The individual’s right to bear arms won a huge victory in the Supreme Court, affirming that regardless of where you live, you have the right to protect your home. While the ruling doesn’t extend rights to citizens allowing them to openly carry firearms, it does protect our right to keep a gun in our homes for self defense.
The Second Amendment’s guarantee of an individual right to bear arms applies to state and local gun control laws, the ruled on Monday in 5-to-4 decision.
…
The ruling is an enormous symbolic victory for supporters of gun rights, but its short-term practical impact is unclear. As in the Heller decision, the justices left for another day the question of just what kinds of gun control laws can be reconciled with Second Amendment protection.
The majority said only that the right to keep handguns for self-protection at home is constitutionally protected. Justice , writing for the majority, reiterated the caveats in the Heller decision, saying the court did not mean to cast doubt on laws prohibiting possession of guns by felons or the mentally ill, those forbidding carrying guns in sensitive places like schools and government buildings or those regulating the commercial sale of firearms.
…
Justices , , and dissented. They said the Heller decision remains incorrect and added that they would not have extended its protections to state and local laws even had it been correctly decided.
The ruling is a victory for those of us who prefer to take our safety into our own hands instead of depending on local law enforcement to respond in a timely manner in the heat of an emergency such as a home invasion.
What’s scary about this ruling is that four out of nine judges were against allowing American citizens the ability to protect their own homes. This was not an issue of whether we could openly carry a weapon in public, or even conceal-and-carry a weapon in public or in our vehicles. This was the most basic of freedoms. It is our view that the Founders inherently believed that the right to bear arms is an absolute necessity designed to not only insure our liberty against tyrannical government and foreign invasion, but to secure our lives and happiness.
Four of our current justices were against this most basic of American freedoms. Had the Supreme Court’s mix included someone like Elena Kagan instead of a Justice Roberts or Thomas, we would very likely be seeing a completely different headline.
That should scare the hell out of every law abiding, freedom loving American.
It Took 22 Years to Get to This Point
The head of the Canadian province of Ontario, Doug Ford, has warned that it will retaliate against...
Iowa's governor Kim Reynolds has extended that bird flu "disaster declaration" after the virus was...
President-elect, Donald Trump has announced that he will enforce tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and...
Over 300 deadly virus samples have gone missing from a government-operated laboratory in...
Commenting Policy:
Some comments on this web site are automatically moderated through our Spam protection systems. Please be patient if your comment isn’t immediately available. We’re not trying to censor you, the system just wants to make sure you’re not a robot posting random spam.
This website thrives because of its community. While we support lively debates and understand that people get excited, frustrated or angry at times, we ask that the conversation remain civil. Racism, to include any religious affiliation, will not be tolerated on this site, including the disparagement of people in the comments section.
Wow we have 4 Supreme Court Justices that openly state they would violate the Constitution.
“They said the Heller decision remains incorrect and added that they would not have extended its protections to state and local laws even had it been correctly decided.”
Look folks when these justices go against the founding documents they need to be impeached and we need to start calling for their impeachments.
When they know they will be removed for playing fast and loose with the Constitution the court will work correctly.
Just think, we are 1 justice away from the voiding of the Constitution.
Comments…..The other scary thing is that they’ve positioned gun ownership purely for self protection in the home. Does that mean if the government comes after us we can’t defend our rights? We can defend our lives in the home, but what about our rights from a tyrannical government? ÂÂ
This is not the kind of power the founding fathers had envisoned for the supreme court. It worked in our favor this time, but may not next time. There needs to be term limits for these unelected officials.
IMHO,  we are going to  see more and more of the states take the lead on gun ownership and self protection.  I am fortunate to live in a state that recently passed a very liberal (good in this instance), “Castle Law”.   Our Castle Law means you no longer have to take just a defensive position when protecting property and life,  and extends to not only your private residence, but also your vehicle.   MIZZ-ZOOO-RA!
ps: don’t move here…you won’t like it!  LOL
Aside from the fact that Chicagoland got shot down (pun intended), the only good news is that Kagan will replace Stevens – so there will still only be 4 “Justices” that openly disregard part of the Constitution that they swore to uphold and defend. Pray for the health of “the 5,” for the guy occupying the White House to have his power curtailed starting next January and for him to be promoted to the private sector 2 years later. Otherwise, we’re screwed.
