Did the Supreme Court make the right decision on handguns?

Really sloppy. The “militia” part of the 2nd amendment indicates that gun owners should be trained and prepared to serve. The decision should have clarified and supported these requirements.

It boggles the mind why a question about handguns appears in a NASA Tech Briefs. Aren’t there enough technical questions to solve out there without getting sidetracked on political issues? I fail to see the relevance.

I want to see the right to carry but you need to be trained and then updated yearly just like driving license

I am no gun advocate. I own two that have not been out of a closet in at least 20 years. However, the issue of personal freedoms/rights requires we take the stand to preserve all we can NOW. Our freedoms are being eaten away by fear and paranoia. My P.O.D. teacher in 1968 said he feared Facism more than Communism, as we would surely head that way as time progressed.

If the 2nd amendment mean that the public can not keep arms then: When the State calls up the militia do we just get a couple sticks and go bang, bang? Duh.

The decision by the Supreme Court was not isolated to handguns. It was pointed at all firearms. Yes, it was the correct decision.

Yes, people should have the right to own a gun, but all the responsibility of that ownership is theirs. The government should also be able to require it is registered, be used in legal ways and the owner understands safe keeping of the firearm, no different than the responsibilies of owning and driving a car. I have taken a state sponsored and required firearm/hunting safety course and feel I am fully capable to safely own a gun and keep it in my house.

Our forefathers experienced first hand an oppresive government that striped them of rights, including guns. Their intent had always been that citizens should have the right to protect themselves. They believed that it was a God given right. The word militia was a loose term used in the day to describe all citizens that had a gun. The supreme court ruled correctly interpretting the intent of the founding fathers.

According to the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy Vol. 30, Pages 650-685, A survey of European Union countries indicated that the murder rate went up almost in direct proportion to the strictness of the gun control laws, and conversely, the less strict the laws, the less the murder rate. Gosh, I just can’t understand it.
–Gordon

Recall that the States would not ratify the Constitution until 10 of the 12 Bill of Individual Rights was included.

The second amendment meant that a central government could not take over control of ‘States without guns’. A militia was ‘the citizens’, often only organized for a forseen confrontation.

Until the Dept of Education rewrote our history lessons, these issues were taught in our public schools…

“while critics decried it as a terrible mistake”

my question - which critics and are those critics attempting to subvert our Constitution?

The Constitution stated it and now the Supreme Court validated it in no uncertain terms.

The “critics” are cry babies - you lost so sad.

Yes the Supreme Court Justices’ got it right, but I am more concerned with the closeness of their decision and what the future holds for our children and grandchildren should someone attack another freedom. As a firearms instructor owning any firearm comes with responsibility, training and licensing should be require not more laws.

All of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are personal rights, not State rights. If the Second Amendment is to be interpreted as a right of the State, so should the freedom of speech conferred by the First Amendment be a State right. We all know that is fallacious. Those that oppose the individual interpretation of the Second Amendment cannot have it both ways.

Yes, except it is such a no-brainer that the decision should have been 9-0 instead of 5-4.

In the community in which I live, nearly all households have firearms, many of which are handguns. Crime is rare and armed violence is unheard of. A general store with a gun dealer’s licencse (FFL) is located about 100 yards from the bank, yet the bank has never been robbed.

If what the hoplophobes (those who fear inanimate objects) say were true, my town would be the murder capital of the USA. Instead, the only shootouts we have are at the local range, and targets are the only casualties. Guns don’t cause crime any more than sports cars cause speeding.

YES! Of course they came down with the correct decision but what scares me is that 4 of these unelected, black-robed clowns actually dissented against the majority decision. We were ONE vote away from the ultimate tyrannical government the Second Amendment truly protects us against. Those dissenting “jurists” should be brought up on treason charges for not defending the unalienable individual rights as outlined in each of (not just some of) the Ten Amendments in The Bill of Rights. Scandalous!

This outcome was one of the main reasons to elect President Bush - Supreme Court nominations. Remember that in November. They got this right but the week before against the death penalty for child rapists - a states right issue.

