Thread:

Supreme Court just rules you can have your handgun in any city or State: THIS IS HUGE

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court ruled for the first time that gun possession is fundamental to American freedom, giving federal judges power to strike down state and local weapons laws for infringing on Second Amendment rights.

The Supreme Court ruled for the first time that gun possession is fundamental to American freedom.

The ruling was 5-4 along the court's usual conservative-liberal split. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion.

The court in 2008 voided a District of Columbia handgun ban, and Monday's ruling extended that to the rest of the country. Because Washington is federal territory and not part of a state, the legal basis for imposing federal constitutional limits on gun laws adopted by states had been unclear.
More


The legal question before the court had much to do with questions of constitutional history. Before the Civil War, courts held that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. After the Union victory, the Reconstruction amendments were adopted to elevate individual rights over state powers and cement the federal role in enforcing them.

The Supreme Court has subsequently held that many constitutional rights considered fundamental to American principles of liberty override state laws. However, more technical provisions—such as the Fifth Amendment requirement that grand juries approve criminal indictments—apply only to the federal government and don't necessarily bind states.

Monday's ruling elevates the Second Amendment right to bear arms to the status of a fundamental right that states can't abridge.
On the Docket

"It is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty," wrote Justice Alito in his majority opinion.

Two years ago, after the court voted 5-4 along its conservative-liberal split to strike down the Washington ordinance, gun-rights forces filed suit against weapons laws around the country. The case decided Monday involved a challenge to handgun bans in Chicago and Oak Park, Ill.
video

when owning a handgun is a felon, only felons will have them great deal for americans!

Originally Posted by redneckcharlie

Obama and Holden must be pissed. Pretty much settles this bs!

You can add Feinstien and Pelosi to that list.
What a great ruling in favor of American's rights!!!!!!
Remember, politicians love unarmed peasants!!!

Originally Posted by redneckcharlie

Obama and Holden must be pissed. Pretty much settles this bs!

Oh yeah asshat obama, when are you going to insult us in front of the entire country again???........Paybacks are a bitch, and there is nothing quite as rewarding as sweet REVENGE......Now, lets talk about that pesky Arizona immigration law!!!! That is going to be really funny to us, and obama may very well resign because he didn't get "his way"........Ha, frickin' HA.......Ray

PS Holden doesn't even know anything happened......Huh? What? Zzzzzzzz

Maybe Biden will tell him?

Guess it doesn't pay to mock and insult the SC justices on National TV??

Originally Posted by thatguy

Guess it doesn't pay to mock and insult the SC justices on National TV??

It's just his way. He did the same to America by apologizing for our arrogance (talk about pots and kettles) as well as our military, Christian beliefs and constitutional values.

My question is this:
If they are now going to uphold Federal 2nd amendment rights, could we also uphold immigration laws as well nationwide?

Originally Posted by The Doctor

It's just his way. He did the same to America by apologizing for our arrogance (talk about pots and kettles) as well as our military, Christian beliefs and constitutional values.

My question is this:
If they are now going to uphold Federal 2nd amendment rights, could we also uphold immigration laws as well nationwide?

Hmmmmm, maybe the high court is setting up obama for another FAIL.... Establish the 2nd based on the 14th, then use the 14th to uphold SB1070, based on a prior decision!!! I like it...BTW, I heard over the weekend that several other states are working on their own version of SB1070. I heard Pennsylvania mentioned as well as Michigan, I think....They said something like 7 other States and counting, working on it...... Ray

PS RIP Senator Byrd. The dims are really laying the praise on thick, and FOX keeps flashing his KKK involvement across the bottom news ticker.....If ANY Repub even looked at a building, that was having a KKK meeting next week, they would bring out all the Revs, and civil rights extremists....One hell of a dual standard huh........

Dual Standard.
I hope I live long enough to see that standard come home to roost!

And I will. It won't be long now.
The idiots can riot in the streets of Canatard. We gather at the state houses and the leftists wet themselves.

Sara gives a portion of her time to further education and the left dumpster dives. For what? Proof she is an American? Her birth certificate? Documents proving she is the "One"?

Loose, the Dogs of War!

Originally Posted by Boss460

I am glad the right to bear arms is being protected. Having said that, I'd like to address the things people keep saying about the justices being swayed by Obama's SotU address.

If the justices rule on ANYTHING based on what Obama said to them and not on the merits of the case, they should be REMOVED. Everyone here keeps saying things alluding to the judges making rulings based on some sort of revenge against Obama's SOTU address. I say that if they do that, it is highly illegal and they should be removed. It would be disgusting.

I highly doubt that they'd rule based on the SOTU or against Obama because of personality conflicts. Obama give too many reasons to rule against his agenda. Obama is very much in favor of total government control and in favor of a weakened and changing constitution. That'll give any constitutional judge reason to rule against him. Even Judge Napolitano, who tends to lean center to just left of center, disagrees with most of what Obama stands for.