Supreme Court Ruling Backs Individual Gun Rights

andrc657: The point in this country is we have a Constitution that recognizes certain rights, one being gun ownership. We, in America, are all free to decide if ownership and use of a firearm is something we desire. Here is a "fact" for you to chew on, medical doctors kill far more people than guns...in fact, one is over 10 times (stat sites will vary a bit on this from 6-10) more likley to be killed by a medical doctor than a gun in the USA....

Heller adressed the issue of reasonable restrictions on private gun ownership. This recent rulling applies that to states as well as federal. Period. The aopinon written by Justice Alito clearly reiterates the one in Hller by again saying resonable restrictions will not be impacted negatively by these rulings. This ruling will only be of concern to those whoa re so vehmently anti gun that they they do not see ANY resoan for ANYONE to EVER use let alone own a gun. It is about time the court set this issue to rest. EVERY recent ruling by the Supreme Court on private citizen gun ownership has come down on the side of the gun owner. As it should.

This is concerning, very few (almost none) of the posters on this thread understand the basics of Constitutional Law.

That the 2nd Amendment restricts Fed govt interference on the right to own a gun privately was settled by Heller. This decision merely incorporates that right to prohibt State govts. from interfering with that right. Nothing more, nothing less.

And no, not all of the Bill of Rights are currently incorporated by the 14th Amendment. For example, there is no State right to a Grand Jury, and many states do not have them.

Traditionally, conservatives oppose incorporation as an infringement on States Rights, and liberals favor incorporation as an expansion of civil liberties.
This 2nd Amendment issue is the only exception where the sides switch.

But the dissent claiming that the 2nd isn't incorporated is a conservative judicial view holding that the Framers restricted the FEDERAL govt and not the STATES from regulating their militias.

I favor total incorporation, so I applaud this decision....but at least I understand what was decided, what was not, and what it means.
I also understand that Kagan replacing Stevens would NOT impact this decision.

If this post (mine) seems like common sense, congrats to you on your high school plus education. Scroll downward for a good laugh at the other posts.

If this post of mine confuses you...then do some more research before commenting in response.

I understand why every contingent couldn't be addressed in this first version to get passed. Now what needs to be addressed is the way the gun laws disproportionately and adversely affect african americans. The reason I point out this particular ethnic group is because of the origin of the gun law, in effect, insuring that this particular group would be able to protect themselves from retribution post-slavery. The issue at hand is how "convicted felons" are still affected and grouped only with those of mental instablility. Once a sentence is served and any parole or probation concluded, an individual should be immediately returned to the status of "American Citizen" and thereby enjoy any and all rights afforded to every other "American Citizen". It has been proven that the "war on drugs" disproportionately targeted young african american males who were often plea bargained into accepting illegal felony convictions. This should be considered and individuals who were convicted of "non violent" offenses should be allowed their status of "American citizen" post any attachment to the state to include parole and/ or probation. Just as voting rights have been restored, so to should gun owning rights be restored. More often than not, those former convicts are residing in low or lower income areas but have married and begun families. Do they not have the right to protect their families because of offenses committed sometimes years prior to these marriages and childrens births? It is offensive to believe that an "American Citizen" who votes and pays taxes is NOT ALLOWED to protect is or her family in their own home. How American is that?

When you hear glass breaking in the middle of the night...it's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it!

I have guns I use them for hunting and I also have it just incase something should happen down the road. Im glad to have that choice, if taken away, crimminals will still find away to get a gun.

That was way too close a vote when the issue was Constutionally protected individual rights!! Makes you wonder what those 4 "justices" were thinking. Just like a lock on a door or gate only keeps out honest people, people who carry guns legally usually aren't the ones committing crimes with them.

There are more people killed by guns in the USA than in any other country on earth.

don't blame the gun blame the shooter...why is it that some idiot goes off some place shooting people and the rest of us lose the right to defend ourselves...FINALLY, supreme court did something right...but it was WAY to close! the thought of going against the Constitution just shows the lack of patriotism in this country! they proved how un-American they are, our founding fathers wouldn't give them the time of day!

"If the people fear the government, you have tyranny". If the government fears the people, you have liberty". - Thomas Jefferson