Gun ownership is not a problem. Let anyone who wants to own a gun do so as the Supreme Court has ruled. Unfortunately, all of society bears the cost of those who use a firearm illegally. Therefore, the only equitable solution is a massive tax on all firearms to pay for the enforcement of the many gun laws in existence and long prison penalties for possession of a gun without having paid the taxes.

Crime rates have gone down in states that have enacted concealed carry handgun laws. This is a published statistic. Of course, you must go to a course and obtain a license from the state to carry a concealed handgun, and it must be renewed annually. If a guy is going to mug you, he might think twice about it if he does not know if you are carrying a handgun, but you might be. The gun control folks always seem to concentrate on inner city cesspools dominated by drug dealers & gangs. These people are criminals, and they will always have a gun no matter what the law says. They are criminals, they don’t care about the law!!!!

Actually, the Supreme Court did make the right decision. They affirmed that citizens within DC have the same rights as citizens outside of DC. The court denied the territorial abridgement of citizen rights. This corresponds to a reaffirmation of equality in general for the denizens of DC.

Actually, the Supreme Court did make the right decision. They affirmed that citizens within DC have the same rights as citizens outside of DC. The court denied the territorial abridgement of citizen rights. This corresponds to a reaffirmation of equality in general for the denizens of DC.

The five who upheld the 2nd Amendment definetly got it right, I don’t know what the other four where doing. I agree with just about everything that has been said here. At least one arm of the government is working the way it should, Congress should take the hint.

The Supreme Court made the only decision that could be made. The 2nd Amendment is not about a militia, it is about the people’s right to bare arms. Contrary to what some want you to believe, the militia is NOT the military or the National Guard. The militia is any able bodied person who can take up their personal arms in defence of the country.

I’m amazed the vote was 5/4 in support of the constitution. I wonder what document the other 4 supreme court justices were referring to when they made their decision?

The scary part of the decision is the 5-4 split, what part of “shall not be infringed” did they have a problem with? I was thinking it would be 6-3 or even 7-2. I don’t agree with not being allowed to carry in schools or govt buildings, I’ve seen the so called guards that many buildings have, are they going to chase / apprehend / shoot someone who runs through a metal detector with a gun?
Even the Capitol Police let a gunman in a few years ago.

While it is a nicety that the SCOTUS said that we have the right to keep and bear arms, that right is inherent to the people and NO ONE has a right to take it away. However, we do have the ability to forfeit it along with our other rights. I would bet that most voters today would not go along with the efforts and ideals of our founding fathers because they are too comfortable in their self made ruts.

This decision should have been an easy 9/0 slam dunk given the simple clarity of the 2nd ammendment. I suspect that the the other 4 judges dissented due to their own personal feelings rather than any coherent interpretation of the law.

Interestingly, my comment didn’t post the first time.

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT! Everyone who reads and participates with NASA Tech Briefs, by definition, should be able to use logic and reason to use technical information. In that case, tell me why the phrase “the right of the people” in the other 9 amendments of the Bill of Rights is a personal, individual right and “the right of the people” in the 2nd would be a collectivist, statist right? To believe the 2nd Amendment is NOT a personal, individual right would be intellectually dishonest and dishonorable and unethical. The decision by SCOTUS was monumental and a blow to anyone who would restrict any personal Freedom of any American. SCOTUS’s decision gave us 4 things: 1) The 2nd is an individual right. 2) No firearm type can be banned. 3) The 2nd protects the right of the individual for self-defense. 4) Strict judicial scrutiny is now established for in what will be known as “the Famous Footnote #27, page 56.” Laws impinging on the Second Amendment can receive no lower level of
review than any other “specific enumerated right” such as free speech, the guarantee against double jeopardy, or the right to counsel, the Court’s own list of examples. Those who would have the “people” believe anything else have now been shown to be lacking in their understanding of our Constitution and, just maybe, lacking in personal honesty. Are the anti-firearm folks simply afraid of the mere thought of allowing ordinary citizens access to firearms? What a psychological phobia that would be! Just how many LEOs have screwed up with their own firearms? More than one would think. As for the reason for the Human Race to leave the Earth and travel to somewhere else to live, the antics of those who would restrict or curtail our Freedoms are a perfect example of why we MUST “Go Out There!” To the Stars, and Freedom!

