Supreme court strikes down hand gun ban
By lilwonders
@lilwonders456 (8214)
United States
June 28, 2010 1:42pm CST
Today the supreme court ruled that gun bans like those in Chicago are illegal and violated the constitution.
Nice to see they got it right. The scarey part is that the decision was a 5-4 decision. Which makes me wonder if the other 4 have NOT read the constitution or if they feel that the constitution does not matter. Either is very scarey.
The constitution very clearly states that we have the individual right to bear arms. Which means no federal or state law can take that right away from us. How hard is that to figure out? This should have beena no brainer. So why wasn't it?
3 people like this
4 responses
@RobtheRock (2433)
• United States
28 Jun 10
They know the Constitution much better than you do. The Constitution says you have the right to bear arms as a "militia." We don't need a militia now because we have the armed forces and police. And true Christians have God. And yes, they can take it away. That's why they have amendments to the Constitution. Will they take the right to bear arms away? No.
2 people like this
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
28 Jun 10
Only congres...not the supreme court can make amendents to the constitution. The supreme court does not have the right to change the constitution. It would be illegal for them to do it. ONLY CONGRESS CAN CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION. We have the rigth to bear arms. NOt just as a militia...but as private citizens...not only to protect ourselves from criminals or harm...but to protect ourselves from our government if need be.
And as a constitutionalist I know more than most about the constitution. And I would have to say more than those 4 judges who voted no.
The question they ruled on was if state or local law can overrule the constitution. 5 judges ruled no...4 ruled yes. So by the 4 voted yes...my state has the right to ignore the constitution if it wants and pass laws that violate the constitution and my rights. Which would mean my state could pass laws taking away my freedom of speech or how about my right to vote. Or how about freedom of the press. It opens up a huge can of worms. Do states have the right to violate the constitution? NO THEY DON'T.
I find those 4 judges scarey. By their theory I am at the mercy of the state to follow the constitution....but they are not legally bound to follow it. Which is completely UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
1 person likes this
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
28 Jun 10
No Rob, the constitution does not say that you have the right to bear arms as a militia. It says that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state and, for that reason, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon by the government...since one day it may be the government who the people will need to rise up against.
If your take on what the constitution says is correct how do you explain states like mine, where we can own and carry weapons? I don't belong to a militia but I sure as he11 own and carry weapons.
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
28 Jun 10
The vote disturbed me, too, lil and I think the answer to your question is politics...again. I haven't read who voted for and against but it seems that everyting is split along party lines these days.
1 person likes this
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
1 Jul 10
and the supreme court is suppost to none political.....lol. suppost to be and is are two different things.
@laglen (19759)
• United States
29 Jun 10
Funny how the vote goes party line when the supreme court is supposed to be unpolitical. Justice is blind with glasses on...
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
29 Jun 10
LOL...isn't it funny. For the a place that is suppost to be nonpolitical..it is one of most political places I know.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
28 Jun 10
Yeah, I started a thread on this the last time it came up 4 months ago. I just don't see how anyone could agree with the 4 justices who don't believe our constitution applies to the states. By that reasoning bans on slavery wouldn't apply to the states. It's ridiculous. On my thread not a single person agreed with the 4 justices who opposed the constitution. Maybe you'll have better luck. This is why I fear judicial activism. Those four justices don't know, or refuse to acknowledge the job they were appointed to do. God help us if they get the majority.
1 person likes this
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
28 Jun 10
Yep...by their reasoning freedom of speech does not apply to the states as well. So can my state decide I don't have freedom of speech? Or how about any of the other great things in the constitution. According those 4 my state has the right to take those from me too.
I really don't like activist judges. They uphold the law. If they want to write laws than they need to run for congress...not the supreme court.
1 person likes this