Mac – your title says it all … and yes … it does scare the hell out of me that 4 of 9 Supreme Court Justices ruled against a basic freedom clearly outlined in the Bill of Rights.ÂÂ
The right of self protection and to bear arms is an inalienable natural right that can not be mitigated by another human being OR entity such as the government (be it at the state or federal level) or by a bunch of justices “interpreting” a very basic natural right.ÂÂ
This is an empty & scary victory as it clearly shows we are one justice away from the judicial branch of the government potentially imposing tyranny on our society.ÂÂ
This is very scary to me.
Folks, the Chicago law at issue is only about handguns. You’re making it sound like the four dissenters want to ban all guns period. Even in Chicago you can still have, say, a shotgun in the home. Furthermore, the Court didn’t even rule on the law. They remanded the case back to district court for that. What the high court was mostly concerned with in this case was applying the 14th amendment to the states. This case didn’t have as much to do with guns as people think, and to say that four justices of the supreme court want to take away your guns or your right to defend your home is very ignorant.ÂÂ
There are hundreds if not thousands of politicians that believe you have a right to own a firearm.
That is, as long as you are limited to a single barrel shotgun and two boxes of shells.
Any action against the freedoms given to the law abiding citizenry as written in the U.S. Constitution is tyranny.An Armed Citizenry defines the United States of America.Those who attempt to disarm us are merely drawing lines in the sand.Armed Americans will not go quietly into the night.
Whew!,that was close,but I’m glad that settled the matter before another lefty commie gets in the court.
In the end though,I don’t give a rats ass what any judge,politician or global tyrant declares about guns,I SHALL NEVER RELINQUISH MY GUNS & THE ABILITY TO DEFEND MY FAMILIES’ LIFE,LIBERTY AND DEFENSE FROM TYRANNY BY GIVING UP MY GUNS.
Nor will tens of millions of other Americans,Get used to it
If criminals could get access to a gun, law abiding citizens should have heir right to defend themselves
“If they come for your guns, be sure to give them the ammo first.”
Comments…..From that I interpret that the”ammo” be given at, or near, the speed of sound?????
I find it very depressing that the general drift of many replies to articles posted on this site is: –
“arm yourself to the teeth and be prepared to KILL YOUR OWN COUNTRYMEN”.
I do not live in the U.S.A. and although your Constitution gives you the “right” to bear arms, it doesn’t say it is compulsory!
It is the old, old story though isn’t it?
Whatever my next door neighbor has, I’d better make sure I’ve got something bigger and better, i.e. it is a domestic ARMS RACE!
If by some bizarre set of circumstances, Martial Law IS implemented in the United States, for whatever obscure reason, you folks WILL enter a very dark place, MUCH WORSE than your American Civil War!
I fully understand your predicament and I honestly can’t offer you any magical alternative, but what I see on the wall really scares the shite out of me!
All I can offer however is this: –
If you want to avoid the coming crunch within your Borders, why not emigrate?
There are other Western environments that HOPEFULLY are not heading down this self destructive route and providing you do not bring unwelcome luggage with you, a reasonable lifestyle is available to you!
Mind you, I also understand if you want to stay put and defend your castle and rights but it doesn’t look very promising does it?
Anyhoo, I want to wish you all well and don’t let the elected representatives weasel out of this quagmire, make them uncomfortable at least and accountable at most!
Take care.
Regards from OZ.
Of course guns aren’t compulsory,but we have a choice to resist becoming victims of not just crimes,but genocide by any government as well.
How quickly people forget that 100 million were killed by their own governments in the 20th century and that ALL of them allowed themselves to be disarmed prior.
Never again!
This isn’t an “arms race”,it’s insurance.
Comments…..well if they come for our guns they will come in mass number and we may get one or two but then they will get us ..so… i say give them a gun or two just to satisfy their mission and as for as the rest of the well hidden guns in our possesion well  ..we sold them ..right?  now this way we know that its is time for robbing them of their guns ( approch that cop front or back with a stun gun or pepper spray or what ever and take their gun) this way each one of us might take 10 ,20,30, or more of theirs instead of going out in a blaze o glory and only getting just a few. if you are going to fight then make it really count. I feel that it is best to take pride in not showing them that I will die for my guns instead, pride sould come form the disruption and number of their guns that they can’t use against us cause we disarmed them( the bigger the number the better right? ). just think how much shorter genocide wars would be if the victomized was to have used this tactic. gun confication can work both ways