Thread: DC Hand Gun ban ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS

Well, holy crap, I didn't expect the majority to be against the ban, but proof's in the pudding:

Originally Posted by http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25390404/

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court said on Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

In dissent, 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."

Please check back for details on this breaking story.

It's a historic ruling, and it finally answers the question about the right to own a gun. It specifically does not make any rulings on limiting the rules of ownership, only that the all-encompassing ban and trigger-lock requirements violate the Second Amendment.

I see shootings in the future  8)

Looks like supreme court is on a role...

I dont know im bored what do you expect of me

Very exciting news, I just got done reading the article on yahoo

Originally Posted by DeusInnomen

It's a historic ruling, and it finally answers the question about the right to own a gun...

Sorry, Deus. Close but no cigar.

When the Supreme Court takes a case on appeal, they are answering what are called certified questions. In this case, the question was not "the right to own a gun". Instead, the certified question was "Whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution." There's a difference.

Below is a link to the official opinion. Pages 1-3 are a syllabus or headnote. They are not the opinion of the court. The actual opinion begins on page 4 and presents the certified question. The majority opinion will then go on to explain the background of the case, relevant case law and constitutional interpretations. After the majority opinion you will see concurring opinions, if any, and dissenting opinions. Concurring opinions are written by justices that agree with the outcome of the majority but perhaps disagree with the underlying logic. The dissenting opinions are written by justices that disagree with the majority and provide one or more reasons why. Sometimes justices join together in respective dissenting and concurring opinions. So, for example, there might only be one dissenting opinion and all four dissenters joined together in the opinion.

In a nutshell, the justices vote on the certified question(s) and have to explain their votes. Very similar to TTP admin votes.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Originally Posted by ebaconjr

Originally Posted by DeusInnomen

It's a historic ruling, and it finally answers the question about the right to own a gun...

Sorry, Deus. Close but no cigar.

When the Supreme Court takes a case on appeal, they are answering what are called certified questions. In this case, the question was not "the right to own a gun". Instead, the certified question was "Whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution." There's a difference.

I bow to your better educated knowledge, thanks for the clarification, bud.