Supreme Court extends Gun Rights Nationwide

[bearmgc]

Well aint that a hoot. I'll take it as support, even though its a God given right. Arrogant of them though it may seem, we need all the help we can get....

[Redhawk1]

Was glad to hear that..

[wreckhog]

Under the Obama administration. Hmm, guess he is pro gun.

[powderman]

Hmm, guess he is pro gun.


YEAH RIGHT, just like he's pro life. POWDERMAN. 

[GH1]

It'll be interesting to see what kind of shenanigans mayor daly will pull to continue his anti-gun aganda.  I look for some sort of fee to be levied against anyone wanting to buy a gun, coupled with mountains of paperwork. If he can't legislate them away, by God he'll tax them away. I HATE that Bastard!  I also see more lawsuits filed on behalf of gun owners regarding daly's infringements.   Time will tell.
What's really disturbing is how 4 justices actually voted AGAINST it! 
GH1

[GRIMJIM]

He's already talking about training for a fee of course and mandatory insurance for gunowners.

I'm wondering why the vote was so close? 5-4 doesn't seem right to me.

[bronco73401]

They finally got something right! Well five of them anyway. Its still a win. At least for the time being. Hmmmm makes me think, maybe its a "trojan horse" type of thing. Better keep an eye on this.


Lance

[briarpatch]

mayor daly can keep guns out of the city forever if he wants. This ruling only said you could have a gun. The city will dicide when, what kind, how many, where, how, why, ETC. All this deciding will take hundreds of thousands of years.
The courts dont give the cake and icing. They serve the elite and the extreme evil. ying and yang.
The law abiding man is at the mercy of the courts.
As far as I know the guy who won in d.c., still does not have a gun. The last I heard.  The city was trying to decide if he could have a flintlock pistol. He wanted a semi auto. 

[nomosendero]

They finally got something right! Well five of them anyway. Its still a win. At least for the time being. Hmmmm makes me think, maybe its a "trojan horse" type of thing. Better keep an eye on this.


Lance

At least for the time being. We are 2 picks away from a change he can believe in. The first is a Lib for a Lib, the next will be scary.

[1marty]

Bloomberg in NY lets people have handguns. One minor catch, the cost of a license for a pistol or rifle is prohibitive. The only one who could afford it is his rich friends. People like Joan Rivers got a carry permit!!   It's the poor slob and middlle class who are not allowed to have firearms. Educated elite are exempt.

[victorcharlie]

This opens up more litigation in regard to reasonable regulation.

[jcn59]

Those of us who have the same blood boiling in our veins that our ancestors had two hundred and thirty five years ago KNOW that the government can't take our guns away.   That's what Jeff Cooper would say about this.   

The "Sheeple" will just give up and do what they are told, as usual.

The Supreme Court just saved our Government.

[gypsyman]

Daly already came out with tax and liscense proposals. Just like Bloomberg, only the rich and elite will be able to get a gun. Leagally that is. We all know the crooks will get them any way they can. Ill. already has a liscense to buy ammo. Thats why the gun shows in the sorounding state's do so well in ammo sales. gypsyman

[subdjoe]

Daly already came out with tax and liscense proposals. Just like Bloomberg, only the rich and elite will be able to get a gun. Leagally that is. We all know the crooks will get them any way they can. Ill. already has a liscense to buy ammo. Thats why the gun shows in the sorounding state's do so well in ammo sales. gypsyman

You are repeating yourself there. 

[Rock Home Isle]

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court declared that Americans have a constitutional right  to have a handgun at home for self-defence...

Chicago banned handguns in 1982. The Supreme Court has sent the case back to Chicago for a lower court to issue the final descision, and gun rights advocates have also indicated that they will be going after San Diego and San Francisco  officials as well.

This is good news. 

[jcn59]

Good one, Joe!

[Spirithawk]

 We have " Rights " and we have " Privleges " and the problem with our Government is it's considering more and more and more of our rights a privlege and is making sure that's what our remaing rights become. A privlege is much easier to take away. What ever happened to a Government by the people...for the people? We've gone from a Nation that controls the Government to a Nation where the Government controls us. The really scary thing is that so many people are quite comfortable with things that way.

[subdjoe]

Have you noticed that more and more frequently capons, um, I mean politicians, are saying that the Constitution "gives" us rights, and that the government needs to work to 'empower' the people?  Now,that is just plain bass akward.  We the people give the government power. The only way the government can "empower" us is to give back what it has taken from us.  If we can get the wording straight, and get people believing that this is really a Republic, maybe things will start getting better.

Oh, on the subject of power and government and such, here is a letter I just sent to The Divine Ms. Di.

Dear Senator Feinstein,

I just finished listening to part of your speech during the Kagan hearings.  You noted that the McDonald decision tossed out 70 years of precedent in anti-civil rights legislation and court rulings.  You, and others in the powerful and well financed anti-civil rights lobby, seem to forget that that 70 years tossed out over 150 years in which honest citizens enjoyed their full civil rights.

I give you the words of William Rawle, form a textbook on Constitutional law that was used, among other places, at the US Military Academy:


"The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both. "

It would seem that back in the day, the people who were there during the founding of our Republic, considered the 2nd amendment to cover both federal and state governments, and, as Mr. Rawle said, nothing shall be conceived to disarm the people.  Not the state, not the militia, the people. 

Given your words, it would seem that you and others of your way of thinking are in blind pursuit of inordinate power.

Cordially,

Joseph (surname redacted for posting here)

a very concerned, and dissatisfied citizen.

We have " Rights " and we have " Privleges " and the problem with our Government is it's considering more and more and more of our rights a privlege and is making sure that's what our remaing rights become. A privlege is much easier to take away. What ever happened to a Government by the people...for the people? We've gone from a Nation that controls the Government to a Nation where the Government controls us. The really scary thing is that so many people are quite comfortable with things that way.

[GRIMJIM]

Now Daley is thinking about limiting firearms by other means. He has to let you own a handgun so that's what he is going to do. You can own one. Just one.

One handgun per registered owner.

No gun stores within city limits.

Who knows what other idiotic ideas he will have.

I sure wish you could evict a city from a state.