5-4: SUPREMES EXTEND GUN RIGHTS NATIONWIDE

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 34_pf.html

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Constitution's "right to keep and bear arms" applies nationwide as a restraint on the ability of the federal, state and local governments to substantially limit its reach.

In doing so, the justices, by a narrow 5-4 margin, signaled that less severe restrictions could survive legal challenges.

Thank God we only have 4 Liberals on the Supreme Court!

I don't know why we have liberals who want so bad to take away our gun rights. Just like Kagen who Obama just nominated. She is against it too. Most all of them want to take away our guns. I cannot believe 4 voted against our rights.

But they lost! The Conservative, constitution supporting Justices prevailed!! :woo hoo: :thumbsup:

Actually based on the Lefties here, it is looking like responsible gun ownership isn't a left/right issue these days. More like a red state/blue state line being drawn. High population/urban states tend to want to restrict gun ownership & rural areas approve of gun ownership.

SS109 wrote: Actually based on the Lefties here, it is looking like responsible gun ownership isn't a left/right issue these days. More like a red state/blue state line being drawn. High population/urban states tend to want to restrict gun ownership & rural areas approve of gun ownership.

I agree that we hae a lot of liberals up here who support the 2nd ammendment. But it is not just a red state blue state issue. It is our Supreme Court with 4 liberal Justices. And whether or not we have gun rights supporting liberals up here, it is a Liberal ideology to take away guns. And we came one vote from taking away a huge part of our 2nd ammendment rights. Another reason we need a Conservative President. We cannot have anymore Kagen's appointed.

It never did require a PHD education for the average citizen to read the language of 2nd amendment and understand what it means. The left and other "enemies among us" have tried to re-write history, and twist the meaning of clearly written language in an attempt to convince us that it means somthing other than what it actually says. So many of us were never buying it - we're not as stupid as they think.

We know who the traitors are - they who hate the American constitution - and they hate the GOD given liberty that the founding fathers so clearly recognized in their attempt to limit government power and maximize freedom and opportunity to Americans. They hate the fact that we are the only country on earth ever to have these rights - a government that derives it's power from the people.

The traitors have tipped their hand - we know who they are. We know who the enemies of American freedom are.

The court may have left open the possibility of more stupid laws with one of the statements like "The extent of gun rights are "still going to be subject to the political process," said Chief Justice John Roberts"".


Subject to the political process? Our rights are "subject to the political process"?
I don't think so.

And that's too bad - because the court had the opportunity to set the record straight - once and for all. It's junk language like the above statement that keeps this battle going - in the courts and in every city council packed with leftists who have no probem with violating the highest law of this land.

Still - no slithering judge or other detractor will be able to change the meaning of the second in my mind - I can think for myself and I know what the words mean, I know what the founders ment when they wrote it.

I am heartened by a few statements also -

"Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, concluding that a Chicago-area ban on handguns in the home violates the constitutional right to bear arms."

Also - "Alito noted that the declaration that the Second Amendment is fully binding on states and cities"

But some of us already knew that - because we can read.

Exactly. I am heartened as to what they said too. But it is also scary that we have 4 people who helped shape the laws of this Country on our Supreme Court who are total activists and want to change our Constitution. We are only one liberal judge away from losing a whole lot of our rights. They already voted 5-4 for eminent domain. Where you can be forced to give up your land if someone can earn more taxes for the state by building condos there. Now 4 of them want to take away our gun rights. Those 4 judges and this newly appointed one are very scary and are just looking for ways to take away our rights and give more rights to the government.

Exactly Viking. It is scary that we are so close in votes - these activist judges want to legislate from the bench - The constitution was also very clear about that - they were to interpret the constitution - not change it. It's not their job and they know it.

Property rights are at the foundation of America's success. They are so important to the principles of freedom and liberty that the founding fathers had much to say about them. They also had much to say about the Second Amendment - reading their words leaves no doubt where they stood....

Local and state governments have butchered those ideals with the notion that government and "collective" interests are more important than individual rights. It's pure socialist thinking.

Here are some quotes on property rights - after reading these - did the supreme court act in our interest? Were they patriots - or did they betray the ideals of the founding fathers?

"Nothing is ours, which another may deprive us of." --Thomas Jefferson to Maria Cosway, 1786. ME 5:440



Quote:
Madison understood that the protection of property is the foundation of all freedoms. He said, "... a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possissions".
He also said, "Government is instituted to protect property of every sort. . . This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own." [18]


According to John Locke,
Quote:
"The great chief end therefore, of Mens uniting into Commonweaths, and putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their Property." He also said, "Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience,..." -- John Locke, 2nd Treatise of Government, 1690



Quote:
Stephen Hopkins, from Rhode Island, in 1764 said, "they who have no property can have no freedom."[6]




Quote:
"A power over a man's subsistence amounts to a power over his will", according to Alexander Hamilton (quoted from The Federalist #79, online at http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/ Federalist/fed79.htm).


John Adams said that
Quote:
"[t]he moment that idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the Laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be sacred or li berty cannot exist."[7]



Quote:
"The Natural Rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life; second, to liberty; third to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.", according to Samuel Adams.

Sonia Sotomayor who said when going through the hearings last year, was for the 2nd admin and people owning guns, voted against it today.

A Win is a win? 5-4 not good. You only need one to flip
on future tests via Fed District court challenges. Then
who will be in deep voodoo.

One day soon they will have to rule on the immunities,
Pottawattamie v McGhee is good example. Its at a standstill
now thus allowing innocent people to be framed with false
evidence and testimony with full Immunities for all involved .

DrMike wrote: Sonia Sotomayor who said when going through the hearings last year, was for the 2nd admin and people owning guns, voted against it today.

One of the reasons I don't think Kagan will be truthful during the nomination process.