I have been following opinion posts and news media all day trying to discern some valid information about how this case will actually play in the real world. The door was left open for some limitations of the 2nd Amendment, even though there was a clear statement that this is a personal freedom, just like all the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights.
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/119472
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080627/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns;_ylt=AtMLo6WIf4aEUTnMVYm8j2ys0NUE
One thing that keeps being stated by the Anti's is that this allows for handguns in a house, but that in public they can still be controlled. I do not think this was the intent of the Framers or the Supreme Court, but the Anti's will try everything and anything to win their fight.
The supreme Court voted 5-4 Thursday that the Second Amendment's right to bear arms is an individual right. The high court decided the Constitution does not allow "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home." So, what about the fact that almost all campus dormitories in the U.S. ban handguns? Hummm.. the dorm is their home. Brings an important issue up that I am sure will see the inside fo the courtrooms in the near future.
Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, stated that some restrictions on gun ownership are permissible. This included "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." Scalia said an individuals right to bear arms exists and is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted. 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. He also stated, "A 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."
One thing that really worries me is that this was a 5-4 decision. This means that 4 of the 9 judges were voting to change the meaning of the Bill of Rights in a fundamental way. There is a reason gun rights in listed #2 among the ten original rights. It's that damned important. It's a personal liberty, or as some would say, a God given right..either way it's fundamental to who we are, who we have been and who we will be in the future.
Democratic presidential candidate Obama, was on both sides of the issue (typical politician), 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." He is well known as an anti-gun person who has voted for every single anti-gun bill brought before him.
Republican presidential candidate John McCain, supported the ruling, calling it "a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom." He hasn't always been a pro-2nd guy, either, but way more supportive then Obama.
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."
Shortly after the decision was stated, D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty responded that he has a plan to require residents to register their handguns. "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence." Yeahhhh.. right. More guns in the hands of lawful citizen will help lower the crime rate, just as it has done in Florida and most other states with a reasonably open gun policy.
Just look at Britain and Australia..once they banned guns to law abiding citizens, only the unlawful had them. The crime rate in Britain has increased two fold in the ten years since guns were banned. Only the bad guys have them and they know the people they are robbing are not armed.
The NRA is planning to file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several Chicago suburbs challenging handgun restrictions using the D.C. vote against those states breaking the law. I am sure Massachusetts and Maryland are soon to follow.
As soon as they cut away from the Supreme Court decision, they went to a spokes person for the Brady Bunch who stated they are resolved to impose more laws limiting weapons, even though they admit that gun ownership is an individual freedom.... HUH?
