In the biggest 2nd amendment victory in the history of the country the Supreme Court affirmed that the 2nd amendment does in fact guarentee the right to keep and bear arms for American citizens. I'm glad I lived to see it!!! I think it will be rolled back and eventually overturned as the court becomes more liberal but for now enjoy.
"The court's decision means that the enigmatically worded Second Amendment -- "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" -- identifies an individual right to gun ownership, like the freedom of speech, that cannot be unduly restricted by Congress, state laws or city ordinances."
Also voting in the majority were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.
And in what has to be one of the most laughable replies by a liberal judge, Stephen Breyer tried to maintain that there is no reason for the court to decide this issue for the whole country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How frickin' ridiculous is it for a guy who wants to destroy the very concept of state rights and federalism to make the following comments. (I guess he would be okay with a locality refusing to observe the Civil Rights Act-by the same line of thinking.
)
Justice Stephen G. Breyer objected to the majority decision, and read his dissent from the bench. He disagreed with the majority that it is a fundamental right, and said the court was restricting state and local efforts from designing gun control laws that fit their particular circumstances, and turning over all decisions to federal judges. Joining him with dissenting votes were John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor. Stevens wrote his own dissent and did not join Breyer's.
"Given the empirical and local value-laden nature of the questions that lie at the heart of the issue, why, in a nation whose constitution foresees democratic decision-making, is it so fundamental a matter as to require taking that power from the people?" Breyer wrote. "What is it here that the people did not know? What is it that a judge knows better?"
"The court's decision means that the enigmatically worded Second Amendment -- "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" -- identifies an individual right to gun ownership, like the freedom of speech, that cannot be unduly restricted by Congress, state laws or city ordinances."
Also voting in the majority were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.
And in what has to be one of the most laughable replies by a liberal judge, Stephen Breyer tried to maintain that there is no reason for the court to decide this issue for the whole country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How frickin' ridiculous is it for a guy who wants to destroy the very concept of state rights and federalism to make the following comments. (I guess he would be okay with a locality refusing to observe the Civil Rights Act-by the same line of thinking.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer objected to the majority decision, and read his dissent from the bench. He disagreed with the majority that it is a fundamental right, and said the court was restricting state and local efforts from designing gun control laws that fit their particular circumstances, and turning over all decisions to federal judges. Joining him with dissenting votes were John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor. Stevens wrote his own dissent and did not join Breyer's.
"Given the empirical and local value-laden nature of the questions that lie at the heart of the issue, why, in a nation whose constitution foresees democratic decision-making, is it so fundamental a matter as to require taking that power from the people?" Breyer wrote. "What is it here that the people did not know? What is it that a judge knows better?"
