Comment by Ernest Hancock

Entered on: 6/26/2008 8:09:22 AM

I'm not jumping up and down yet. It seems like they said, "Yeah, you got a right to Bear Arms, the way we say you can".

Comment by Chip Saunders

Entered on: 6/26/2008 9:27:07 AM

Exactly right Ernie!!

The rendering was worded so carefully narrow to only the circumstances at hand, and specifically was annotated to decry that this decision should in NO WAY be construed to allow felons to posess
or regulation to be stymied,...that the decision is toothless and means almost nothing.

2nd Amendment defenders were hoping for a bombshell, but got a tiny firecracker.

Comment by Fascist Nation

Entered on: 6/26/2008 10:43:23 AM

Oh, I disagree. For the first time we have the Supreme Court acknowledging that we have the right under their provisions, rules and regulations to possess the musket or smoothbore of our choice to protect our lives while in our home from violence. Wow! Powerful stuff our revolutionary founders would have recognized these assurances for what they are.

Additionally it affirmed the importance of keeping firearms out of the 1 in 33 Americans who are felons, while they are working on the rest, and keeping guns out of the hands of unstable troops returning from Iraq, until they are ready to be forcibly redeployed in a few months...unless of course they are cops. And especially affirming the power to keep guns away from anywhere near were they happen to be at the moment in case an disgruntled member of the public might wish to enter a dissenting opinion.

And if you don't like their ruling rest assured the First Amendment may not protect your speech or expression if you exceed the limits, boundaries or prohibitions the authorities have placed upon you. -- Scalia

Comment by Brock

Entered on: 6/26/2008 10:48:38 AM

The opinion is long and drawn out, but simple:

- The "operant clause" reads clearly and unambiguously.
- The "prefatory clause" does not change in any way, shape, or form the "operant clause".
- "A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges' assessments of its usefulness is no guarantee at all."

Therefore (amazing leap in logic):
The second amendment guarantees the right of certain people to ask permission to keep and bear certain, limited types of arms and, in certain, limited circumstances, the government should grant a qualified permission to do so.

Comment by Psychictaxi

Entered on: 6/26/2008 11:52:37 AM

How about "That which is repugnant to the Constitution is not law, and not to be followed."

Then look up 'infringed'.

Comment by Brock

Entered on: 6/26/2008 1:18:41 PM

Wheel guns, in your home, no carry, no transport:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2008/06/26/VI2008062601753.html?hpid=topnews

Comment by JohnStillwater

Entered on: 6/26/2008 1:29:17 PM

The ONLY reason the "Supreme" Court even exists is because the Constitution provides the basis for ALL American government, which includes "King" George's tyrannical ass sitting in the Useless Office (and all his ilk), as well as the Legislative branch. Seperate, and equally full of shit.

If it contradicts the Constitution, it is null and void, and is to be treated as though it did not exist. Any "Law Enforcement" agent who has EVER arrested ANYONE for concealed carry is, by default, an unconvicted FELON. In my opionion they should also be brought up on Sedition or Treason charges...and, IF found guilty...hung by the neck until dead.

Any so-called "decision" that these robe-wearing idiots makes means absolutely NOTHING to me, and shouldn't mean anything to any sensible, thinking man or woman.

Here in America, time and tempers are growing increasingly short, as I'm sure most people here already know.

There's a Revolution coming. Lead, follow, or get the hell outta the way.

John.