Supreme Court and 2nd Amendment

**Mike** · 06-12-2008, 10:30 AM

Its Bull Crap! The Second Amendment was specifying that an 'individual' is not a person, but a militia!? Who the heck comes up with these ideas! I hate these articles. They make me sooo mad! Anti-Gun, Anti-Rights, Anti-Defence, crazed liberal tree hugging democrats... DAH!

**mymania** · 06-12-2008, 11:24 AM

It's been debated for years.

From wikipedia
The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads:
â€œ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. â€

The original and copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:
â€œ A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. â€

Here's to hoping they rule in favor of individual rights. This is a big case with long reaching implications!

**Stuart** · 06-12-2008, 08:59 PM

Gun Rights

This is indeed a groundbreaking case that will have far-reaching consequences. On one hand it may abolish the ridiculous DC gun ban, but on the other hand it may eventually lead to armed confiscations. I hope and pray the supreme court will rule in favor of individual liberty and freedom to protect ourselves.

The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because "handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia."

If they have no use then take them away from the cops!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-Mojave

**mymania** · 06-26-2008, 08:11 AM

Today is the day
[web:850ed918b8]http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080626/D91HO0I00.html[/web:850ed918b8]

**mymania** · 06-26-2008, 08:34 AM

[web:cf095d728e]http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/[/web:cf095d728e]

Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Thursday, June 26th, 2008 10:14 am | Lyle Denniston | Comments Off |

Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in oneâ€™s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession.

Justice Antonin Scaliaâ€™s opinion for the majority stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on carrying a concealed gun or on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, on laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, and laws putting conditions on gun sales.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), the Court nullified two provisions of the city of Washingtonâ€™s strict 1976 gun control law: a flat ban on possessing a gun in oneâ€™s home, and a requirement that any gun â€” except one kept at a business â€” must be unloaded and disassembled or have a trigger lock in place. The Court said it was not passing on a part of the law requiring that guns be licensed. It said that issuing a license to a handgun owner, so the weapon can be used at home, would be a sufficient remedy for the Second Amendment violatrion of denying any access to a handgun.

**Stuart** · 06-29-2008, 03:18 PM

2nd and most important.

Today's Supreme Court ruling on the 2nd Amendment
should have never happened.

A simple reading of the bill of rights makes it clear that
the "People" have inalienable rights that are not granted
by the Government.

Here is the text of Amendment II -

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security
of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear
Arms shall not be infringed."

D.C. vs Heller asks the question, "Are the laws of
Washington D.C. that prohibit a person from having
a pistol in their home unconstitutional?"

In a 5 to 4 decision the court said that these laws
were unconstitutional because a person has the right
to keep and bear arms. This should have been a
9 to zip ruling.

Our Constitution is indeed hanging by a thread when 4 of
the Supreme Court Justices could justify a NO vote in
this D.C. vs Heller case.

If that weren't bad enough, one Presidential candidate
commented that the Constitution had gotten in the way
of POLICY.

Folks, we are headed for trouble in this country.

All is not well with this decision as I start to look at it more
closely. At the least, we must stay on guard for any
additional erosion of the rights of the citizen's of this
great country of America by our Legislature, our Judges
or our next president.

Attached is the PDF file with the opinions on both sides
so you can read it yourself and have a copy of this
momentous decision.

I will comment on this further as time permits and will
share my thoughts with you about what might be ahead
for us all.

Stay Safe and Practice Often,
Welden
______________________________

Welden Andersen - Instructor

https://www.self-defensesolutions.com

welden@self-defensesolutions.com