US Supreme Court strikes down gun ban

[ditchdj]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25390404/

[Greenday]

My co-worker just told me about that. The Supreme Court is going nuts. One day they pass a really liberal thing, the next it's really conservative.

On that note: The Constitution wins again! You can't beat it!

[ebonyknight]

Right decision, but it means absolutely nothing. You are only allowed to legally buy a gun in the state (district, in this case) where you live. Guess how many gun stores there are in DC?

Not to mention that the city government is not happy with this so they will throw whatever technicalities they can to disrupt this. Also, there will most likely be an appeal and by the time it comes up, it maybe overturned by a more liberal SC.

The decision couldn't be more meaningless, in a practical sense.

[Pedersen]

Also, there will most likely be an appeal and by the time it comes up, it maybe overturned by a more liberal SC.

Ummm, you do realize that this was the Supreme Court Of The United States, don't you? As in: There are no appeals to any court higher? No, really, I promise. No higher court exists in the entire country. No place to appeal to.

[Depot Denizen]

That's the court's job - provide checks and balances against silly legislation and insane administration decisions. It should not matter whether it is made of conservatives or liberals. The court is supposed to be unbiased, and it looks like we're seeing a bit of that now. I for one welcome our steely overlords.

Now that there is a definitive ruling on the subject, expect to see more of the insane control laws being struck down. Now, I fully agree with responsibility, however. I myself own several dozen firearms (most passed down from my late father). The ruling will set a precedent for the next President, whether it be Obama or McCain (I support Obama, ftr).

[ebonyknight]

Ummm, you do realize that this was the Supreme Court Of The United States, don't you? As in: There are no appeals to any court higher? No, really, I promise. No higher court exists in the entire country. No place to appeal to.

You are correct. My terminology was bad.

What I mean is that if a similar case comes up again the court may reverse it's ruling (due to a new political climate and new justices), thus overturning the older verdict.

For example, the Supreme Court ruled that racial Segregation was constitutional. Later due to Brown vs. Board of Eduction, it was effectively overturned.

SOOOOOoooooooo......if this comes up again in the future, it may be OVERTURNED in a subsequent ruling.

[Greenday]

SOOOOOoooooooo......if this comes up again in the future, it may be OVERTURNED in a subsequent ruling.

Kinda like what the Republicans want to do with Roe vs. Wade. I'm guessing that's what you mean?

[ebonyknight]

Yes, if a new case came up where abortion was banned (or not granted), challenged and was submitted to the court, the new justices could ignore stare decisis and essentially overturn Roe vs. Wade.

But the question they have to ask is (Republicans) has the political winds shifted in their favor? Is there an actual legal (vs just political) basis for challenging it? Would they actually win or even hear the case?

There have been cases before where the politically appointed justices haven't voted the way 'the party' wanted them to vote and lost cases they would have liked to win.

Ex. Bush wanting to impose military trials at Gitmo.

[Greenday]

Heh, I've been reading a lot of Guantanamo Bay stuff in the military news network lately.

Sure, the Supreme Court could always choose to revisit a law and reverse it, but it usually takes awhile to just come back to look at a law. And these days, I think the Supreme Court is a crapload better. I trust their judgement and seeing them disagree with the executive/legistlative branches helps me keep my faith in them.

[BlaqueKatt]

What I mean is that if a similar case comes up again the court may reverse it's ruling (due to a new political climate and new justices), thus overturning the older verdict.

they have turned down quite a few cases on this-SCOTUS does not Have to hear cases if they don't think it has merit. This is the first case in over 200 years that has been heard by SCOTUS on the second amendment-because it directly asked "does the phrase "the people" 2nd amendment mean the individuals(as it does in the rest) or is this special and it means the states.

And as far as Roe v Wade-"Jane Roe" has been trying herself to get that case reopened because she committed perjury_(ps she's petioned every year for about the last 10 years or so-it's not getting reheard, and it would be pretty near impossible to get any new laws passed that would warrant another SCOTUS hearing)

[Slytovhand]

Perhaps I'm cynical (well - no, I am cynical ), but given that Bush was wanting such a decision, and I believe that the US Federal Gov't appoints the judges to the SC bench (oh - that's 'Supreme Court', and not 'Sucky Customers' ), I sense a bit of.... tampering??? You know, maybe someone somewhere else decided that in this case, it did have merit to be heard??

[ditchdj]

I notice that it's pretty much impossible to get a permit to carry in Canada. Well then what happens if you're up north and you end up in a situation in the middle of nowhere full of polar bears??? Are you supposed to just "beg and negotiate" with him and pray they don't make you their main course dinner???? Because I really doubt your 100-200 lbs. frame is gonna hardly make a dent against 1-2 tons of material determined to take you out with its bare hands.

[Pedersen]

I'm hoping there's lots of sarcasm in your post, ditchdj. Otherwise, you've just made the claim that Canadians have to worry about dealing with polar bears as a normal occurrence, especially if they manage to live in the far north.

I think you'll agree that it would be hard to make a more ridiculous claim.

[ditchdj]

Yeah well I didn't write the law up there. Next door in Alaska you don't even need a CCW to carry a firearm up there, and in some places you NEED to carry to protect yourself from polar bears, because they WILL eat you alive and regard humans as a regular meal just like they would coyotes, dogs, or any other animal they get their paws on. Personally I would NOT like to be told that I can't legally defend myself from them just because some clown in a zoot suit sitting in a cozy office in some capital building says that I can't. Kinda like saying, "The only thing your life is worth is how much tax money you can pay, other than that, you're worthless."

[the_std]

I agree with ditchdj!

I live within 100 miles of the States border, but I had to kill 10 raging polar bears just to get to work today! I would have been a goner if I'd followed Canadian law and left my AK-47 at home!

I'm gonna start a reform and lobby for the right to bear arms, so a bear doesn't end up with my arms!

I know my government only sees me as a hunk of money to collect, and it's a total lie that we have a different society up here who doesn't depend on guns the way the States does. Plus, I have no ability to defend myself whatsoever. I haven't trained in martial arts, and I don't know how to avoid dangerous situations...

Man, we Canadians are fucked!

Plus, our Prime Minister looks terrible in a zoot suit.