I heard a 'blip' on the news recently about the supreme courty going to 'decide' on the 2nd amendment.

Question

Can anyone add anything to this topic? I am having difficulty in locating anything about the issue.

Almost as if it being kept quiet.

Thank you for your posts. Found more information as well.

Answer 1

"A well regulated milita, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." (US Constitution, 2nd Amendment.)

What does it mean? Here's how the American Founding Fathers put it.

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press. Does the government fear us? Or do we fear the government? When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The law of self-preservation is higher than the written law. No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. A little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing. Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
–Thomas Jefferson (a gathered quote)

Answer 2

Try findlaw.com

But here's a brief overview: The 2nd ammendment guarantees the right to own firearms. But it also states that the purpose of this is to have a "well-regulatedmilitia."

The exact relationship and meaning of that has never been explicitly addressed by the Supreme Court--so its a grey area. This case---involving the Washington, DC, handgun ban law, is one where the Court's ruling will (hopefully) clear up some of the uncertainty.

My guess is this: the Corurt will overturn the ban--it is an outright prohibition. However (and the NRA, etc. are probably NOT going to like this), I do expect the Court to be clear about allowing regulation, registration, waiting periods, and other restrictions--as long as such ordinances do not have the effect of preventing law-abidingcitizens from owning firearms.

That's just my opinion--granted. It's the opinionthe Corut hands ddown tha tcounts! Hope this helps! :)

Answer 3

its directly about the DC hand gun law but it could have a ripple effect....


Its funny, in this election season there has not been much about gun talk. It really has not been an issue for either side..

However the republican side is showing poorly in the polls. Now out of no where there is a gun debate in the supreme court....

Even the pro gun attorney that is in the case could not grasp just how fast the supreme court decided they wanted to hear it. and I quote....." It did not expect it to see this before the courts for at least a couple years."

also what I find odd is when a Dem complains about the Gov spying on us. wiretapping ,us doing away with habeas corpus and generally taking away our rights... Well we are endorsing the terrorist or we are terrorists. But now if they want to take away the guns. Now the Constitution matters!!

Answer 4

I assume you have never heard of CNN, MSNBC or the on-line websites for your local TV stations.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal from a DC Circuit case involving a District of Columbia law that seriously limits who may be licensed to carry a concealed weapon. It does not involve rifles or shotguns or hunting.

While the ignorant news anchors say the Court has agreed to "decide" a 2d Amendment case, it has not. It can always send the case back down without deciding anything, before or after oral argument.

It's a good case, because it squarely involves the issue of whether the amendment is limited to "militiamen" or everybody.

Answer 5

There is currently a handgun ban in Washington DC, even if you have a license. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to decide if it's constitutional.

Answer 6

Go to yahoo, go to news, type in Supreme Court. The page will show the result of yr search, go to #8 "Supreme Court to Rule on Gun Ownership Rights." You can also find it at kplctv.com "Gun Debate at the Center of Supreme Court Case." These articles were released on Nov20.

Answer 7

Sorry but gonna have to declare executive privilege on this one.

In reality, the feds are trying to test their muscle against the constitution in order to ban hand guns in DC. But what did anyone expect to happen when Americans were so complacent with violation of the United States vs Nixon when Bush and Cheney declared executive privilge on thing that had nothing to do with national security.

Answer 8

The lower courts found that the D.C. hand gun ban was unconstitutional because D.C is not a state government, it is essentially still the federal government. Constitutionally the federal government can not ban gun ownership. The Supreme Court has agreed to review the case on D.C.s appeal.

Answer 9

That would be the socialist extremists legislating from the bench again.
How dare they act like their law makers. It's called ,Court induced dictatorship. Haven't seen any thing on it but support my NRA-ILA and would never abide by any law restricting my constitutional right to bare arms. FROM MY COLD DEAD HAND!!!!! I would bet it was the 7th circus again. They should give them a enema.

Answer 10

wow, don't you love this? Taking away our rights one by one. We lost free speech and right to privacy with patriot act, now we are going to lose the second amendment. Will people ever realize what is going on, or will it be like 1984 before we actually see what is going on.