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT! Tell me why the phrase “the right of the people” in the other 9 amendments of the Bill of Rights is a personal, individual right and “the right of the people” in the 2nd would be a collectivist, statist right? To believe the 2nd Amendment is NOT a personal, individual right would be intellectually dishonest and dishonorable and unethical. The decision by SCOTUS was monumental and a blow to anyone who would restrict any personal Freedom of any American.

SCOTUS’s decision gave us 4 things: 1) The 2nd is an individual right. 2) No firearm type can be banned. 3) The 2nd protects the right of the individual for self-defense. 4) Strict judicial scrutiny is now established for in what will be known as “the Famous Footnote #27, page 56.” Laws impinging on the Second Amendment can receive no lower level of review than any other “specific enumerated right” such as free speech, the guarantee against double jeopardy, or the right to counsel, the Court’s own list of examples. Those who would have the “people” believe anything else have now been shown to be lacking in their understanding of our Constitution and, just maybe, lacking in personal honesty. Are the anti-firearm folks simply afraid of the mere thought of allowing ordinary citizens access to firearms? What a psychological phobia that would be! Just how many LEOs have screwed up with their own firearms? More than one would think. As for the reason for the Human Race to leave the Earth and travel to somewhere else to live, the antics of those who would restrict or curtail our Freedoms are a perfect example of why we MUST “Go Out There!” To the Stars, and Freedom!

The Supreme Court was asked to decide on a law in a Federal territory, and they took the opportunity to elaborate the second amendment,
1. The comparision of carrying a gun to driving a car, then typically vehicle insurance, operator training, passing a state government test and issuing a license for a term of time, after which retesting is required. The insurance companies should recognize this new liability market on homeowners insurance.
2. The Fed or state can limit what are acceptable “guns” for the public ?
3. The Fed. and others including business’s can limit or prohibit access to buildings (cities ?) to anyone carrying a gun. This was done in the old west, where guns were collected when people came to town and yes it did make it quieter on Saturday night.
4. The NRA was on there soapbox and had sent attorneys the next day to attack municipal governments with existing laws before they had an opportunity to read the Supreme Court decision and review there existing laws.
5. The Supreme Court took an opportunity to create confusion, all was well for 200 years with the confusion created by the founders.

Switzerland has been a free state for over 600 years. Prior to World War 2 all male Swiss citizens from age of 16 to age of 60 were required to hold, maintain and possess a military rifle at their homes as part of the Swiss Guard and could be called up at a moments notice to defend their country. Not even Nepoleon contemplated invading Switzerland in the Nepoleonic Wars nor did Hitler’s elite Blitzkreig armoured legions in World War 11.

The Founder’s recognized the necessity as well as merits of keeping an armed citizenry not just as a militia, as essential to the defense of the new born nation, it’s states and its small communities. This was proven out in the pre revolutionary French and Indian Wars and reinforced in the Revolution (Lexington), War of 1812 (sacking of Baltimore and Washington by British invasion troops who were fought off by locally armed civilians, the Civil War and World War I (Sargent York) and World War 2 (Audie Murphy).

We have the abonination called the Patriot Act by the wimpy congress which has never had the courage of the convictions of the American People and which is in fact an atct of treason against the Constitution and what it has stood for over the past 200 and odd years.

What is significant is the fact that not yet have any of the would be solid American patriot’s, the “wanna be’s” Presidential contenders uttered a single word about its repeal. With the Patriot’s treason Act goes the right to “Bear Arms”, “Freedom of assembly”, trial by jury, habeous corpus, gun ownership, freedom of speach, freedom of the press, freedom of association, freedom of unrestricted assembly, uninhibited right of free transit within the continental US, the prohibition against unreasonable and unlawful search, freedom from fear, freedom from eavesdropping on conversations, freedom from having your mail read by government spooks, at infinitum. This has been accepted because some American’s want to feel they are safe.

