US Supreme Court may deny "right to keep and bear arms"

The US Supreme Court may deny "right to keep and bear arms"

The Supreme Court could announce as early as Tuesday whether it will hear a case to determine whether 2nd Admendment Rights apply to individuals or are a collective right of states to maintain a nation guard (militia).

On the issue of the Second Amendment and guns,the US Supreme court has said virtually nothing in nearly 70 years.

Most other U.S. courts have said the Second Amendment does not contain a right to have a gun for purely private purposes.

The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or instead spells out the collective right of states to maintain militias. The former interpretation would permit fewer restrictions on gun ownership.

The Second Amendment reads: "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 last time the court examined the meaning of the Second Amendment was in a 1939 case in which two men claimed theamendment gave them the right to have sawed-off shotguns. A unanimous court ruled against them.

Gun control advocates say the 1939 decision in U.S. v. Miller settled the issue in favor of a collective right. Gun rights proponents say the decision has been misconstrued.

Chief Justice John Roberts has said the question has not been resolved by the Supreme Court. The 1939 decision "sidestepped" the issue of whether the Second Amendment right is individual or collective, Roberts said at his confirmation hearing in 2005.

"That's still very much an open issue," Roberts said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,310717,00.html

 

I can't see our gun rights being taken away. Even if they are, many people, including myself, will not turn their guns in.

You think the government screws us now, let them disarm us and see how bad you get F'd.

 

Look what happened in the recent eminent domain case where the Supreme Court ruled that local municiplaities can confiscate private property to sell to the highest bidder.

I wouldn't put anything past the current Supreme Court.

 

Oh yea? So what are you going to do when they come to disarm you? Get into a gun fight? I think I know who is going to win that one.

 

A. EDIT: I mean, I don't own a gun.
B. It can easily be taken to another place or hidden until they realize I wasn't lying when I said it had been lost or stolen.

 

now, where is the freedom? what next? people don't allow to have a SUV?

btw, i hate guns, i don't support them.

 

I will. I ain't gonna be rounded up like the Jews in WWII.. idk about you but i'm not a slave.

 

Dude, you don't even have gun rights now, convicts aren't allowed to have guns

 

I think eminent domain has been misused and abused a lot since then.


As for the 'right to bear arms', I doubt people would lose their personal right, but allowing militias may be outdated. We have a National Guard (which I question why they are fighting overseas). Maybe it's time for a change, not including removing people's personal right to bear arms.

 

i hate guns i hope so

 

Looks like we might be headed into a police state. Another reason to vote for Ron Paul.

 

1. The militia is not the military. When that was written, every able-bodied white guy was part of the militia and was expected to defend the country if it was attacked.

2. It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", and doesn't define this as police or military. I see this as clearing referring to the general population and it was intended to prevent the type of weapons confiscations that typically precede totalitarian rule. We no longer wanted to be ruled by kings.

Although there is a possibility that the Supreme Court could rule against firearms owners, it's not likely that it would happen. In this country, guns keep us safer and crime almost always goes down when anti-gun laws are overturned and gun ownership is liberalized.

Unfortunately, Ron Paul being elected would have no influence on Supreme Court decisions, unless he could appoint several judges that think like him.

I agree that the eminent domain decision is a bad one. In the USA you do not actually own your land. You just have the right to use it. The vast majority of people do not realize that. That has always allowed the government to take it away "for a public use." We do not hold allodial title to land in the USA, because if we did, it could not be taxed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title

Wikipedia has a good explanation.

 

Ron is starting to sound like Jesus Christ every day!

I was under the impression this ruling was taking place in DC. If that is the case, I am not sure it really is protected by the 2nd Amendment. It's not a state.

 

Good post

 

All a very good post. Especially the part about eminent domain. I didn't know about our lack of ownership. That's disturbing

 

yeah, guns are easy to get in the USA and this is the reason why crime rates are so high in the states.

No guns, less crimes!

 

Less freedoms, less following the constitution, more chance of an evil and corrupt government.

 

No guns, less defending yourself!

 

The eminent domain case was meant to allow local municipalities to force people to sell their homes or other property for further economic redevelopment of area.

 

If you don't own your land, how are you able to sell it and buy other land?