"High Court Ruling On Guns Was On Target". I TOTALLY AGREE!
High court ruling on guns was on target
By the Daily News
It appears that four liberal members of the U.S. Supreme Court are oblivious to the clear meaning of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, so we cite it below to refresh their memories.
“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.”
It is unfortunate these four members chose not to acknowledge this right the framers of this sacred document put into effect more than 200 years ago.
Fortunately, five conservative members of the high court did understand. The significance of this right to Americans’ freedom and safety is evidenced by a recent court ruling that Americans have a right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live.
The 5-4 vote in McDonald vs. Chicago casts doubt on handgun bans in Chicago, but signaled that some limits on the Constitution’s “right to keep and bear arms” could survive legal challenges. Future court battles will focus on what restrictions are reasonable.
This ruling comes two years after the District of Columbia vs. Heller case where the 5-4 majority struck down a ban on handguns and a trigger lock requirement for other guns in the District of Columbia. Because the district is federal, that decision didn’t address whether the ruling applied to states.
But the most recent ruling is unique in that it does apply to states. The ruling doesn’t explicitly strike down the Chicago law. Instead, it ordered a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling, but left little doubt that the statutes would eventually fall.
In essence, the city of Chicago and others that ban handguns will eventually have to adhere to the high court’s ruling.
Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, an anti-gun proponent, must have been very disappointed in the ruling.
But perhaps Mr. Daley should step back and take a look at the murder rate in his city and wonder why it is so high. He should ask himself if any of these murders could have been prevented if innocent victims were allowed to possess handguns for personal protection for the past 30 years.
It is people like Mayor Daley and other liberals who are simply out of the mainstream. The man who brought this lawsuit against the city of Chicago should be commended for helping undo an ill-conceived and unconstitutional policy implemented by the city.
Over many decades, the Supreme Court has ruled that most of the protections in the Bill of Rights applied to the states as well as the federal government.
For this reason, our nation was long overdue in extending the protection of the Second Amendment to the states.
The Bill of Rights was incorporated into our Constitution to protect the individual against an overreaching government from which Americans had just secured freedom.
Recent high court decisions such as McDonald (gun rights), Kelo (eminent domain) and McCain-Feingold (political speech) are a stark reminder that the court’s liberal wing can be a clear and present danger to our individual protections under the Bill of Rights.
By the Daily News
It appears that four liberal members of the U.S. Supreme Court are oblivious to the clear meaning of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, so we cite it below to refresh their memories.
“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.”
It is unfortunate these four members chose not to acknowledge this right the framers of this sacred document put into effect more than 200 years ago.
Fortunately, five conservative members of the high court did understand. The significance of this right to Americans’ freedom and safety is evidenced by a recent court ruling that Americans have a right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live.
The 5-4 vote in McDonald vs. Chicago casts doubt on handgun bans in Chicago, but signaled that some limits on the Constitution’s “right to keep and bear arms” could survive legal challenges. Future court battles will focus on what restrictions are reasonable.
This ruling comes two years after the District of Columbia vs. Heller case where the 5-4 majority struck down a ban on handguns and a trigger lock requirement for other guns in the District of Columbia. Because the district is federal, that decision didn’t address whether the ruling applied to states.
But the most recent ruling is unique in that it does apply to states. The ruling doesn’t explicitly strike down the Chicago law. Instead, it ordered a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling, but left little doubt that the statutes would eventually fall.
In essence, the city of Chicago and others that ban handguns will eventually have to adhere to the high court’s ruling.
Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, an anti-gun proponent, must have been very disappointed in the ruling.
But perhaps Mr. Daley should step back and take a look at the murder rate in his city and wonder why it is so high. He should ask himself if any of these murders could have been prevented if innocent victims were allowed to possess handguns for personal protection for the past 30 years.
It is people like Mayor Daley and other liberals who are simply out of the mainstream. The man who brought this lawsuit against the city of Chicago should be commended for helping undo an ill-conceived and unconstitutional policy implemented by the city.
Over many decades, the Supreme Court has ruled that most of the protections in the Bill of Rights applied to the states as well as the federal government.
For this reason, our nation was long overdue in extending the protection of the Second Amendment to the states.
The Bill of Rights was incorporated into our Constitution to protect the individual against an overreaching government from which Americans had just secured freedom.
Recent high court decisions such as McDonald (gun rights), Kelo (eminent domain) and McCain-Feingold (political speech) are a stark reminder that the court’s liberal wing can be a clear and present danger to our individual protections under the Bill of Rights.
Labels: News reporting
posted by KYJurisDoctor at 3:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home