Gun rights for everyone
The Supreme Court has decided that Americans all have gun rights, not just Americans who don’t live Chicago, New York City or DC. This from the Washington Post;
The Supreme Court held Monday that Americans have the right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live, advancing a recent trend by the John Roberts-led bench to embrace gun rights.
By a 5-4 vote, the justices cast doubt on handgun bans in the Chicago area, but signaled that some limitations on the Constitution’s “right to keep and bear arms” could survive legal challenges.
See that? It’s John Roberts who guarantees our right to own firearms, not the Constitution, somehow. The fact of the matter is that these recent cases are the only cases that have made it to the Supreme Court in recent years so that the Supreme Court could actually have a voice in the matter. It has nothing to do with John Roberts, it has to do with the law.
It does bother me, however that the four dissenting voices are so stupid, though. The law says what it says and denying it isn’t a matter of opinion – it’s a matter of illiteracy. Do they have a literacy requiremnet in the Supreme Court? Thise four couldn’t even bring themselves to get this much right;
Monday’s decision did not explicitly strike down the Chicago area laws. Instead, it ordered a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling. But it left little doubt that the statutes eventually would fall.
Still, Alito noted that the declaration that the Second Amendment is fully binding on states and cities “limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values.”
Leftists are so doctrinal and cleave so tightly to their dogma, not a sliver of daylight or a moment’s rational thought gets between them. If the decision was to issue every American a gun, they might have a point, but to deny that all Americans have the same rights is just ignorant. Let’s hope one of the five don’t die before 2013.
Category: Legal, Liberals suck
If this is supposed to be such an inalienable Constitutional right, the thing that gets to me is the closeness of the decision, 5-4 instead of 9-0.
Too easy to overturn when the Supremes are packed in the Libturd Leftist leaning.
“. . .advancing a recent trend by the John Roberts-led bench to embrace gun rights.”
That is a typo.
Instead of “to embrace,” the incorrigible Post writer meant to write “to cling to.”
I saw in the most recent edition of the NRA magazines that the next action will be to use the World Court to attack gun ownership rights.
Does anyone have any idea why the anti-gun groups think that will have any effect here? Does the World Court carry weight in our judicial system? Am I missing something?
Read the opinoins. Scalia gives Stevens a rather nice parting gift.
Opinions. I can’t spell today.
“Too easy to overturn when the Supremes are packed in the Libturd Leftist leaning.”
Eh. I’m not so sure. It took 17 years for the court to reverse Bowers v. Hardwick, which was a 5-4 ruling by a conservative court, but the reversal was a victory for individual liberty over state regulation (much like McDonald).
Plus, I can’t imagine a plaintiff seeking an opposite judgment who would be able to show an injury fairly traceable to the lack of gun bans, given that the enactment of gun bans has not been historically successful at stemming violent crime, and that the striking of such bans (at least in D.C. since Heller, and I really doubt Chicago will be different) has not resulted in the blood bath we all were warned by gun-hating fearmongers was waiting in the wings.
The real kicker is how Stevens couched his dissent: He says guns are dangerous. Seriously. In his mind, the “threat” of armed citizens is more important than a constitutional mandate. Nobody who would even consider basing a legal opinion on that line of thought should ever be allowed on any bench, but here we have four of them on the highest court in the land.
>Do they have a literacy requiremnet in the Supreme Court?
>requiremnet
Good one.