Is Victory at hand for 2nd Amendment rights advocates?

Question

September 5, 2007
WASHINGTON - Those who would do away with Washington's near-total ban on handguns will tell you point-blank their next target: Chicago.

Gun-rights advocates scored a stunning success earlier this year when a three-judge panel of a federal appeals court in Washington swept aside the District of Columbia's ban on owning handguns, which had been in place since 1976.

The district's decision to appeal has left gun-control advocates angst-ridden. They worry that the district's case isn't the best positioned for Supreme Court review and fear a precedent that could have a cascade effect across the nation.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-guns_wed1sep05,1,2446780.story?ctrack=2&cset=true


I have every confidence that the Supreme Court will recognize the individual rights interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, as clearly intended by the Founders

Answer 1

I think that is great news, this country was founded on home protective arms, people forget that. the founders would be considered gun enthusiasts under todays laws and likey raided and locked up enough is enough, if people don't like the 2nd amendment maybe they ought to relocate

Answer 2

It is of critical importance that the Supreme Court of the United States uphold Second Amendment rights, but sadly Dead Marxist, unlike your good self, I have no confidence that the Supreme Court will follow the text of the Constitution and uphold Second Amendment rights. I believe that Scalia, Thomas and Alito JJ. will vote to uphold the Constitution and perhaps Roberts C.J.
As to the rest, Breyer and Ginsburg JJ. will almost certainly be against the Constitution. Souter and Stevens JJ. are also very likely to vote against the plain words.
The swing vote is that of Kennedy J.
No one knows what will happen. Of course, the Supremes may decide not to hear it. I do not know whether certiorari has been granted.

Answer 3

It will be a shallow victory.

Both the Democrats and Republicans are moving to form a North American Union with Mexico and Canada. Besides making all the illegals legal, it will give them the opportunity to write a new Constitution for the new Union. And you can bet they will make some changes.

Gone will be the Second Amendment. Watch for them to start gun grabbing in mass. You will be lucky if you get to keep a BB gun.

Gone will be the First Amendment in regards to free speech. Like the Campaign Finance Reform bill, they will disallow you to speak badly of sitting candidates, thus helping to ensure their get re-elected.

Gone will be due process. Mexico assumes you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent and that is a whole lot cheaper for the government.

And it is coming. You do not see EITHER side yelling about the move towards the Union. They are both in cahoots.

And the only presidential candidate against it is RON PAUL and he is being marginalized by the media and ignored by his own party.

Answer 4

Yes. About time. It was amazing to see Chicago's mayor get away with that all of these years. Every gang member in the city is armed to the teeth while law abiding citizens were banned from having a hand gun within the city limits, too include inside your own home.

edit: "This is the end of a Clinton Legacy" ??? What does Clinton have to do with Chicago?

Answer 5

Sounds promising.

I guess I've been violating D.C. law for decades since I pass through there briefly on trips back home a couple times a year and I never travel unarmed. It'll be nice not to feel like it's enemy territory as I pass the nation's Capitol.

Answer 6

Won't make a damn's bit of difference either way. Despite DC's strict laws, anybody can go buy a bunch of guns from some criminal inbred redneck pawnshop gun dealer in South Carolina somewhere with zero paperwork and sell them on the street in DC for profit.

I'm not sure of the specifics of the case involving DC, but I doubt that the Court will curtail individual State's rights in regulating guns.

Answer 7

Sad part about it is we already have the right under our Constitution of the USA 2nd amendment.
WE ALREADY WON.........................now it is whether they will circumvent the Constitution without having all the states vote on a new amendment making our rights no longer legal or not.

The Supreme Court does NOT LEGISLATE they ONLY INTERRUPT....and it is plain as your nose on your face.

Answer 8

If the framers clearly intended the 2nd Amendment to say that individual rights to gun ownership should not be limited, why was that the only one of the Bill of Rights to have a limiting explanation attached? The framers didn't tell us why speech should be free, or even what speech was. They didn't explain why punishments shouldn't be cruel and unusual, or what probable cause was, or anything else. Yet here, they told us why the rights of citizens to bear arms was necessary. Clearly one would have to assume that the founders thought a well-regulated militia went along with citizens bearing arms, and no other reason for bearing arms was justified.

I'll say it again. Nowhere else is there an explanation, reason or definition given for the right being granted. Why, then, do you want to go against the wishes of the framers?

Answer 9

Yes.
Notice there is no period between militia and bear arms.
They are connected in the sentence, and in any plausible interpretation.

"Amendment II

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."

Answer 10

I pray that you're right. Those rights are important and shouldn't be tampered with. Be prepared for the price of ammunition to sky-rocket. I've been hearing that for some time now and it's estimated that will happen right after the first of the year.