The following came from the Rocky Mountain news off the internet. So hopefully by saying that I am not in violation of any laws. My comments are in (()).
The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and imperiled similar prohibitions in other cities, Chicago and San Francisco among them. Federal gun restrictions, however, were expected to remain largely intact.
((Imperiled? Draconian laws/prohibitions? Thats bad?))
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said merely that the court did not find an unfettered right to bear arms and that the ruling "will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country."
((anyone surprised by this response? Correct me if I am wrong, and I am sure someone will, has not Senator Obama been saying that he is pro 2nd amendment? So he should be happy, right?))
But another Chicagoan, Democratic Mayor Richard Daley, called the ruling "very frightening" and predicted more violence and higher taxes to pay for extra police if his city's gun restrictions are lost.
((Gotta love this statement. Law abiding citizens are gonna go on a rampage now that the supreme court gave the ok to protect themselves? What do your bodyguards carry when protecting you Mayor, swizzle sticks? Its easy to spout nonsense when you have a trained bodyguard with A GUN watching your back))
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."
((Self explanatory))
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, a once-vital, now-archaic grouping of citizens. That's been the heart of the gun control debate for decades.
((Everyone has seen what happens to miltias when they form. Most are persecuted into extinction. Some deserve the persecution, most dont. And no I do not belong nor have I ever belonged to a militia.))
The answer: Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms exists and is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.
President Bush said: "I applaud the Supreme Court's historic decision today confirming what has always been clear in the Constitution: the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear firearms." The full implications of the decision, however, are not sorted out. Still to be seen, for example, is the extent to which the right to have a gun for protection in the home may extend outside the home.
Scalia said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."
The court also struck down D.C. requirements that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns. The district allows shotguns and rifles to be kept in homes if they are registered, kept unloaded and taken apart or equipped with trigger locks.
((A disassembled gun is as much a weapon as a rock. In that case, a rock is probably better.))
Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans' preferred weapon of self-defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."
But he said nothing in the 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."
((Ok, here I disagree. If, like I did, someone goes through the process to gain a CCW, which includes FBI, state and local background checks, they should be able to carry, period. If someone wants to do damage in the above mentioned buildings its gonna happen regardless of the law. Shouldnt the rest of us be able to protect ourselves? Or do we count on the minimum wage minimum training security guards to protect us. I mean where there are guards in the buildings))
And in a concluding paragraph to the 64-page opinion, Scalia said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."
D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty responded with a plan to require residents to register their handguns. "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence," Fenty said.
((Hey, Mayor Fenty, how does more legal handguns inthe District lead to more violence? If you mean more violence by law abiding citizens protecting themselves instead of being victims, you may have a point.))
((It was a narrow victory, and you all know it aint over. Dont become complacent, continue to be active in gun rights, voice your opinion. I may be all wrong in my comments above, but make no mistake I firmly believe in the right to protect me and mine against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I did it in the military and I will continue to do it as a civilian.))
