Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Highest Court Hands Victory To Gun Rights Advocates

July 1, 2010 by  

Highest court hands victory to gun rights advocates In a landmark decision, the United States Supreme Court has struck down a long-standing handgun ban in the controversial McDonald v Chicago case.

Ruling 5-4, the justices affirmed an earlier decision which stated that the constitutional rights enshrined in the Second Amendment trump the power of the states on the issue of firearm possession for self-defense.

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito affirmed that "self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day." However, Justice Stephen Breyer countered in the dissenting opinion that one person’s interest in keeping arms may diminish another person’s interest in feeling safe from armed violence.

Breyer also wrote that "it is at least reasonable for a democratically elected legislature to take such concerns into account in considering what sorts of regulations would best serve the public welfare."

The verdict was welcomed by an array of gun rights organizations, such as the Illinois State Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation, but roundly criticized by the Violence Policy Center and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

The Chicago law banning handguns has been on the books for 28 years. ADNFCR-1961-ID-19861999-ADNFCR

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to yousoundoff@personalliberty.com by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Highest Court Hands Victory To Gun Rights Advocates”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • J.M.R.

    don’t get carried away with this decision as we have another lying hack coming aboard, bought and paid for by the head dick-tater.

  • Sutekh

    ////begin quote////
    However, Justice Stephen Breyer countered in the dissenting opinion that one person’s interest in keeping arms may diminish another person’s interest in feeling safe from armed violence.
    \\end quote\
    The tender sympathies of Justice Breyer for criminals who are terrified of being shot by armed prey are duly noted. A movie like “Death Wish” would never be made today, because the media does not want the pubic to realize that criminals who are afraid of being shot by their intended victims are forced on a daily and case by case basis to rethink their lust for crime. Remove personal gun ownership by private, law abiding citizens (not felons,) and there is nothing to think about. I include professional politicians in the criminal class. It was professional politicians whom the amateurs in the first Congress were thinking about when they added the “keep and bear arms” amendment to the Constitution.

    In some areas of Britain (where guns are banned,) the biggest thug on the block can get whatever he wants, whenever he wants. Why? Because Granny and Flo aren’t strong enough to throw him out of their flat in hand to hand combat.

    Sutekh

    • Big Daddy

      It seem to me to mean that leaving loaded weapons laying around for protection can deminish another person’s security. They don’t have to be a criminal. It could be a child.

      • JC

        Oh Come On! So you’re immediate reaction is that gun owners leave guns lying around where children can get at them?
        Well that in and of itself is criminal isn’t it? And it hardly accounts for a very high majority of American gun owners.
        Do tragic things happen? All the time. Do we live in cocoons because of it? Hardly.
        Gun ownership is a necessary reality in a free republic.
        Responsibility is necessary to gun ownership.

        • http://?? Joe H.

          JC,
          What? You didn’t know that we gun owners leave guns lying around and even encourage kids to play with them??? Boy, are you behind the times! What a crock Big Daddy!!!! Right now my guns are locked up in a safe and no child could possibly get to them!!! Big Daddy if you believe that all gun owners leave their guns lying around in the open all the time, then YOU ARE DENSE!!!

          • Jim H.

            Joe, I get them the guns with bayonets so if they manage to not shoot themselves the can get cut up really bad.

      • http://www.haringenterprises.com BSHARING

        To Big Daddy, Then don’t be stupid and keep it laying around where kids can get to it. AND when kids are old enough to understand EXPLAIN That they are NOT to touch the gun then dictate punishments if they even touch it. THEN when they are older still teach them how to safely handle the gun and use it. IGNORANCE IS NOT BLISS in this case. Guns don’t kill people – stupid people and criminals cause people to get killed.

