Post by RTShadow on Sept 30, 2009 17:29:12 GMT -5
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090930/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_guns
About time. I feel very strongly about the 2nd amendment and the right of law abiding citizens to own firearms in this country.
It is really ironic to me that people talk about how we shouldn't have the right to own weapons due to the amount of gun violence in the United States. Basically they don't mind infringing upon the second amendment, yet bring up anything that would dare be construed as unreasonable search and seizure to control this violence and they freak out, "OH GOD, can't infringe upon the 5th amendment!!!"
So it is okay to uphold one amendment and completely trample another? Ridiculous.
I'm very glad the supreme court is taking up this case, especially right in front of THIS particular president who is from the very area (Chicago) that the law in particular emerged from.
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court says it will take up a challenge to Chicago's ban on handguns, opening the way for a ruling that could set off a vigorous new campaign to roll back state and local gun controls across the nation.
Victory for gun-rights proponents in the Chicago case is considered likely, even by supporters of gun control, in the latest battle in the nation's long and often bitter dispute over the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. A ruling against the city's outright ban could lead to legal challenges to less-restrictive laws across the country that limit who can own guns, whether firearms must be registered and how they should be stored.
The case is to be argued early next year.
Last year, the justices struck down a prohibition on handguns in the District of Columbia, a city with unique federal status, as a violation of the Second Amendment. Now the court will decide whether that ruling should apply to local and state laws as well.
The court has previously said that most, but not all, rights laid out in the Constitution's Bill of Rights serve as checks on state as well as federal restrictions. Separately, 44 state constitutions already enshrine gun rights.
Though faced with potential limits from the high court on their ability to enact laws and regulations in this area, 34 states weighed in on the gun- rights side before the justices agreed to take the case Wednesday, an indication of the enduring strength of the National Rifle Association and its allies.
Victory for gun-rights proponents in the Chicago case is considered likely, even by supporters of gun control, in the latest battle in the nation's long and often bitter dispute over the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. A ruling against the city's outright ban could lead to legal challenges to less-restrictive laws across the country that limit who can own guns, whether firearms must be registered and how they should be stored.
The case is to be argued early next year.
Last year, the justices struck down a prohibition on handguns in the District of Columbia, a city with unique federal status, as a violation of the Second Amendment. Now the court will decide whether that ruling should apply to local and state laws as well.
The court has previously said that most, but not all, rights laid out in the Constitution's Bill of Rights serve as checks on state as well as federal restrictions. Separately, 44 state constitutions already enshrine gun rights.
Though faced with potential limits from the high court on their ability to enact laws and regulations in this area, 34 states weighed in on the gun- rights side before the justices agreed to take the case Wednesday, an indication of the enduring strength of the National Rifle Association and its allies.
About time. I feel very strongly about the 2nd amendment and the right of law abiding citizens to own firearms in this country.
It is really ironic to me that people talk about how we shouldn't have the right to own weapons due to the amount of gun violence in the United States. Basically they don't mind infringing upon the second amendment, yet bring up anything that would dare be construed as unreasonable search and seizure to control this violence and they freak out, "OH GOD, can't infringe upon the 5th amendment!!!"
So it is okay to uphold one amendment and completely trample another? Ridiculous.
I'm very glad the supreme court is taking up this case, especially right in front of THIS particular president who is from the very area (Chicago) that the law in particular emerged from.
