In a landmark ruling on Thursday, the Supreme Court said that individual Americans have the right to own guns for personal use, and struck down Washington, D.C.’s strict gun control law adopted 32 years ago. Here are some of the reactions :
“We’re pleased that the Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment protects the right of Americans to keep and bear arms.” — White House spokesman Tony Fratto
“After the … ruling, as before, approximately 80 Americans will continue to die from guns every day. Our weak or nonexistent gun laws contribute to the thousands of senseless gun deaths and injuries in this country that occur each year.” — Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
“Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today’s ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right — sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.” — Republican presidential candidate John McCain
“This is a great moment in American history.” — National Rifle Association Vice President Wayne LaPierre
What are your thoughts on the Supreme Court decision?
Trackback
17 comments so far
Hooray…..
- Posted by McLeodYou Liberals out there still don’t get it–a gun in and of itself has never killed anyone. More people die from falling in the bath-tub each year than people killed by guns—you haven’t out-lawed bath-tubs yet ??? Get rid of the criminals
- Posted by Robert Warrenand the gun problems will go away.
I’d appreciate some comments about the implications of this decision. In particular, what does this mean in practical terms to a regular citizen? How does this affect our current ability to own guns? Does it only apply to those cities that currently have a local or state law, (like in Washington, DC) that [now “formerly”] prohibited private ownership of handguns?
Thanks for any thoughtful input…
- Posted by Michael WatsonMichael, the immediate ruling will only affect those living in the District of Columbia. D.C. The future implications will be to make it likely that gun bans in Chicago & Cook County IL will likely be overturned. It is unlikely to have much effect on regulations short of a ban, at least in the short term.
- Posted by SteVeThank God our Republican president was able to set some constitutionalist in the Supreme Court rather than additional liberal judges that like to write law from the seat rather than interpret it! While creating a nation under Judeo Christian principles, our forefathers knew the importance of keeping federal government small and letting the people, those with integrity and honor and high moral codes, govern themselves based on morality and charater. Since our right to bear arms is to protect ourselves, I solute the Supreme Court and those members that voted for the Freedoms instituted by our forefathers!!!
- Posted by Scott SmithAfter the two episodes in my life (so far) where I owe my existence to the guns I had in hand at the time, I applaud the Court’s decision to allow me to continue to defend myself and my family. When the police arrived after a drunken, armed stalker had repeatedly shouted death threats through my door, they told me they could do nothing “until a crime had been committed”. To The Law, it seems my family is expendable. Until today.
- Posted by Al ChincharI think they were right to preserve the individuals constitutional right to bear arms. However, I do think there needs to be some preventative steps in place to curb the numbers of problems with guns getting on the streets, and guns used by children. People are asked to take a drivers license class, and test in order to drive a car safely, and while yes, a drivers license is not currently in the bill of rights (wasn’t even an issue at the time of the constitution), it is a close example. I think any gun permit holder should be asked to pass a “safety and awareness” class before they can be issued a permit. 1-3 hours, teaching these people the statistics in the nation and in their area, of where the guns come from ORIGINALLY, how they get in the hands of criminals, preventative measures when there are children in the house, why simply “telling them not to touch it” is not enough, how to clean a gun, and why not to do it with a child in the room, how to store a gun, why lock guns (not in a glass cabinet), who to report stolen guns to if your house is robbed, or one turns up missing etc.
- Posted by maryYes, it is a constitutional right, but there is NO GOOD reason why people who wish to own a gun, and want a permit, can’t be asked to do the responsible thing in their process of getting their permit. Obviously private owners are not the only problem, but it will certainly help create awareness in some of the folks that take it WAY TOO LIGHTLY in their house.
The gun control freaks don’t get it. No armed robberies in Nelson and Amherst Counties because people “carry”. God help a person passing through and doesn’t know that.
- Posted by Lonnie Parrish[…] the common sense to realize that the people have a right to bear arms. It is a day to celebrate. Ask…
- Posted by Supreme Court rules for the 2nd Amendment - Tundra Solutions ForumTo Mary’s posting most guns hit the street from a criminal act such as a break in a private home that has weapons. So what I get from your posting is that we should make our home criminal proof so those gun wont hit the streets and be used in further crimes. The current attitude towards gun owners from non gun owners have been bad and condensending. My rifles and pistols have not been part of any crimes and the only way they would, only from a criminal act from another person that i dont know. I know that if a criminal wants something the laws, police officers, judges, lawyers, politicians, bleeding tree huggers, will not play any part in stopping him from breaking in to your home. But the thought of a scared for your life citizen with a pistol in hand on the other side of that door telling him not to come in very well may change his mind. May be i think to drastic but, when and if it ever happen to you, wouldn’t you want to defend your self or be killed. Me I have a addiction to breathing, eating, and living and some scumbag wont take that away from me or my family so he can supply his meth addiction. Mary today was a small victory for gun owners and please believe this there are more of us than you would like to think. So get on the band wagon or stay off its your choice. Oh yea thats what the decision made by THE SUPREME COURT gave you today.