      • http://PersonalLibertyDigest Randy

        The biggest proof to what you espouse is the experiment done two years ago by the goverment of Australia. They passed a law that no citizen was allowed to own or posses a gun and the government would buy from each citizen the gun(s) he owned at fair market value. After spending over 500 million dollars paying for this mass confiscation of arms from the law abiding citizens, for they found out later that all the criminals intent on crime kept theirs, all crime statistics increased tremendously, including murder and personal assualt and crimes committed with guns. They, the government, now says they are perplexed as to why this has happened and do not know what to do to bring the crime rate back under control, for another year has come and gone and the rates of these crimes keep going up. For now the law abiding citizens are un-armed prey, unable to protect themselves from the armed criminals, and the criminals know it and have no fear of resistance to their crimes with firearms. Australia needs to take a lesson from Switzerland, who issues every male citizen a rifle at the proper age and teaches them how to use it thereby resulting in the lowest crime rate of any country in the world. Down through history every country that has banned weapons, as Australia has, suffers the same result,bar none and there have been about 12 of them. Some of those 12 were also taken over by dictators who then committed genocide on millions of its citizens (Turkey, Russia, Germany, and Angola to name a few). the description of ignorance is to keep doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome. Now Obama and the Democrats are trying to make it our turn, I hope they fail, but they are adament and are now trying to do it through U.N. treaty.

        • 45caliber

          Not long ago, in Australia, five men broke into a man’s apartment with baseball bats and pipe. They beat him badly enough that he spent three months in the hospital. He finally managed to get hold of a katana one of his family in WWII had captured and had on the wall. He killed one of his attackers and wounded another. The other three ran off.

          The police were puzzled as to what charge they could file against him for “murdering” his attacker. And they made no effort to find the three that ran or even learn why he was attacked.

      • 45caliber

        And you know nothing of guns or how to train children, do you?

      • Claire

        Only careless and stupid people leave guns laying around. I believe it is the parents’ fault when something like this happens. Stupidity, carelessness and idiocy. You don’t leave guns unattended and you don’t leave children unattended. Simple as that. Accidents can happen but remember an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Just because some parent can be ignorant doesn’t mean all of us are.

    • 45caliber

      A “hot” burglary is one where the burglar enters a house KNOWING the owners are there.

      In the US about 10% of all burglaries are hot. Most burglars want to avoid any problems.

      In England, where guns are banned, 90% are hot. The burglars want to beat Granny and make her tell where she hid her SS money.

      When one old woman had her house wrapped in barbed wire to prevent that, the police had her remove it on the grounds that it might harm some burglar.

  • Al Sieber

    Why do we have to beg our govt. for our god given right to protect ourselves, a freedom that was secured by the founding fathers.

    • Al Sieber

      This shouldn’t even be a issue.

    • JC

      We don’t. Al, we don’t beg for anything, at least not until they’ve disarmed us. And by then you and I will be dead anyway.

      • 45caliber

        I agree. My wife laughs when I buy more guns or ammo – but she also learns to use them.

        • Claire

          45caliber–My husband was after me constantly to take shooting lessons ath the gun club. I finally did and you know what?? I am pretty good at it.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            Claire,
            Keep practicing lady!!!!

      • Al Sieber

        JC, well don’t ever give up, we’ll win in the end.

  • DaveS

    “Justice Stephen ‘Breyer countered in the dissenting opinion that one person’s interest in keeping arms may diminish another person’s interest in feeling safe from armed violence’.” is a sop without substance.

    My owning a car (a far more deadly object than a gun, on average) might make other drivers less safe, since they might hit me if they stray into my lane or even hit my parked car. So the car, like the gun, “may diminish another person’s interest in feeling safe”. Hardly a significant negative aspect of a verdict that demonstrably deters violent crime and makes everybody (except the violent criminal)safer in fact and not just in feeling.

    • Officer Sam

      More red light cameras will insure that licensed and tested auto operators obey the laws. More cameras will protect the population by documenting crimes.

      Gun ownership doesn’t guarantee freedom. Perhaps it offers more crime deterent.

      More cameras may lead to a safer society, more law and order, but at a cost to freedom.

      Gun lobbiests seem to support more of a POLICE STATE not freedom.

      It would seem that once all the cameras are in place monitored by a Super Computer then all supporters of law and order will not have that argument to support gun ownership.

      • JC

        This is one gun owner who sees those street cameras as an encroachment on freedom and the right to privacy. And in a perfect world…as targets. ;)

        • independant thinker

          Here is another and I suspect 45 and Angel would agree as well.

      • http://www.haringenterprises.com BSHARING

        To Officer Sam. I hope you really aren’t an office of the law. You are advocating BIG BROTHER and that is NOT RIGHT. As it is, we have too much big brother in the name of “keeping us safe”. No, they are trying to keep us controlled. A SUPER COMPUTER give government way too much power, which can and will be used.

      • ChoctawDave

        Camera’s are only good for “who did it” after one has already become a victim. A concealed pistol is the equalizer and a deterent, not to become a victim.