The same supreme court in a Rhode Island case determined government has the right to take your home, homestead, farm, house and or property under eminent domain and pay you what “they’ think it’s worth to give to a developer to develop for the developer’s personal gain. A Ben Franklin would have said of this consumate group of 9 professional word manipulators, A Pox on all your houses”. 60 odd years ago Franklin Roosevelt packed the Supreme Court from 5 to 9 seats to get his way. The federal judges were given life tenures to ensure they would be free of political influences and threats, but they are not. It is time to require all federal judges to face the electorate after they have been appointed and served for 5 or 10 years to return to the founder’s principals of 1798.

Switzerland has been a free state for over 600 years. Prior to World War 2 all male Swiss citizens from age of 16 to age of 60 were required to hold, maintain and possess a military rifle at their homes as part of the Swiss Guard and could be called up at a moments notice to defend their country. Not even Nepoleon contemplated invading Switzerland in the Nepoleonic Wars nor did Hitler’s elite Blitzkreig armoured legions in World War 11.

The Founder’s recognized the necessity as well as merits of keeping an armed citizenry not just as a militia, as essential to the defense of the new born nation, it’s states and its small communities. This was proven out in the pre revolutionary French and Indian Wars and reinforced in the Revolution (Lexington), War of 1812 (sacking of Baltimore and Washington by British invasion troops who were fought off by locally armed civilians, the Civil War and World War I (Sargent York) and World War 2 (Audie Murphy).

We have the abonination called the Patriot Act by the wimpy congress which has never had the courage of the convictions of the American People and which is in fact an atct of treason against the Constitution and what it has stood for over the past 200 and odd years.

What is significant is the fact that not yet have any of the would be solid American patriot’s, the “wanna be’s” Presidential contenders uttered a single word about its repeal. With the Patriot’s treason Act goes the right to “Bear Arms”, “Freedom of assembly”, trial by jury, habeous corpus, gun ownership, freedom of speach, freedom of the press, freedom of association, freedom of unrestricted assembly, uninhibited right of free transit within the continental US, the prohibition against unreasonable and unlawful search, freedom from fear, freedom from eavesdropping on conversations, freedom from having your mail read by government spooks, at infinitum. This has been accepted because some American’s want to feel they are safe.

The same supreme court in a Rhode Island case determined government has the right to take your home, homestead, farm, house and or property under eminent domain and pay you what “they’ think it’s worth to give to a developer to develop for the developer’s personal gain. A Ben Franklin would have said of this consumate group of 9 professional word manipulators, A Pox on all your houses”. 60 odd years ago Franklin Roosevelt packed the Supreme Court from 5 to 9 seats to get his way. The federal judges were given life tenures to ensure they would be free of political influences and threats, but they are not. It is time to require all federal judges to face the electorate after they have been appointed and served for 5 or 10 years to return to the founder’s principals of 1798.

While I am happy with the overall outcome, the idea that 4 out of the 9 Supreme Court Justices fail to recognize the 2nd Amendment as an individual right is a little scary. No other right in the Bill of Rights is a group right. They are all individual rights. The militia part was always bogus, as every Federalist at the time wrote paper after paper stating that all men were members of the militia. If every an was a member of the militia, then all men can own weapons…. It’s not that hard to extrapolate, yet, 4 of the 9 people guarding our freedoms and setting the law of the land failed to understand that.

Yes, the majority decision by a group of 9 unelected Federal employees was correct. However, I didn’t need their opinions before last week to know that I have the right to own firearms.

As a law enforcement officer I believe that the more armed law abiding citizens there are the less violent crime will occur. The last time you heard of a police station in the United States being attacked or robbed is? What about the last time you heard of a mall shooting or school shooting? The very fact that a gunman may have to deal with the unknown of an armed citizen fighting back is as much a deterrent as the USSR and US facing off with nuclear weapons was.

That said, the second amendment is quite clear…it is the INDIVIDIUAL right. The founders were very clear where they noted individual and states rights. There should be no question what they meant. I understand those who do not wish to own firearms, that is your right as well, however, when and where are you going to draw the line about what rights you will willingly give up and when you do get to that line where and how will you defend your right to keep the rights you wish to keep? It is your right to protect and defend your family…yes we the law enforcement community are only a phone call away but unless I happen to be driving down your street when you call, you and your family are on your own for at least 3-5 minutes which is a terribly long time to be in distress…if you don’t think so, put on a set of boxing gloves and fight with two very large men for just 5 minutes non stop.

Why would you be willing to become a subjugated country? Please don’t preach to me about lower violence rates, Britain and Australia alone stand out as opposing examples to that train of thought.

Gun free zones are victim zones, I am exceptionally happy that I live in a state such as Arizona which recognizes the right of the individual citizen to protect himself, his family and the lives of others.

Good job to the Supreme Court.

The critics of this decision should look to other contries for the result of the confiscation of handguns and in some cases all guns. England and Tasmania are but two recent examples of this conficscation. The incidents of gun crimes in both countries have increased dramatically because now only the crooks are in posession of guns that are not legal in the first place. Being in Canada we have the same problem with the extremely restrictive gun ownership that limits the ownership of particularly handguns to a select few collectors or competitors. This of course is of no concern to the criminals that are in posession of illegal handguns and use them at the slightest provocation. Some of our politicians float gun confiscation periodically whenever there is blatent public gunplay between gangs that results in innocent bystanders being injured or killed. Unfortunately these bright light fail to mention that the guns were illegal in the first place and therefore there is no record of their owner that could be subject to gun confiscation.
A well armed citizenry is not only important for protection of country but also of home and hearth.

Yes, they made the right decision. How many of us can remember a time when we felt free walking or dog off leash, riding a bike without a helmet, driving a car without a seatbelt, smoking… ? The greatest threat to freedom appears to be fear, or our inability to confront it. The 5/4 split is another illustration of how fragile our free society has become.

Ut’s about time that the courts wised up to the fact that restrictive gun laws ONLY protect criminals!

An interesting aspect of the Bill of Rights that a lot of people are unaware of: It is not intended to be a list of what rights people have but rather to place explicit limits on government’s ability to infringe a specific set of rights. There was concern at the time that it would be interpreted as “If it’s not on the list it’s not a right of the people.” It appears that concern was justified…

An interesting aspect of the Bill of Rights that a lot of people are unaware of: It is not intended to be a list of what rights people have but rather to place explicit limits on government’s ability to infringe a specific set of rights. There was concern at the time that it would be interpreted as “If it’s not on the list it’s not a right of the people.” It appears that concern was justified…

If you really think about it, the court decided in the only way it possibly could. The court does not have the power to overturn a constitutional amendment (thank God, and our founding Fathers). Only the people of the United States have that power, and it has to come through the ballot box. If the court did have the power to overturn the second amendment (or attempted to assume it via this case), this would translate very dangerously to all of the other amendments as well. What would be next, women’s right to vote, slavery, the right of freedom of assembly — you name it? In short, the constitution would be a toothless piece of parchment. We’d be open to a totalitarian form of government. Congress, the vote of the people, even the President would be meaningless and also powerless. The entire seat of control would rest in the hands of twelve people. That’s not what July 4th 1776 was about.

J. T.

Let’s look at a state whose constitution was drafted when most of the Founding Fathers were still living. Pennsylvania’s constitution was drafted in 1790 and states, “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be questioned.”

New Hampshire, Part I, Article 2a states, “All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.”

Others are similar. The Bill of Rights enumerates our rights given by God and those who would try to destroy our 2nd amendment rights should forfeit their 1st amendment rights.

What is appalling about the ruling is that 4 Supreme Court justices continued to push their activist agenda and rebel against their sworn oath to protect the constitution. Can we impeach?

So, how do we go about impeaching the other four?

The Supreme Court made the correct decision. Too bad it was 5-4, which is scary - nearly half the S.C. feels we shouldn’t be allowed to defend ourselves and our families. Unless we’re ninja, I suppose, and don’t “need” a gun.
I’m not crazy about McCain, but I think he’ll do a lot better on judicial appointments than Barack “K. Marx” Obama.

Finally, Absolutely this was the correct decision. BUT 4 dissenting? Remove them from the Court IMMEDIATELY, they cannot continue to function due to their obvious incompetence.
Remember, Government, like Fire, is a dangerous tool and must be carefully controlled.
These Judges should stand for Election after 4 years and every 4 years after that.

The court made the right ruling. And as others have said its scary that it was that close. Thats why we need to be very concerned about activist judges. And others that speak of a “living constitution”. We don’t need rules to “evolve” through verbal slight of hand. The intent of the forefathers is clear from the constitution and the Federalist papers (design notes) And from the tried and true experiences of government that they drew upon.

I agree with RickM the law enforcement officer. He has seen first hand that people kill people not guns alone. Good law abiding citizens should have the right to protect themselves until the cops can get there. Criminals use guns for “bad and illegal” purposes.

I believe that criminals would think twice before committing any crime if they thought their potential victim was packing heat and might take their own life instead of taking someone else’s. I do not believe in vigilante justice, I believe in theft deterrent.

I wonder if the 4 justices that voted against guns have ever been or loved a victim? If they cannot be impeached, perhaps they would do the right thing and resign.

Yes! Bad Guys including terrorists only unterstand one concept. If you are armed they have lost the opportunity to intimidate you. The police are wonderful, but they are not prescient or clarevoyant. They can never protect us from the sudden evil of evil people who want to harm us. This is so obvious that it sickens me every time I hear a liberal cry, “The law will protect us! Ban Guns.” Then, they rush right out and get a gun when they are personally threatened. Thanks to the wisdom of some on the supreme court, they still can!
Right to carry is a good thing and with it comes training and responsibility. But on our own property and in our homes we have the innate right to defend ourselves. Look at what happened in Australia. They are no longer free and are at the mercy of every crook and terrorist that comes along. That’s not living! They have probably all gone out and bought crossbows and I wouldn’t blame then. It just puts them at a disadvantage and sets their country back a thousand years.

The decision was a no brainer. It should have been 9-0. The alarming reality is that 4 of the SCJs voted to uphold the unconstitutional ban. The imminent retirement of some of them is why this presidential race is so critical to the future of this great nation. Do we want judges who rule based on the constitution, or do we want judges who rule based on driving an ideology?

The issue is about citizens having the wherewithall to resist the government by force of arms if necessary. Its good that the people had a majority of judges on their side. There is no other way to keep politicians honest. Of course its right and the benefits far outweigh the tragedies that sometimes happen. I’m in Australia and I regard this US result as a beacon of hope for the rest of the world. Its not just about personal freedom, its about justice for the wider community.

(Jerry Says: July 7th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Gun ownership is not a problem. Let anyone who wants to own a gun do so as the Supreme Court has ruled. Unfortunately, all of society bears the cost of those who use a firearm illegally. Therefore, the only equitable solution is a massive tax on all firearms to pay for the enforcement of the many gun laws in existence and long prison penalties for possession of a gun without having paid the taxes. )

Jerry, this statement is so asinine it should go without consideration. Are you ready and willing to pay a massive tax on your driver’s license? Why not? There are more drunk drivers, aggressive drivers, reckless drivers and just plain idiots recklessly endangering the public than there are law abiding firearms owners doing so. I am quite sure you, yourself have used your car illegally at some point…sped, run a red light, rolled a stop sign turning right something….in all that you endangered not only yourself but the public at large. Did the ownership of a vehicle MAKE you do that, or did you just ignore the law and decide to do what you wanted? Society bears the cost of your ignoring traffic laws, why not heavily tax your drivers license?

Get over it, guns are not the problem, the punishment of criminals that use firearms illegally is the problem. You would be better served making known to your local justice system how severe you desire the punishment to be for those who illegally use a gun than you would be to attempt something as asinine as what you proposed.

I as a police officer will do everything in my power to protect the citizens in my beat up to and including dying for them but why on god’s green earth would you take their right to protect themselves away from them when I may be a bit too far to get to them on time?

It may sound funny coming from a government official however just how many rights are you wanting to give up to the government? Do you think the giving up of rights as a whole and as an individual stops with just one? Just one is just the beginning. This country is built on individual rights and that is what makes us so much more wonderful than any other.

Gungrabbers who feel that stealing another American’s freedom is OK because the GunGrabber does not care for that part of the Constitution and mistakenly believes criminals will ply their trade somehow less severely have lees sense than the common garden Slug!

