Article Image

Supreme Court rules 5-4 in favor of 2nd Amendment as an Individual Right

Written by Subject: Gun Rights
This all came from SCOTUSblog.  Many thanks.
[Majority 5 -4 ruling written by Scalia .  Two dissenting opinions by Stevens and Breyer are eye opening as to what they think of the plain writing of the Bill of Rights.]
Here is the link to historical:

Quotes from the opinion:

 “Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.”

the most natural reading of ‘keep Arms’ in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”

The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.”

Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.

“Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.”

The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.”

It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense.”

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U. S., at 179.”
Court: A constitutional right to a gun

Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the majority stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on carrying a concealed gun or on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, on laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, and laws putting conditions on gun sales.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), the Court nullified two provisions of the city of Washington’s strict 1976 gun control law: a flat ban on possessing a gun in one’s home, and a requirement that any gun — except one kept at a business — must be unloaded and disassembled or have a trigger lock in place.  The Court said it was not passing on a part of the law requiring that guns be licensed.  It said that issuing a license to a handgun owner, so the weapon can be used at home, would be a sufficient remedy for the Second Amendment violatrion of denying any access to a handgun.
AP article:
Reuters article:

7 Comments in Response to

Comment by John Stillwater
Entered on:
The ONLY reason the **QQ**Supreme**QQ** Court even exists is because the Constitution provides the basis for ALL American government, which includes **QQ**King**QQ** George**Q**s tyrannical ass sitting in the Useless Office (and all his ilk), as well as the Legislative branch. Seperate, and equally full of shit.

If it contradicts the Constitution, it is null and void, and is to be treated as though it did not exist. Any **QQ**Law Enforcement**QQ** agent who has EVER arrested ANYONE for concealed carry is, by default, an unconvicted FELON. In my opionion they should also be brought up on Sedition or Treason charges...and, IF found guilty...hung by the neck until dead.

Any so-called **QQ**decision**QQ** that these robe-wearing idiots makes means absolutely NOTHING to me, and shouldn**Q**t mean anything to any sensible, thinking man or woman.

Here in America, time and tempers are growing increasingly short, as I**Q**m sure most people here already know.

There**Q**s a Revolution coming. Lead, follow, or get the hell outta the way.


Comment by Brock Lorber
Entered on:
Wheel guns, in your home, no carry, no transport:

Comment by Ed Vallejo
Entered on:
How about **QQ**That which is repugnant to the Constitution is not law, and not to be followed.**QQ**

Then look up **Q**infringed**Q**.

Comment by Brock Lorber
Entered on:
The opinion is long and drawn out, but simple:

- The **QQ**operant clause**QQ** reads clearly and unambiguously.
- The **QQ**prefatory clause**QQ** does not change in any way, shape, or form the **QQ**operant clause**QQ**.
- **QQ**A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges**Q** assessments of its usefulness is no guarantee at all.**QQ**

Therefore (amazing leap in logic):
The second amendment guarantees the right of certain people to ask permission to keep and bear certain, limited types of arms and, in certain, limited circumstances, the government should grant a qualified permission to do so.

Comment by Powell Gammill
Entered on:
Oh, I disagree. For the first time we have the Supreme Court acknowledging that we have the right under their provisions, rules and regulations to possess the musket or smoothbore of our choice to protect our lives while in our home from violence. Wow! Powerful stuff our revolutionary founders would have recognized these assurances for what they are.

Additionally it affirmed the importance of keeping firearms out of the 1 in 33 Americans who are felons, while they are working on the rest, and keeping guns out of the hands of unstable troops returning from Iraq, until they are ready to be forcibly redeployed in a few months...unless of course they are cops. And especially affirming the power to keep guns away from anywhere near were they happen to be at the moment in case an disgruntled member of the public might wish to enter a dissenting opinion.

And if you don**Q**t like their ruling rest assured the First Amendment may not protect your speech or expression if you exceed the limits, boundaries or prohibitions the authorities have placed upon you. -- Scalia

Comment by Chip Saunders
Entered on:
Exactly right Ernie!!

The rendering was worded so carefully narrow to only the circumstances at hand, and specifically was annotated to decry that this decision should in NO WAY be construed to allow felons to posess
or regulation to be stymied,...that the decision is toothless and means almost nothing.

2nd Amendment defenders were hoping for a bombshell, but got a tiny firecracker.

Comment by Ernest Hancock
Entered on:

I**Q**m not jumping up and down yet. It seems like they said, **QQ**Yeah, you got a right to Bear Arms, the way we say you can**QQ**.

Join us on our Social Networks:


Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network: