SCOTUS Says Individuals Have Right to Own Guns, Strikes Down D.C. Handgun Laws

[BruceTS]

now they need to find the california assult weapons ban unconstitutional as well......

[AxleIke]

I call BS on the conservative judge part.

These judges acted as they should: On their best interpretation of the constitution.

Judges are "supposed" to be unbiased, and interpret the law dispassionately. Many don't. These guys did.

I don't hope for either conservative or liberal judges to be appointed. I hope for uncommitted judges who rule based on the law, and the particular facts of a case. That the court is biased at all is really just evidence of the gradual breakdown of that portion of our government.

[oly884]

I call BS on the conservative judge part.

These judges acted as they should: On their best interpretation of the constitution.

Judges are "supposed" to be unbiased, and interpret the law dispassionately. Many don't. These guys did.

I don't hope for either conservative or liberal judges to be appointed. I hope for uncommitted judges who rule based on the law, and the particular facts of a case. That the court is biased at all is really just evidence of the gradual breakdown of that portion of our government.

Very well said.

[bamachem]

I call BS on the conservative judge part.

These judges acted as they should: On their best interpretation of the constitution.

Judges are "supposed" to be unbiased, and interpret the law dispassionately. Many don't. These guys did.

I don't hope for either conservative or liberal judges to be appointed. I hope for uncommitted judges who rule based on the law, and the particular facts of a case. That the court is biased at all is really just evidence of the gradual breakdown of that portion of our government.

let me repeat this:

A very notable quote against the majority was...

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."


OH RLY?

In his statement above, just replace the phrase "uses of weapons" with "Freedom of Speech" and ask him if he would he have had a different opinion? You bet! WHY? It's the SAME THING! This is a judge using his personal convictions to issue decisions in the Supreme Court rather than rely on history, prescedent, and defined meanings of the laws.

If ploitics doesn't play into this, then why were the 4 dissenting judges all liberals who were interpreting the laws based on their own ideaology rather than the word of the law as it was written. This is simple and straight forward if you just read the Ammendment as it was written. However, the liberal bias of these 4 justices got in the way of logic and they decided to essentially "legislate from the bench". They think that the DC gun ban is a good thing (political and personal view) and therefore, it should be constitutional, even if it means a reinterpretation of one of the Bills of Rights.

How is that NOT POLITICAL? Look at history, specifically recent decisions by rogue liberal judges. They base their rulings on personal values, vendettas, agendas, and what Democrats "want" rather than basing them on the LETTER OF THE LAW AS THEY ARE WRITTEN. The fundamental difference in a vohemantly liberal judge and a vohemantly conservative judge is simple. The liberal judge will rule on a whim of his personal beliefs and will compose and interpretation to fit his judgement so that he may have legal standing. A conservative judge will FIRST read the law, read any pertinent opinions of other courts, and THEN rule based on prescedent and what the language of the law states. They typically DO NOT attempt to bend the interpretation of a law to suit their personal whims of how they WOULD LIKE the law to read. That's the key difference that is absolutely indisputable. If you don't like judges who rule in that manner, then don't elect liberal politicians who appoint them to office.

My $0.02, don't spend it all at once... :P

[AxleIke]

Perhaps you misunderstood what I was talking about.

I was not referring to the dissent. I was referring to the ruling.

If you read the ruling itself, and not the media coverage (also EXTREMELY biased), you will find sound constitutional basis for the decision.

In the dissent, you will find no constitutional arguement, but everyone's favorite "out" when they are wrong: "Framers Intent". As you well know, everyone loves to put their spin on what the Framers "wanted". Thought this isn't the thread for it, I'd love to give a few paragraphs to how much I feel the "framer's intent" means about diddly in today's day and age. We have the constitution. That is enforceable law.

As I said, I WANT unbiased judges. What we HAVE are opinions on both sides. This decision was made in, in my opinion, as it should be. The Constitution was considered, as was the law in question, and a well supported, well argued point was made, and passed down as the ruling.

These Justices do not always do that. Some of their rulings have been politically motivated.

Its been that way for a long time.

I also invite you to show me that all conservative judges rule according to the law, and not their own personal bias. Not saying your wrong, but I find fault with broad, all encompassing, and biased statements like that, without a very great deal of info to back it up. I'd be willing to bet that conservatives "read the law" because they agree with you.

I distrust everyone in a position of power, as well as their motives, no matter what their allegiance.

Again, please take this post as it was meant: healthy discussion and debate. Devils advocate, in my own inept way. My posts are in no way meant to be an attack on you, or your beliefs.

[oly884]

Thought this isn't the thread for it, I'd love to give a few paragraphs to how much I feel the "framer's intent" means about diddly in today's day and age.

I propose that a thread get started on this! I'd really like to get into a discussion about this, especially with elections coming up.

[bamachem]

Ike, I would in no way take your opinion as a personal attack. I'm not that kind of person.

I did paint that with quite a broad brush as a generalization, when in reality, it's ONLY the extremeists and the ones that are in the press whom have been labeled as rougue. It's those judges that I was inferring my generalization towards, and by no means should I have painted all honorary members of the bench with the same brush no matter upon what sides their allegiances lie.

In general, the judges who get into trouble or badgered in the press for rulings that are outside the bounds of currently applicable laws *TEND* to be liberally biased or even card-carrying democrats.

I also would like to hear your argument on the validity of the Framers' Intent and how they do or do not apply to modern Constitutional Law. Go ahead and start a new post so David and I will have other interesting stuff to read about...

[surf4runner]

i read that gun owners are more likely to commit suicide, which make sense since you own a gun, DUH! and accounted for ~55% of all deaths by guns.
homicides (inc by law enforcement & "unknown" intent) was only ~6% of all deaths



so it seems that guns dont kill people, depressed(or otherwise suicidal) gun owners kill themsleves.
at least it was 90% effective, where the next successful attempt rate was ~35%

[fustercluck]

Now we need to define 'infringe' constitutionally....

[Bob98SR5]

i agree with the ruling, and i'm the only non gun-nut on this forum.

i might add, chuck is a good shot for a non-gun nut