RSS Feed
Washington - Historic, U.S. Supreme Court: Americans Have The Right To Own Guns |
Sponsored By:
|
Published on:
Jun 26, 2008 at 10:36 AM
News Source: Reuters
Text Size
|
The landmark 5-4 ruling marked the first time in nearly 70 years that the high court has addressed whether the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, rather than a right tied to service in a state militia.
Advertisement:
Total24
Read Comments (24) — Post Yours »
1
Jun 26, 2008 at 10:43 AM Ha! Says:
mazel tov!
not that yidden should have guns, but we should be allowed to have them if we need them to protect our families. this ruling was long overdue--the liberals must be having a fit. only one problem--they couldn't get around the constitution. L'havdil, "ein mikrah yotzei m'dei peshuto"--"the right to keep and bear arms" means just that.
2
Jun 26, 2008 at 10:50 AM Anonymous Says:
It puts all criminals, on the endangered species list
3
Jun 26, 2008 at 12:02 PM Anonymous Says:
This is great. Criminals get guns anyway. Now law abiding citizens can have it too. This is a blow to criminals. It allows us to protect ourself.
4
Jun 26, 2008 at 12:28 PM OBER CHUCHIM Says:
this is federal what about state laww
5
Jun 26, 2008 at 12:37 PM INTER CHUCHIM Says:
Ober Chuchim - if according to the supreme court it's part of the constitution, state law cannot change that.
6
Jun 26, 2008 at 12:44 PM Ha! Says:
To Ober Chuchim:
state law can't override the Constitution.
7
Jun 26, 2008 at 01:24 PM Anonymous Says:
So now that all criminals will have easy access to firearms, where can i get a good assault rifle to protect myself from them?
8
Jun 26, 2008 at 01:46 PM MOSHE IN BP Says:
Anonymous Says: 06-26-2008 - 1:24 PM
Your a real shota !!!
Criminals have always been able to get guns
They are criminals. They steal them. They obtain them fraudently.
In Washington DC a law abiding citizien could not purchase a handgun to protect himself.
NOW THEY WILL BE
BTW - Washington DC is not a state, so what state law ?
9
Jun 26, 2008 at 01:46 PM anonymouse Says:
talk about legistlating from the bench by activist hudges!
10
Jun 26, 2008 at 02:51 PM Milhouse Says:
Ober Chuchim: The correct answer is, nobody knows. This decision did not address the question of whether the 2nd amendment is incorporated into the 14th. That will have to wait until the laws of a state are challenged; the first challenge will probably be either in Chicago or in New York, and then this question will have to be decided. It's difficult to see how this Court could possibly rule that it's not incorporated, but by the time the question reaches the Supreme Court its composition will probably have changed, and not for the better.
11
Jun 26, 2008 at 02:52 PM Milhouse Says:
anonymouse, where do you see legislating from the bench in this decision? The 2nd amendment is very clear, and there was never a question that it applies to DC. DC's law was in blatant violation of the constitution, and the only shame is that it took so long for it to be struck down.
12
Jun 26, 2008 at 03:32 PM Anonymous Says:
why can`t yidden own guns?
13
Jun 26, 2008 at 03:56 PM Anonymous Says:
Yidden should own guns. where does it say in the Torah a prohibition on self defence ? On the contrary it says someone who rises up to kill you, get up and kill him first. Back then it was with a knife or an axe, today it is with a semi automatic. Just kill the intruder. Why are some of us such wimps and have no back bone. Maybe if we kill a few ganovim they will think twice before breaking into a frum home
14
Jun 26, 2008 at 04:00 PM Raphael Kaufman Says:
The best part of this ruling is that it must REALLY irk Mayor Blumberg
15
Jun 26, 2008 at 04:39 PM OBER CHUCHIM Says:
i dont see the benifit of this 1)you could have a gun you nedd licence2)people will get guns they wont know how to shout you be involved in a story they will shoot in the velt arein3)i have to walk around with a gun, arent the police out there to protect us .
16
Jun 26, 2008 at 04:45 PM Charlie Hall Says:
People will die as the result of this ruling.
