Supreme Court extend gun owner rights nationwide

[bobdina]

Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

By MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court held Monday that the Constitution's Second Amendment restrains government's ability to significantly limit "the right to keep and bear arms," advancing a recent trend by the John Roberts-led bench to embrace gun rights.

By a narrow, 5-4 vote, the justices also signaled, however, that some limitations on the right could survive legal challenges.

Writing for the court in a case involving restrictive laws in Chicago and one of its suburbs, Justice Samuel Alito said that the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states."

The court was split along familiar ideological lines, with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and four liberals opposed. Chief Justice Roberts voted with the majority.

Two years ago, the court declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess guns, at least for purposes of self-defense in the home.

That ruling applied only to federal laws. It struck down a ban on handguns and a trigger lock requirement for other guns in the District of Columbia, a federal city with a unique legal standing. At the same time, the court was careful not to cast doubt on other regulations of firearms here.

Gun rights proponents almost immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging gun control laws in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill, where handguns have been banned for nearly 30 years. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence says those laws appear to be the last two remaining outright bans.

Lower federal courts upheld the two laws, noting that judges on those benches were bound by Supreme Court precedent and that it would be up to the high court justices to ultimately rule on the true reach of the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court already has said that most of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights serve as a check on state and local, as well as federal, laws.

Monday's decision did not explicitly strike down the Chicago area laws, ordering a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling. But it left little doubt that they would eventually fall.

Still, Alito noted that the declaration that the Second Amendment is fully binding on states and cities "limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values."


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_GUNS?SITE=DCSAS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[death2mooj]

Seen this on the news earlier. Good to hear but I dont understand why it took the supreme court to say US citizens are protected by the 2nd.

[Reactor-Axe-Man]

Just to make this clear, the Supreme Court does not 'extend' or 'grant' any rights to us. Even the Constitution itself does not do these things. The Bill of Rights descend from Natural Law, a philosophical premise that goes back 2400 years to the time of Aristotle, which defines Natural Law as principles that exist everywhere and exist regardless of whether or not you accept them as true. The Founders understood Natural Law, as did most Americans at the time, and wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as safeguards against any government that attempted to usurp Natural Law with Conventional Law.

What the Court did was reaffirm the rights you already had, and to begin to redress the damage done to the citizens by gun control laws.

The important point of this being - you have a Natural Right to defend yourself, your loved ones, and your property. Even if a misguided or tyrannical government takes away your ability to defend yourself by forbidding or restricting the possession of weapons, this Natural Right does not cease to exist. You still have the right to defend yourself. The difference being that now you must defend yourself against your government.

The Founders were pretty clear on what must be done when your government no longer serves you, but tries to make you its servant.