clowns that voted against it? That's a pretty thin margin. I tend to be a bit more reserved. Glad it turned out this way, but we are only a vote away from disaster.

I remember growing up "Impeach Earl Warren" signs all over the country. Maybe when the country finally gets straightened out, the old "impeach" signs should come out again.

Some of these people are just dangerous.

 

[armenius]

Thank God-and pray for the health and long life of the 5 who actually believe the Constitution and Bill of Rights actually was the will of our Founding Fathers.It is hard to believe that educated poeple can't understand such a simple document.The truth is,they really don't care.IT is a fight which will be there as long as liberals and "progressives"live.

 

[cp1969]

Why is it that nine people can't view an issue for it's Constitutionality? They're always split, 5-4 which means that politics drives their every decision, not legal judgment.

 

[Gutpile Charlie]

Why is it that nine people can't view an issue for it's Constitutionality? They're always split, 5-4 which means that politics drives their every decision, not legal judgment.

_____________________________________________________

You are so right!

You know, to me, right left, up down, in out, light dark, etc. are pretty easy to discern.

It's obvious, it's not rocket science.

These clown are strictly driven by politics....absolutely nothing else.

 

[Lew Archer]

If Gore or Kerry won the Presidency there wouldn't be a Roberts and Alito there.

Yes...and if Gore or Kerry won, the Court would not have even heard Heller or McDonald...let alone ruled the way it did today in those cases.

However, regardless of the future composition of the Court, the baseline established by these cases is the law of the land. That is historic, for in the history of our country, the 2nd Amendment's guarantee of liberty has never been given such force. Our 2nd Amendment protections are stronger today than they have ever been.

Until Heller, it was debatable whether the 2nd Amendment was an individual or collective right. For so long, the Court refused to address the 2nd Amendment, relegating it to relic status, as compared to other aspects of the Bill of Rights. Heller changed that.

Until McDonald, it was debatable whether state and local governments were bound by the 2nd Amendment. Well, now the whole country knows what many of us here have long believed: that local, state and federal governments are all restrained by the 2nd Amendment, at least to the extent articulated thus far in Heller and McDonald.

Yes, the fight goes on, but make no mistake, the McDonald and Heller decisions---5-4 or not---are huge victories for all of us who cherish the 2nd Amendment and the liberties it protects. The questions presented in these two truly landmark cases have clearly been settled.

 

[JcMack]

Stupid Question: If Chicago's ban proves to be unlawful, can any unlawful gun confiscations or convictions under it's application be contested?

 

[wbraswell]

As I was surfing channels last night, I came across A. Cooper talking to some liberal that I don't know the name of, and he was telling AC all about how that now we are on the verge of minors buying Stinger missiles and hanging around airports and how felons would be buying machine guns. What trash. Every time I hear those people, I remember why I own paramilitary type weapons, and why I'm in the NRA.

 

[marlin.357]

Balance???

Balance in the supreme court? Noooooo!

Balance between justices who apply the constitution and laws as they are written "balanced" by progressives who interpret them based on their personal or political bias? Don't know who came up with the concept of "balance" but I'm pretty sure you can't find it in the constitution....