Of course is doesn’t end there. Gungrabbers have a penchant for denying the structure, including the punctuation of the Second Amendment. But honor and truthfulness means as little to them as it does the Garden Slug I hope I am not offending.

Personally, I feel the Supremes were only luke warm at best. The Four who chose an attempt to make law rather than decide on the overwhelming facts from our Founders should be damned to Hell. Or at least forced to spend 30 days in a Government Housing Project where the law abiding are denied adequate defense.

Alas, it’s only a matter of time, Liberty is mortally wounded…

Wayne S.

The 2nd amendment is very straight forward. It’s hard to imagine how we could be so confused that we need a Supreme Court decision to clarify what is already clear!

This was not a question of gun rights at all and any idiot can see that.

With all of the erosion of personal liberties, spying, snooping, prying into personal affairs by the government, we cannot afford to let any event slip by. Our constitution was put in place by men who had seen the worst at the time and it was a wise and just constitution. Since that time we have seen Communism, Fascism, The Nazis, North Korean government by organized crime; the list goes on and all it does is reinforce the constitutions foundations. The bad thing about the decision is that it was so very close, how could just, thinking, men who were picked from the wisest in the land, justify not voting with the majority. Obviously political appointees are not picked for wisdom, just their port side drift.

Of course they made the right decision.
Is the First Amendment (or any other for that matter) a collective right?
No, it is not.
All rights are individual rights, even if we don’t like it.

The Constitution is quite clear on the right to own and bear arms. Despite the fervent hopes of anti-gun advocates, there is simply no wiggle room on this one. The only bogus part of the decision is how four of the justices could vote against this fundamental RIGHT of the people.

By their lack of understanding of the contemporary language and custom at the time of the Founding Fathers, many folks in this modern age cling to theories about militias and other such nonsense. These concepts are simply not consistent with an objective reading of our Constitution.

A key point here is that modern liberal (anti-gun) thinking about this issue requires that the Second Amendment must be read and interpreted with entirely different definitions of the common language of that era, as enumerated in all of the other Amendments to the Constitution, in order to support their theories of a collective right or a right associated with militias.

Serious scholars of Constitutional law almost uniformly agree that the RIGHT to own firearms is an INDIVDUAL RIGHT - NOT a priviledge granted by the Government.

The DC gun ban obviously has not achieved its purpose of reducing gun violence within the District. What it has done is disarmed law abiding citizens and restricted them from defending themselves. Keep in mind this has nothing to do with “carrying concealed weapons” (which most states require training and retraining on expiration), the gun ban restricted the possesion of such even within your own home. Although, the criminals still have their weapons regardless!

Echoing many opinions, the 5-4 decision is shocking, unless you consider the tremendous political and financial pressure,(you can spell it George Soros). Fortunately he couldn’t get to a majority and the one right that quarantees all the others is safe for the time being. Watch as he now shifts his attack to the Republican candidate this November! His agenda is relentless, with no attempt at transparency, from the United Nations anti-firearms posture, the million mommy march, et al. His prior success in a liberal Congress curbing the right of free speach under the cloak of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (sponsored by none-other-than McCain) will bear heavily on the upcoming Presidential election. McCain is soon to discover that you reap what you sow!

I have read these blogs and, am worried about what some folks think. Number one, the 2nd Amendment states that as an American you are part of a militia ,if we are ever attacked or threatened ,you as an American will be prepared and, as to the remark made about the reason you should have voted for Bush, because he supports gun rights is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard. I guess the way our country is perceived by other countries means nothing and, Americans themselves forget what this country is supposed too stand for in the first place. Lets not forget, Bush Sr, let a war criminal go,after we 1st went to Iraq and, now his son drags us back over too finish the job under false pretenses, all for oil? That should tell the people something about the NEW REPUBLICAN and, the way they do business. The Clinton administration signed in the N.A.F.T.A. act after the First Bush administration and, the House and, Senate had voted it in as law. The second Bush administration signed in C.A.F.T.A. which as anyone can see has made the rich richer and, the poor poorer. Get real America, and, at least educate yourself on the facts before you blog about some thing you apparently know little about.