        • 45caliber

          A visible gun is even more of a deterrent. When Texas first passed their concealed hand gun license, the governor (a staunch Dem) stated that she felt that she should change it to an open carry instead. She didn’t – because most people here said that would be fine.

      • 45caliber

        England has cameras almost everywhere in their cities. But they also have as much as 16 times as much crime as they do here. So it is obvious that cameras do not work as a deterant. Of course, the police are so overloaded there that they don’t bother to investigate little crimes like assault, burglary, etc. They only have time to handle things like murder, rape, and those citizens who feel like defending themselves.

      • ChuckL

        Rebuttal to Officer Sam:

        Red Light Cameras have proven to increase the number of rear end collisions at traffic lights. The increase in obedience to the law remains anecdotal and unproven, although the revenue return has been greatly enhanced.

        Obedience to traffic laws has been proven to CAUSE crashes. Statistics from 1926 onward have shown that the number of highway deaths per 100,000 miles has continually declined continually at a rate of nearly 5% per year with only a few aberrations. Those periods of increase were limited to months following wars and the return of soldiers to civilian life. But there was one clear exception to this reduction. It was the multi year increase following the OPEC caused oil shortage in 1973. The Congress passed the “Double Nickel” or the National 55 MPH speed limit in 1974. it was fully effective in 1975. For the next 5 years the Highway death rate INCREASED by over 5% each year. This was a total reversal. The speed limit reduction KILLED people.

        The repeal was supposed to result in many more highway deaths. It resulted in a reduction in deaths.

        Every state that has passed a “Shall Issue” law has had a reduction in the incidence of violent crime. Those areas that have restricted gun ownership or carry have had an increase in violent crime. An analysis of “Gun Control” laws indicates that they should be renamed “Criminal Protection Laws”, or “Criminal Workplace Safety Laws”.

        O. Sam’s claim that “Gun lobbyists seem to support more of a POLICE STATE not freedom.” ignores the fact that a reduction in crime means a reduced need for police. (Maybe he’s just lobbying for job security.)

        And finally, the only thing that can be said about universal camera coverage of the whole country is that the crimes will be recorded, but not a thing about identifying the criminal or bringing the criminal to justice. Nor of course, anything about preventing the crime and the psychological and physical damage done by the criminal.

      • http://internetexplorer Dave288

        Brother gun ownership does seal ones freedom. History has proven armed citizens that resist are a deterant to dictators. If you were a robber would you take a chance you may be shot and killed by a home owner that you know is armed? No”"” The robber is looking to prey on the easy one that can’t resist. History has also proven when the citizens are disarmed, only criminals will have weapons. As a police officer I realize that I work for the citizens and I am subject to them, not they are subject to me.

  • FreedomFighter

    No armed population has ever been easily taken over by any dictator.

    Weapons in the hands of decent citizens will deter crime and make the USA a safer place to live, work and rear children, because criminals at even the highest levels prefer the un-armed.

    FF

    • 45caliber

      Several years ago in one of the African countries, one tribe got into power. They kicked everyone in their army out who wasn’t a member of their tribe.

      Then they sent the army to villages of the other tribes in the country to kill the people there. For some time they got away with it but then the other tribes managed to get guns of their own.

      One liberal wrote that this was horrible! There was a war going on there in that country because the people had gotten guns of their own. This meant that all guns should be banned for civilian ownership. After all, if these people didn’t have guns they wouldn’t be able to shoot at the Army.

      Explain that.

      • JC

        And if that Hillary Witch gets her way, she’ll help genocide occur all over the world with her global gun grab.
        We’re not going to let that happen here.

        • 45caliber

          I think the main reason they want to ban all guns is because they are afraid of the citizens of this country.

          Sen. Feinstein carrys a gun. She was asked one time if she was going to give up her gun as soon as she got a law passed banning them.

          “Oh, I can’t do that,” she said. “I have a lot of people out there that don’t like me. I have to have it for protection.”

          But it isn’t okay for you and I to protect ourselves.

          • Claire

            I wonder about the people that get road rage, or if you are in a bar or somewhere and someone gets honked off, whips out a gun and starts shooting. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for carrying handguns but this is something to think about. There are a lot of unstable people out there. But then again, a person can always get a gun, legal or illegally.

          • Jim H.

