Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

  • Don't miss out on all the fun! Register on our forums to post and have added features! Membership levels include a FREE membership tier.

us supreme rules gun ban illegal!!!!!!!

Yahoo!! Five to Four ruling with Scalia writing the assention. Not quite sure of details yet, but I know he stated that, "gun ownership is a right, not just pertaining to militia's, but to self defense also. The reporter said the ruling goes further than the Bush Administration had asked for. Reason to celebrate!!!:)
 
Here is the article, nice to see them make a good ruling.


Court says individuals have right to own guns
Decision is justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history

BREAKING NEWS

updated 6 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "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."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

Capital's strict gun law
The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.

Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.

The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.


Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.

Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.
 
Now here is the problem...
Reauthorization Act of 2008:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-6257

Introduced by a Republican and signed by 3 other Republicans.

Limits capacity to 5 rounds for rifles and shotguns and 10 rounds for handguns.

Including a list of banned weapons.

You can thank the following people:

Rep. Mark Kirk [R-IL]
Rep. Michael Castle [R-DE]
Rep. Michael Ferguson [R-NJ]
Rep. Christopher Shays [R-CT]
 
And now you know yet another reason we HAVE to get conservatives in office.
Had we had one more dem/liberal on the bench, you would have seen a VERY different outcome.

Now the house and senate will be doing the absolute best to limit things like, ammo power, amount of ammo in guns, etc. They now have a frame work within which they can restrict our ability to use em.

The fight is WAY from over, but we have got to keep the Dems from putting any more liberals on the supreme court.
 
And now you know yet another reason we HAVE to get conservatives in office.
Had we had one more dem/liberal on the bench, you would have seen a VERY different outcome.

Now the house and senate will be doing the absolute best to limit things like, ammo power, amount of ammo in guns, etc. They now have a frame work within which they can restrict our ability to use em.

The fight is WAY from over, but we have got to keep the Dems from putting any more liberals on the supreme court.

Did you not see the post I made two above you?

That bill was introduced by your VERY own "Conservatives".

It's not a black/white straight down the line issue. All conservatives are not for guns, and not all Liberals are against them.
 
No, it's more like a city folk versus country folk, when it comes to politicians. Did you notice the states these people represent. Mostly democratic liberal constituents. Sponsor Kirk from Illinois, home to Obama, Shay from CT, Ferguson from NJ, and Castle from DE. Ollie is 100% right. I'll take my chances on a conservative supreme court appointee. We can't afford another Souter or Ginsberg. This bill has not even seen commitee yet.
 
Did you not see the post I made two above you?

That bill was introduced by your VERY own "Conservatives".

It's not a black/white straight down the line issue. All conservatives are not for guns, and not all Liberals are against them.





Not all but the #'s prove what Ollie says. % wise the Libs are agenst guns WAY more then the other side. I believe you know this already though.



The Really sad thing is the the vote.. 5 / 4 WAY to close for my likeing!!!:eek:









.
 
No, it's more like a city folk versus country folk, when it comes to politicians. Did you notice the states these people represent. Mostly democratic liberal constituents. Sponsor Kirk from Illinois, home to Obama, Shay from CT, Ferguson from NJ, and Castle from DE. Ollie is 100% right. I'll take my chances on a conservative supreme court appointee. We can't afford another Souter or Ginsberg. This bill has not even seen commitee yet.




True. CT is Very LIB!!:mad::mad::mad::mad: as is NJ













.
 
well at least i can put my pitch fork away for a little bit.

not that i would give up my guns to anyone.
 
AttackDog.jpg
 
Did you not see the post I made two above you?

That bill was introduced by your VERY own "Conservatives".

It's not a black/white straight down the line issue. All conservatives are not for guns, and not all Liberals are against them.

Actually yes I did.
My point was that it was just the beginning of a LONG list of bills you will see poping up and people had better pay attention or they will find the only guns they can own hold one shot and have less power than a 22.

We have morons in the conservative party also. Just look at our presidential nominee.
 
No it hasn't which is why you should write your representative now.

I have a state rep who sits on this commitee, and believe me, I know where he stands on this issue. We should all be informed on how our representatives stand on this issue and many others too. My point about it not even being in commitee yet is this: Guns are a hot button election issue, and neither party will want this to be in the headlines before election. 1 because touchy subject for Obama, 2 because it is being proposed by republicans. So it is far more imperative to elect people who have the same views on this matter as gun owners in the upcoming election, because after the election, is when this subject will come up imo.
 
Premium Features



Back
Top