High Court Affirms Individual Right to Bear Arms
Posted by: Jaime Huff | 06/26/2008 3:40 PM
The second amendment to the Constitution reads:
The pro-gun lobby and the pro-gun 'restriction' lobby have debated for years who this sentence refers to: the military, private citizens or both? Today, the Supreme Court decided by a five to four vote that the right "to bear arms" is an individual right. In the majority was Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, Justice Alito and Justice Kennedy. Specifically, the court held: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
In an act of judicial restraint, Justice Scalia concludes the opinion of the court in District of Columbia v. Heller, by stating "[I]t is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second amendment extinct." The slightly leaning conservative court definitely heighlighted today the importance of the judicial branch, and why it is imperative to elect Senator McCain President in November.
"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."
The pro-gun lobby and the pro-gun 'restriction' lobby have debated for years who this sentence refers to: the military, private citizens or both? Today, the Supreme Court decided by a five to four vote that the right "to bear arms" is an individual right. In the majority was Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, Justice Alito and Justice Kennedy. Specifically, the court held: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
In an act of judicial restraint, Justice Scalia concludes the opinion of the court in District of Columbia v. Heller, by stating "[I]t is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second amendment extinct." The slightly leaning conservative court definitely heighlighted today the importance of the judicial branch, and why it is imperative to elect Senator McCain President in November.
The justification for your rant is unsubstantiated. All appointed justices will have to consider the facts before rendering...
Two (of 4) of the Supreme Courts WORST judges . . . .
who:
1) regularly do NOT uphold & defend the Constitution - though they swore an oath to do so.
2) put the "rights" of dangerous criminals above the welfare of society.
Were nominated for appointment by Republican Presidents. How do we know tha McCain will not do the same? Around here - his biggest fans for years have been liberal democrats . . . .
It's amazing to me that conservatives are so quick to judge other conservatives for not being "conservative enough." I agree that McCain needs to be the president - if only to appoint conservative leaning (no matter how leaning they are) justices. No matter which "liberals" McCain is friends with, the picks will be better than Obama.....
A-PO,
Ok, just found this:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-scotus19-2008may19,0,4169081.story
Point - McCain
Vaya con Dios.
A president cannot be held responsible for the actions of an appointed justice when, by all the evidence available at the time, the appointee seemed to fit in with his ideology. No matter how liberal the justices McCain appoints may become, the point is they will be much more conservative than anyone NObama would appoint. There is a differece in the candidates.
Dios es conservador =)
The justification for your rant is unsubstantiated. All appointed justices will have to consider the facts before rendering a verdict. Your delusional, mislead opinion is just that, an opinion. No one can assume that Obama's appointees will be less capable that McSame.
The real McCoy. Change08
Not a bulldog with lipstick.