            Hi Claire, When concealed carry permits in the first states to have them first came out, the road rage and bar fight issue was a concern. The stats show that it didn’t happen. People were more level headed than their government gave them credit for.

          • Claire

            Jim H–This brings to mind–one day last summer I drove the ’69 Camaro back to work at lunchtime. I stopped for a stoplight, and a guy pulled up alongside in a sporty-looking car—I looked at him and he looked at me-then the light turned green and we both stomped on the foot pedal. Needless to say, I shot past him, my heart was pounding, and he cursed at me, called me an “f” bit–”, gave me the middle finger salute, his face was red as a beet. He zoomed past me madder than heck. Then I was scared. I don’t know what possessed me, at my age, drag racing. Maybe it gave me a feeling of power, I don’t know. It gave me quite a thrill at the time but I’ll never do it again. I almost had a heart attack. Whenever I drive that Camaro, people sometimes want to take me on, and I am so tempted! Certainly old enough to know better, too young to resist. My husband was a dragster-no one could beat him! Ahhh, memories of my youth.

          • Jim H.

            Hi Claire, He must have been to young to know not to mess with a 69 Camaro. The way it sounds a little humility won’t hurt him.

          • Claire

            Sounds like Mayor Daley with his thugs. They can have protection but no one else can.

          • Claire

            This post was for 45caliber—

          • Claire

            Jim H– Yeah, I took him down a notch or two! I won’t do it again though.

          • independant thinker

            I never drag raced away from a light but always took pride (and stil do) in my ability to get the jump when the light turned. Incidently I ain’t a kid anymore either.

  • animal

    there will come a day and it will be way sooner than most sheeple care to realize, that the average person will worry more about being caught without a gun than being caught with one!! no matter what the law says

  • 45caliber

    “Justice Stephen ‘Breyer countered in the dissenting opinion that one person’s interest in keeping arms may diminish another person’s interest in feeling safe from armed violence’.”

    In other words, his freedoms are more important than mine are. So he is to get his freedom and I must give up mine to make him happy.

  • JC

    Well if my neighbor doesn’t like that I own guns, I’ll do him a service. I’ll put a sign on my lawn announcing my respect of my neighbor’s “feelings” to the world.

    <—————————–
    My Neighbor is AGAINST GUNS
    Out of respect for his feelings
    I promise NOT to use MY GUNS to
    defend him or his property.
    <—————————–

    After all, we are a nation of people who
    respect each other, aren't we? ;)

    • independant thinker

      chuckle, giggle, guffaw, roll in the floor laughing madly.

      Good one JC

    • 45caliber

      I think we should have a law passed (after all, that is their solution to every problem, isn’t it?) that requires everyone who is against guns to put a sign up in their own yard:

      “I am against gun ownership. I will never allow a gun on my place.”

      • http://?? Joe H.

        45caliber,
        sounds like a sure winner to me!!!

  • http://gmail i41

    Most morons that use the arguement, a child could find it and shoot it. Yes and they might fall in a toliet and drown, or put a toy’s part in a electrical out let and die. Any parent I hear talking that crap is either a piss poor parent and a numskulled person, or is off in a trance or just plain, a idoit. I had 6 children, and loaded pistols and rifles, in closets and scattered around in the house and barns. Nobody every got shot or wounded, and my grandkids all have guns given to them when they turn one. Parents need to teach their children, not the public schools and all the overeducated dumbasses that come out of our colleges. Theory don’t do a damn thing but create a bunch of nimwitted jackasses like we have in the Congress and the White Out House. Just look how many days have been spent dreaming and screwing around. still like no hope and dreedful change.

  • lovelyrita

    How do gun lobbyists support more of a police state? The democrats use that bullshit to make people feel as if they’re contantly being watched when in reality there is no need for these alleged “traffic light cameras.” It’s a lot like having a nuclear weapon. Only it guarantees the protection at a lower level: the owner is the only one protected vs the whole country. Although there has been some tension there is no real anarchy in the world. The countries that carry these weapons go to sleep safe and sound knowing they have them. (And I know about the whole Japan thing, but let’s not get distracted here). The only people we’re scared of letting have nuclear technology is the Middle East. But that situation is kind of like this one: no matter what we do criminals (the average street gang, the Middle East) will always have a way of getting illegal firearms and technology (from other criminals, North Korea, anyone?). It is only humane if the current government supports our future endeavors which is literally as simple as keeping ourselves safe.

