Via the Associated Press:
The Supreme Court says 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 strikes down the District of Columbia’s 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes 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.”
My two cents: Wonderful news. Let’s hope that someone goes after Illinois gun laws. It would seem that the right to bear arms means just that — the right to bear ams. I would think this would ban laws prohibing the concealed carry of weapons by otherwise law-abiding individuals.
UPDATE: I’m eagerly awaiting a Rob’s Rant on Angie’s Drama.
UPDATE 2: Here is part of CNN’s take on the decision:
In March, two women went before the justices with starkly different opinions on the handgun ban.
Shelly Parker told the court she is a single woman who has been threatened by drug dealers in her Washington neighborhood.
“In the event that someone does get in my home, I would have no defense, except maybe throw my paper towels at them,” she said, explaining she told police she had an alarm, bars on her windows and a dog.
“What more am I supposed to do?” Parker recalled asking authorities. “The police turned to me and said, ‘Get a gun.’ “
Elilta “Lily” Habtu, however, told the high court that she supports the handgun ban, and tighter gun control in general. Habtu was in a Virginia Tech classroom in April 2007 when fellow student Seung-Hui Cho burst in and began shooting. She survived bullets to the head and arm.
“There has to be tighter gun control; we can’t let another Virginia Tech to happen,” she told the court. “And we’re just not doing it; we’re sitting around; we’re doing nothing. We let the opportunity arise for more massacres.”
Nothing in this article, however, that mentions how many existing gun laws, were violated at Virginia Tech, not the least of which would be the many laws prohibing people from shooting people without reason.
And there is this paragraph:
Only Chicago, Illinois, has a handgun ban as sweeping as Washington’s, though Maryland, Massachusetts and San Francisco, California, joined the Windy City in issuing briefs supporting the district’s ban.
Yep. Bad news for the People’s Republic of Chicago. The proletariat is getting the right to shoot back.
85 days 2 hours ago.
Billy Dennis
PeoriaIllinoisan
Anon E. Mouse
billy_dennis
Bookworm
C.J. Summers
Diane Vespa
David P. Jordan
11bravo
mahkno
Merle Widmer
Precinct Committeeman
Peo Proud
iwillrambleon.blogspot.com/
Neil Johnson
pdcj
Billy Dennis
I don’t understand the liberal Democrats on the Court opposing homeowners having guns as allowed in your homes. On this issue alone, where is the politics? Republicans want to let you have guns and Democrats don’t?
Woo hoo! More guns! We don’t have enough! Give me more! Woo hoo!
The problem is not that the “liberal Democrats” oppose homeowners having guns…most of us DO NOT oppose the constitution or the right to bear arms…the problem is WHAT guns, HOW MANY, and WHY in the hell you need ‘em?
Want a shotgun or rifle to hunt? Fine, good, great even. Want a pistol to defend your home? Fine, good, we can work with that I think. Want a semi-automatic or a military assault rifle so you can put not just one cap, but 324 caps in some poor rabbit’s ass? We don’t get it.
I would like to see the Illinois FOID cards thrown out too. Just more government snooping into the citizens and another tax.
I KNEW this would get BJ to come out of hiding.
I don’t know about anyone else, but a world where only the police and criminals have automatic weapons is no world I ever want to live in.
The best thing about this ruling is how mad it made Mayor Daley. Maybe he’ll have some bulldozers take down the Supreme Court building in the middle of the night.
Some stupid-assed news hen on the radio this morning was wondering whether the big drop in the stock market was caused by the Supreme Court decision. DUH!!!
BJ: What rifle has a 324 round clip? I want one!
But BJ doesn;t want traffic laws………
BJ: The court did not say certain restrictions cannot be made on gun possession.
OH, THIS IS NOTHING! Next Step? Will be when I am subpeona’d for my testimony on my past 30+ years as an US Army “Manchurian Candidate Study” subject.
(Go to http://www.rickhyatt.freeservers.com to see just how immersed I AM in this espionage business - Hope you have Piclens, for I’ve got PHOTOS of past major spies I have known long-term along this line you won’t believe!)
That is to say, my own mission as a “Sleeper,” totally controlled, of course, by the FBI and (Double-Blind, unknowingly) “Social(ist) Services,” was to “Act up” (Utilizing special psychological and physical attributes such as clinical hypnosis and Celiac’s Disease, which causes reversible neopathy) to the degree that I became “One of those who shouldn’t own a gun… and thusly influence on-going anti-gun legislation. I was successful in helping Maui Waiver Form 2036 (Allowing the corrupt politicians to search a gun applicant’s ENTIRE LIFE’S medical, sexual etc. files) and then exploit same for political purposes on Maui. Coming then here to Wyoming, hearing of my “Reputation” they specially whipped up our Concealed Carry Permit Restriction, for such “ a person like me… Then, when I passed the NCIC, etc., and got a Florida Permit, valid here, they passed a special law - JUST FOR ME- ILLEGAL AS HELL - Such that it could not be used here, as examples.
My “Behavioral Programming?” To act unnaturally conservative, pro-Constitutional, openly Patriotic, and to be vocal about it. Be “Dumbed Down” from the Celiac’s by eating bread and drinking beer. Couldn’t have made a better target and/or “Dummy” for the Liberals to use as an “Example.”
Now… Since so many anti-gun laws are based on the acts of the Columbine, Post Office, Mall otherwise-untraceable (By the APA, anyway) “Sleepers” (As myself), then how can ANY OF THOSE LAWS BE VALID AT ALL?
“Telling the truth during times of universal deceit will be a revolutionary act.” George Orwell, “1984″
Honestly, I don’ have a problem with people wanting to own guns. However, there is something intellectually dishonest when gun owners claim to be safer in their homes because they have a gun. The statistics overwhelming demonstrate that gun owners are many times more likely to use a weapon on themselves or another family member then repel some criminal intruder. Just last month I attended two funerals in the same week for friends who committed suicide with a hand gun. One fellow was a politically active NRA member who awoke one morning, rolled out of bed, and shot himself. There are few second chances when using a gun at close range. Everybody thinks getting depressed won’t happen to them. It would be interesting to know the suicide success rate for NRA members vs the general public.
Excellent (and sensible) points made there Louis. But you won’t win over this crowd.
Digger: Yep, saw that. Like I said, I’ve never been in favor of “gun control” the way the NRA fear mongers would have you believe we’re trying to get, but I am in favor of sensible restrictions on ownership, and what types of weapons can be owned.
Vonster: Wrong again, and you know that. I want traffic laws, as a matter of fact I want a lot of them that already exist to simply be enforced. I just don’t like the laziness and money-making greediness of officers just sitting in medians and on overpasses cherry picking speeders. For instance, the Illinois State Police have a big push on “100% compliance” with seat belt laws. Tell you what, ISP, when you get “100% compliance” on turn signal usage, not running stop signs or red lights, and dimming your lights to oncoming traffic, THEN and ONLY THEN should you worry about “100% compliance” on seat belts.
But back to the topic at hand…
Rick: What?!?!
[...] Dennis posted a blog about the SC(r)OTUS decision to overturn the Washington DC handgun ban, a decision I support. [...]
Sorry I misunderstood you, Beej. So you DO want traffic laws just as long as they don’t get enforced on you. Got it.
Cheer up gun control advocates. This decision did two things:
1) Overturn DC (and eventually Chicago’s) outright ban on guns.
2) Bless most all other existing gun control laws.
Make gun control laws that aren’t bans.