- Posted by Mark HawkinsOn Gun Safety and Awareness training…I’ve been a gun owner for 30 years now. I learned safety from my father, who provided repeated lessons. I’ve learned further from the military, and from my own study. I’ve provided numerous lessons to my children. Anxiety and stress produce unpredictable outcomes. Familiarize yourself with your weapons, shoot them frequently, train yourself diligently, and you’ll reduce the likelihood of having an accident. That said, with all the driving experience we have in America, there is no shortage of automobile accidents. Gun control means aiming precisely, pause your breathing, and a steadily squeeze the trigger, repeat as necessary.
- Posted by Brit YocumWhat’s great about this ruling, Mr. & Mrs. Reader, is not that 2nd amendment freedoms, rights & privileges (FR&P) are reaffirmed necessarily…but that the majority of the 8 judges and 1 chief justice on the supreme court have reaffirmed that the FR&P expressed in “this Constitution” are INDIVIDUAL freedoms, rights & privileges. A careful reading of the ruling reveals this inimitable fact.
In other words, “We the People” are reaffirmed by the judicial branch of “We the People’s” tripartite government as being 300 million INDIVIDUALS with INDIVIDUAL freedoms, rights & privileges protected by “this Constitution”.
Said another way, when one of “We the People’s” FR&P are violated by the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the American government whose members TEMPORARILY SERVE “We the People”…that one American is just as important as any of the 300 million Americans–whether a member of poorest of the poor, the working class, the middle class, the privileged class of millionaires or the super privileged class billionaires and the richest of the rich.
This ruling is a “slim” (i.e., 5:4) win for the “LITTLE GUY”.
This ruling reaffirms that YOU or ME or any INDIVIDUAL American can face off with any other INDIVIDUAL American on a level playing field, e.g., with the president, a member of congress, a member of the supreme court or the guy down the street…or the richest of the rich.
The president (1), any member of congress (535) or any member of the supreme court (9) are no better and no worse than you or me, Mr. & Mrs. Reader.
However…remember this…if any member of the preceding 545 temporarily elected (or their temporarily appointed) members of “We the People’s” temporary government possess large amounts of money…then that translates into large amounts of power–which in turn can translate into large amounts of corruption.
We’ve seen this happen off and on over the decades…and more than once over the past 8 years specifically.
Let’s just hope that Mr. Obama doesn’t slide down a similar slippery slope of money, power & corruption after he steps down from the dais upon being sworn to protect and defend “We the People’s” near sacred and unmatched freedoms, rights & privileges expressed so superbly in “this Constitution for the United States of America”.
OK Jack
P.S. I think that Mrs. Clinton can pay off her own campaign debts…and isn’t at least 30% of that debt her own money? If that is the case, then she should personally forgive that debt. If I see that Mr. Obama is going to select Mrs. Clinton as his vice presidential running mate, then I’ll already know that he is sliding down the slippery slope–fortunately in time for me to vote for somebody else.
- Posted by OK JackThis ruling has zero effect on states and cities at this time. The SC did not assert that the 14th amendment is at stake. The 2nd Amendment only applies to the US Federal Government, unless the 14th also applies. DC is a special case as it is not within a state.
- Posted by DanThe Second amendment like the First along with many others gives Americans rights based on America’s past experience with England and English laws of that period and the past. The Constitution was written with that in mind and the SCOTUS clarified that with the Second Amendment. It’s not about just “guns” it’s about our rights.
- Posted by KenThe 2nd amendments original intent was to give the citizens the ability to defend themselves against a tyranical government. Not to give us the freedom to go
- Posted by chuckeehunting when we like or carry a concealed weapon for self defense. It is to give us a defense against our own government. If this is a shock read your history books. The one world crowd would love to see the 1st and 2nd amendments repealed. It is a joke that the supreme court had to decide this in the first place. The weak bastards in the house and senate are the ones that are supposed to be making the laws not the supreme court. It should not matter who the next president is-picking chief justices, democrat or republican, the constitution is not a living breathing document as the left leaning pinko’s like to argue. The next set of idiots on the court might not side with the constitution but the governments power grab tendencies. They will “interpret” the constitution to mean whatever they would like for the “greater good” bullshit. Because they think we should be like the europeans or the canadians or some other group of pitiful socialists that don’t know how to wipe their own noses. We left europe to establish a better place and we have-we have made a lot of mistakes as a country run by human beings that are imperfect,but what we have is far superior to anything in europe or anywhere else for that matter. If you dislike…..leave. One nation under God. And in God we trust. Power to the people.
The DC ban on hand guns did go to far. I would also like to point out that the US Supreme Court also said that reasonable restrictions are allowed. The assault weapons ban of 1994 was pathetic because it did not explicitly state that fully automatic and semiautomatic weapons were to baned from sale, instead it talked about attachments and other things which did nothing to slow down that rate of fire or how many rounds it can carry. If America was serious about lowering firearm related death then an outright ban on fully automatic & semi automatic weapons in federal legislation is a start.
- Posted by TimPeople who think they should be able to have a gun are off their heads.
They are as about as logical as a car without wheels: looks like a car but surely ain’t going nowhere fast!
America MUST quash the rights to arms or risk sliding back to the 19th century.
The gun lobby in the States is too powerful and out for its own ends.
The logical result of a gun is a dead body: grow up and smell the coffee people!
- Posted by The Truth Is...