  • independant thinker

    One final thought and I must close for now. I have emailed both my senators and expressed my opposition to Kagen and asked for them to vote against her conformation. All of you who do not like her should do the same they probably will not listen but every once in a great while they do if they think it will result in people re-electing them.

  • James

    How many of the commentors, here, believe the federal government has the power to regulate possession and use of firearms in the States?

  • Rose and Robert

    Good, why should only the Republicans own guns…

  • jerry

    I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OV GUN CONTROL TO IF I HAD THE SECRET SERVICE FOLLOWING ME AND MY FAMILY FOR PORTECTION. HOW LONG WOULD IT TAKE FOR A POLICE OFFICER TO ARRIVE AT THE SITE OF A MUGGING IN PROGRESS BEFORE THE 55 YEAR OLD LADY IS BEATEN AND ROBBED? WHO CARES! IF SHE FIRES HER FIREARM AND SAVES ANY ONE ELSE FROM HAVING TO GO THRU HER ORDEAL. YEA GRANNY!!!!

  • mehoward

    THE SUPREME COURT JUDGES SHOULD ALL HAVE VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE SECOND AMMENDENT. THEY ALL TOOK OATHS TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION AND THAT SURE IS PART OF THE CONSTITUTION. THE FOUR THAT DID NOT VOTE YES SHOULD BE FIRED YES FIRED! NOWHERE THAT I KNOW OF CAN THESE JUDGES DECIDE THAT THEY ARE NOT GOING TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION. THEY WERE NOT PUT THERE TO VOTE HOW THEY FEEL THEY ARE THERE TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION. SO THAT IS WHY I THINK THAT IF THEY CAN’T ADHERE TO
    WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THEY DO NOT NEED TO BE THERE. MOST OF THEM TELL LIES TO GET TO BE ON THE SUPREME COURT, ONCE CONFIRMED THEY VOTE
    WHAT THEY FEEL. THERE SHOULD BE SOME WAY TO FIRE THEM WHEN THEY FLAUNT
    THEIR DISDAIN FOR THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!!!MEHPENSACOLA,FL

    • http://internetexplorer Dave288

      Our supreme court has become a ##@#4 of liberals. The job of the court is to decide on the laws not their personal feelings. If the 2nd ammendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, where is the argument? Whats next? They are slowly chopping away our individual rights to create a federal state. I’m king and I know whats best for my subjects. You have no individual right to oppose me. Who is held accountable for their actions in the fed government? No one thats why they do as they please. 50 years ago alot of them would have been charged with treason and executed. They have forgot who they are working for. I say lets fire all of them that are against the individual citizen’s rights. Our forefathers came from an oppressed government and set our laws to protect the individual.

  • Shirley

    Even the best police can only get there in time to draw the chalk line.
    I have much respect for the boys in blue, but they can’t just twitch their noses. (Bewitched)

  • http://internetexplorer Dave288

    I am a police officer. I see victims everyday that were unable to defend themselves. The police can’t really protect you from a violent home envasion. You as a citizen have the responsibility to protect yourself in your home. Police are not armed guards for the citizens. Maybe in a perfect world? In the real world you have to protect yourself. Police enforce what they can but are mostly reactive. We respond to crimes after they occur. The red light cameras are really just money makers. Yes they do cause more rear end collisions. We as a people have to realize we are held accountable to ourself first. Stats from the presidents commission on law enforcement have proven 75% of all crime is detered by mere police presence!! Evidence the criminals are afraid of armed people and like to prey on the weak. There are more illegals coming in that don’t fear the police and will not hesitate to shoot the police. Another reason the feds need to hold up the laws they are held accountable to enforce. Our leader is dividing our country. The 10th amendment says the states have rights. Not the president is king and only his us attorneys have the right to decide which laws are enforced. God help us be united again. A divided house/country can’t stand. By the way the muslems are taking over our country. Look at dearborn mich where the christians were arrested and their cameras were seized. Or you can stick your head in the sand and all is well.

  • Bud Downen

    Wake up America in Nov 2012, We the people who believe in GOD must come together and MAKE Muslim/Marxist far left radical Tyrant Obama A ONE TERM Dictator and take back our country that our founding fathers set up for read Psalm 109:7-8…..amen!!!!!

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.