Victory for Gun Owners!

Washington (CNN) -- In another dramatic victory for firearm owners, the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional Chicago, Illinois', 28-year-old strict ban on handgun ownership, a potentially far-reaching case over the ability of state and local governments to enforce limits on weapons.

A 5-4 conservative majority of justices on Monday reiterated its 2-year-old conclusion that the Constitution gives individuals equal or greater power than states on the issue of possession of certain firearms for self-protection.

"It cannot be doubted that the right to bear arms was regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as states legislated in an evenhanded manner," wrote Justice Samuel Alito.

The court grounded that right in the due process section of the 14th Amendment. The justices, however, said local jurisdictions still retain the flexibility to preserve some "reasonable" gun control measures currently in place nationwide.

In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer predicated far-reaching implications. "Incorporating the right," he wrote, "may change the law in many of the 50 states. Read in the majority's favor, the historical evidence" for the decision "is at most ambiguous."

He was supported by Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.
 
The city council may codify new laws as early as Wednesday. Trust me, Richie knows how to play Chicago Way.
 
What makes 4 of 9 SC justices ignore the Constitution they have sworn to up hold?

Is it just a liberal/Democrat mental illness ?....

The 2nd Amendment isn't in the least ambiguous....
 
Last edited:
Socrtease said:
Washington (CNN) -- In another dramatic victory for firearm owners, the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional Chicago, Illinois', 28-year-old strict ban on handgun ownership, a potentially far-reaching case over the ability of state and local governments to enforce limits on weapons.

A 5-4 conservative majority of justices on Monday reiterated its 2-year-old conclusion that the Constitution gives individuals equal or greater power than states on the issue of possession of certain firearms for self-protection.

"It cannot be doubted that the right to bear arms was regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as states legislated in an evenhanded manner," wrote Justice Samuel Alito.

The court grounded that right in the due process section of the 14th Amendment. The justices, however, said local jurisdictions still retain the flexibility to preserve some "reasonable" gun control measures currently in place nationwide.

In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer predicated far-reaching implications. "Incorporating the right," he wrote, "may change the law in many of the 50 states. Read in the majority's favor, the historical evidence" for the decision "is at most ambiguous."

He was supported by Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.
Click to expand...

5-4. That's close, and scary.
 
Wow that was scary close. Proof for certain that if the court flips in favor of the liberals goodbye guns!
 
It shall be more excellent when the subsequent restrictions go back to the court. Chicago will provide a vast array of case law for the future. And with any luck Daley will know what a "deprivation of civil rights under the color of law" charge looks like. That's what's going to be happening in D.C. soon enough.
 
Caboose said:
That's exactly what I said. The courts don't like it when people try to fuck around on their rulings. Heller II will show this soon enough.
Click to expand...

You got it.
Kind of like telling your kid NO, on something, and then they try to go to your spouse to get a YES.
 
I am not surprised by this ruling, nor am I the least surprised by the ratio of the vote. But incorporation, while a natural consequence of declaring the 2nd Amendment as applying to individuals, is a huge step in the right direction. From here we have MASSIVE precedent to work from in combating the various types of laws anti-freedom liberals are already proposing. For instance, voting is an established and incorporated constitutional right. Anything resembling a poll tax has been shot down under the now-well established legal precedent that no government has the authority to charge the People to exercise their constitutional rights. From that, the laws that propose to tax or charge license fees for what is now an incorporated constitutional right are going to have trouble bucking the well established precedent that they cannot do that.

It is a great day for freedom at a time when our liberties are being repeatedly threatened from both sides of the party aisle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top