Finally a long over due decision, but, we're not in the clear yet folks:
Even though the individual right is affirmed (5 to 4), there are other issues not addressed, Jdude has the 411 on them at his blog I suggest you check them out and press your .GOV employee on them: http://unstoppablemadman.blogspot.com/
With the MSM focused on the coming election this was quietly introduced while no one was paying attention:
HR 6257 - Introduced by Mark Kirk [R-IL] 110th CONGRESS 2d Session
HR 6257 - To reinstate the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act.
Sounds so innocent now doesn't it...
Here is what it really is: This Act may be cited as the ‘Assault Weapons Ban Re authorization Act of 2008’.
HR 6257 is the Re authorization of the 1994 Clinton AWB (Cosmetic) ban!
So, while this is a very good ruling, it also opens up a can of worms, I'm really suggesting you check out Jdude's blog.
PS, when are we all getting together to affirm our right?
Here is another good source of info I forgot to add:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/
From Scotusblog: My Sense of the Bottom-Line from Heller; Individuals have a constitutional right to possess a basic firearm (the line drawn is unclear, but is basically those weapons in general lawful use and does not extend to automatic weapons) and to use that firearm in self-defense. The government can prohibit possession of firearms by, for example, felons and the mentally ill. And it can also regulate the sale of firearms, presumably through background checks. The Court leaves open the constitutionality of a licensing requirement.
D.C.’s laws are invalidated. The handgun ban is unconstitutional. The Court treats the District’s trigger lock requirement as categorical and not including a self-defense exception. It does not address whether the trigger lock rule would be constitutional if it had such an exception, though it suggests it would by referring to the right to have a “lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.”
The opinion leaves open the question whether the Second Amendment is incorporated against the States, but strongly suggests it is. So today’s ruling likely applies equally to State regulation.
5 comments:
We need to celebrate with another shootout and barbecue!
Somehow, July 4th weekend seems appropriate!
Finally a long over due decision, but, we're not in the clear yet folks:
Even though the individual right is affirmed (5 to 4), there are other issues not addressed, Jdude has the 411 on them at his blog I suggest you check them out and press your .GOV employee on them:
http://unstoppablemadman.blogspot.com/
With the MSM focused on the coming election this was quietly introduced while no one was paying attention:
HR 6257 - Introduced by Mark Kirk [R-IL]
110th CONGRESS
2d Session
HR 6257 - To reinstate the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act.
Sounds so innocent now doesn't it...
Here is what it really is: This Act may be cited as the ‘Assault Weapons Ban Re authorization Act of 2008’.
HR 6257 is the Re authorization of the 1994 Clinton AWB (Cosmetic) ban!
So, while this is a very good ruling, it also opens up a can of worms, I'm really suggesting you check out Jdude's blog.
PS, when are we all getting together to affirm our right?
Just think! I get to celebrate with the Pink Pistols!
Here is another good source of info I forgot to add:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/
From Scotusblog:
My Sense of the Bottom-Line from Heller;
Individuals have a constitutional right to possess a basic firearm (the line drawn is unclear, but is basically those weapons in general lawful use and does not extend to automatic weapons) and to use that firearm in self-defense. The government can prohibit possession of firearms by, for example, felons and the mentally ill. And it can also regulate the sale of firearms, presumably through background checks. The Court leaves open the constitutionality of a licensing requirement.
D.C.’s laws are invalidated. The handgun ban is unconstitutional. The Court treats the District’s trigger lock requirement as categorical and not including a self-defense exception. It does not address whether the trigger lock rule would be constitutional if it had such an exception, though it suggests it would by referring to the right to have a “lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.”
The opinion leaves open the question whether the Second Amendment is incorporated against the States, but strongly suggests it is. So today’s ruling likely applies equally to State regulation.
My second choice for headline was, "Supreme Court Decides 2nd Amendment is Not Unconstitutional."
Post a Comment