17
Jun 26, 2008 at 05:43 PM Mark Levin Says:
Nushim & Anushim,
We have a serious problem when 4 justices vote against the 2nd Ammendment to the Constitution. USA Citizens are already allowed to carry guns. The 5 Justices voted FOR the constitution and the 4 voted AGAINST the constitution. Der Aybishter zul ints helfin if Barak Uh Uh Uh Uh Hussein Obama is elected b/c he will appoint judges that take away "rights" and will turn the country back to the pre Mayflower days.
18
Jun 26, 2008 at 06:11 PM anonymouse Says:
gun advoctaes are sick
19
Jun 26, 2008 at 07:46 PM Tzaddik Says:
Just like with owning and using cars,you must get a license to own,to carry,different types of guns and you must register and,perhaps,insure each gun.That would help to make sure only responsible people will carry and use guns legally.
20
Jun 27, 2008 at 12:37 AM Anonymous Says:
This decision does NOT strike down most state and local gun regulations, which set up systems whereby people can apply for gun permits. It srikes down the overly restrictive Washington D.C. statute which is a blanket prohibition against ANYBODY owning a handgun.
For all of those predicting that now there will be some kind of wild bloodbath in the streets -- think again. Professor John Lott of Yale University demonstrates in his book "More Guns, Less Crime," that in virtually all jurisdictions where draconian gun control laws have been loosened, either to allow law-abiding citizens with permits the right of concealed carry or loosening the permit restrictions, so that the police have to grant a permit to an individual unless there is a specific reason not to (convicted criminal, drug user, mental patient, etc), rather than forcing the individual to prove to their satisfaction why they need a gun permit (the current status in NYC), crime has gone DOWN rather than up, for the very simple reason that criminals who do not fear getting arrested (most perps don't get arrested for their crime), convicted (even less likely than an arrest) or imprisoned (less likely still) are very afraid that if they try to rob or otherwise molest the wrong person, they could get shot.
When the State of Florida two years ago passed a new law letting people in public areas (i.e., anywhere outside their homes) use deadly force ro protect themselves if they were afraid for their lives, gun control advocates darkly warned that there would be Wild West-type shootouts all over the place involving suddenly empowered vigilante gun nuts and they even tried to frighten away out of state tourists by telling them they were taking their lives in their hands by coming to Florida. Well guess what? There was NO rash of high-body count "Death Wish"-style vigilante killings -- because if there had been, the liberal media all across the country would have incessantly put the story on Page One and at the top of the evening TV news. I've seen no such stories -- so clearly the gun-control Chicken Littles were wrong. The right of self-defense is the most fundamental of all human rights -- because all of the others are dependent upon it.
21
Jun 27, 2008 at 12:58 AM Mark Levin Says:
anonymouse, whats wrong with the people who support guns for protection or hunting? (Granted hunting isnt for inzir mentchin but the same law would apply.) The "Founding Fathers" gave us the "right" to own guns in the USA. All you need is a license and for that we have laws on how to get them.
These Lib justices are making me SICK!
22
Jun 27, 2008 at 01:08 AM Matzahlocal101 Says:
That's why modern orthodox woman do not follow the laws of tznius. They claim that the Torah says dina dimulchusa dina, and the second amendment guarantees the right to bare arms.
23
Jun 27, 2008 at 07:37 AM visitor from monsey Says:
To all the big-SHOTS out there who think this is a great thing: it sounds to me like you're just GUNNING for some problems. Did u forget about the risks involved in kids getting their hands on your gun at home? Will u always remember to lock it up when u'r not carrying it?
24
Jun 27, 2008 at 05:27 PM bigwheeel Says:
Sorry for me to be Mefalpel with the wise Judges of the Supreme Court, but the Second Amendment [to the Const.] states clearly that the purpose of the ..Right of the PEOPLE (not individuals) to bear (or bare, as matzahlocal 101 wants to have it) arms is to "Form a well-regulated Militia"! Police Departments, State and Local are the "Well Regulated Militia" that the Founding Fathers had in mind. Personally I'm very happy with the Police carrying weapons and not me!!
A good example [to enhance the reasoning that PEOPLE can sometimes mean an INSTITUTION of the People] can be brought from the Court system! As it states in any indictment; "The People Vs. ..."