Rick M, if you don’t think we already pay a “tax” for our driver’s licenses then who’s being asinine? We are required to carry car insurance to cover our driving mistakes. If we make a mistake we all agree to pay a fine (tax). We all pay taxes to pay your salary to enforce the rules of the road. Why not require gun owners to carry extra insurance? Why not pay a fine for improper use of a gun. Why not charge an extra tax to pay for more police officers to shorten their response time? I know it’s a cliché but our freedoms aren’t free.

why do these wipes want guns?

The correct decision was made. GUNS DON”T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. If we didn’t have the right to bear arms every criminal element out there would be running the country(guns or not). We have to stand up for ourselves, just like we are in the middle east. If we just lay down our arms and allow the thugs to do what they want, we all would be scared to go outside of our houses.

It sounds like you’re already scared to go outside of your house, if you feel like you need a gun to do so.

To one degree or another 36% of our Supreme Court Justices think part of the Bill of Rights is unconstitutional. They seem more concerned with public policy issues; not their job.

Hear! Hear! for Rick M.

27 years in the police force (with 15 years in our crime lab firearm unit) and all I have seen leads me to believe we can trust the general public, but we should focus immediately on the small percentage that engage in violence. The catch-and-release policy in my locale is only relieved by the ability to take a suspect federal; once his body count is high enough. It’s a slow boat to prison, but they stay for a long time.

; unfortunately the deterrent effect of a first time out prosecution

Why is a Site sponsored by NASA and my tax dollars wasting space?
Why doesn’t someone in NASA look into the colossal waste of funds being wasted on NOMAD and ODIN???

This is inappropriate content for a government sponsored TECHNOLOGY website. Action will be taken soon to curtail it, this you can be sure of.

NASA lets you use their name and sell advertising so that you can publish results of NASA research. They did not give you that opportunity so that you can wander off into areas that have no connection to NASA. Abusing this affiliation to ask questions about gun control? TSA uniforms? Oil prices? Clearly you have abused the opportunity NASA has given you. I hope they yank the agreement and find someone else who will use the NASA affiliation properly - and honor the original intent of the agreement.

With the new July 1st, 2008, “Take your gun to work” law in Florida, NASA policy in Florida should be changed to allow privately-owned guns to be kept locked in employees’ and contractors’ vehicles in parking lots while they are at work, for holders of concealed weapons licenses who (a) have undergone a state of Florida criminal records background check, (b) been fingerprinted, (c) had their fingerprints and criminal records checked by the FBI, and (d) who have undergone extensive classroom training and range demonstrations regarding safe firearms handling (all of which are required for obtaining a Florida Concealed Weaons License.) CWL holders in Florida have been proven to have much lower rates of criminal behavior than even law enforcement officers. Also, the Florida CWL is now recognized in 32 states, being the most widely accepted CWL in the nation. If this NASA policy is not changed, NASA should become responsible for any employees or contractors who are carjacked or robbed on their long commutes to/from work. Car jackings and robberies at gas stations and convenience stores in central Florida are becoming a serious problem, despite being largely ignored by the press. The new state law was passed for a reason. NASA will start to lose employees and contractors through its failure to recognize their Second Amendment right, unless NASA policy is changed.

You might be interested in knowing that in Israel, many citizens, including teachers, carry guns. And in many cases, terrorists have been subdued by an average Mr. Citizen who took care of them before the police could arrive. Guns require licensing and yearly courses in their safety and usage. Gun owners are responsible for insuring that their weapons are secure, meaning they can never be left in a car or unlocked home closet. If your gun is out of your house, it must be on your person, period. The criminals and terrorists will always have weapons, leaving the law abiding citizen unprotected. The police cannot be everywhere at once. Certain types of rifles are allowed for licensed hunters, but weapons like assault rifles, readily available in the USA, are considered military equipment and simply cannot be legally owned by ordinary citizens.
Unless the American government can guarantee a policeman by the side of every citizen, the law abiding citizen must be allowed to carry heat.

Хорошо расписали. Для новичков будет полезно.

Я бы и так не смогла, полезно было ознакомиться.

Хэх. Еще бы..

Всё правильно. Так и нужно.

Можно и поподробней было. Но и так в принципе внятно.

rSsfHx