McDonald v. Chicago decision

[Wumbologist]

Copypasta from my RatSkep post:

5-4 in favor of Mcdonald!

Here's what I got from SCOTUSblog before it essentially shut down from the traffic:

10:04

Erin:
Alito announces McDonald v. Chicago: reversed and remanded
Monday June 28, 2010 10:04 Erin
10:04

Tom:
Gun rights prevail
Monday June 28, 2010 10:04 Tom
10:05

Erin:

The opinion concludes that the 14th Amendment does incorporate the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller to keep and bear arms in self defense
Monday June 28, 2010 10:05 Erin
10:05

Tom:
5-4
Monday June 28, 2010 10:05 Tom
10:05

Erin:
Stevens dissents for himself. Breyer dissents, joined by Ginsburg and Sotomayor.
Monday June 28, 2010 10:05 Erin
10:05

Tom:
The majority seems divided, presumably on the precise standard
Monday June 28, 2010 10:05 Tom
10:06

Erin:
The majority Justices do not support all parts of the Alito opinion, but all five agree that the 2d Amendment applies to state and local government.


And the full text:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf



Not sure exactly what this will mean and what laws will be repealed due to it, but it's a clear win for gun rights.

[FBM]

Do you have a position on gun rights, 2nd Amendment interpretation, etc?

[Wumbologist]

Do you have a position on gun rights, 2nd Amendment interpretation, etc?

I believe that reasonable regulations on the 2nd Amendment are OK, so long as they don't in any way infringe on the rights of the law-abiding citizen. Unfortunately, the way most gun control laws are written, they are designed to infringe on the rights of the law-abiding while having just about no effect on criminal activity. In short, I think that this decision, coupled with the Heller decision two years ago, is great news.

[Feck]

People who live in wooden houses probably shouldn't own 7.62's for 'home defence' !

In Britain if you get a firearm you are expected to be able to see what you are shooting and make a clean kill ..Having to wear ORANGE clothes so someone does not mistake your head for a Duck or fire a 30.06 into you because a bush moved is a good example as to why some sensible gun controls might not be such a terrible Idea ?

Mind you in Britain we have gone way too far the other way ....

[Wumbologist]

People who live in wooden houses probably shouldn't own 7.62's for 'home defence' !

In Britain if you get a firearm you are expected to be able to see what you are shooting and make a clean kill ..Having to wear ORANGE clothes so someone does not mistake your head for a Duck or fire a 30.06 into you because a bush moved is a good example as to why some sensible gun controls might not be such a terrible Idea ?

Mind you in Britain we have gone way too far the other way ....

Nothing wrong with a 7.62 for home defense if you're using Glaser Safety Slugs. Of course, 12ga 00 buckshot is still the clear choice.

[Martok]

Terrible news but hardly unexpected. With activists conservative judges on the SCOTUS the idiocy of gun rights will win out.

[FBM]

Do you have a position on gun rights, 2nd Amendment interpretation, etc?

I believe that reasonable regulations on the 2nd Amendment are OK, so long as they don't in any way infringe on the rights of the law-abiding citizen. Unfortunately, the way most gun control laws are written, they are designed to infringe on the rights of the law-abiding while having just about no effect on criminal activity. In short, I think that this decision, coupled with the Heller decision two years ago, is great news.

Agreed. A person should have to demonstrate competence with a life-threatening weapon, whether it's a motor vehicle or a 9mm. I've got a carry permit that's valid for a dozen states or so, due to reciprocity agreements.

People who live in wooden houses probably shouldn't own 7.62's for 'home defence' !

In Britain if you get a firearm you are expected to be able to see what you are shooting and make a clean kill ..Having to wear ORANGE clothes so someone does not mistake your head for a Duck or fire a 30.06 into you because a bush moved is a good example as to why some sensible gun controls might not be such a terrible Idea ?

Mind you in Britain we have gone way too far the other way ....

Who hunts ducks with a 30.06?

[FBM]

Terrible news but hardly unexpected. With activists conservative judges on the SCOTUS the idiocy of gun rights will win out.

I think we've got a taker.

[Feck]

People who live in wooden houses probably shouldn't own 7.62's for 'home defence' !

In Britain if you get a firearm you are expected to be able to see what you are shooting and make a clean kill ..Having to wear ORANGE clothes so someone does not mistake your head for a Duck or fire a 30.06 into you because a bush moved is a good example as to why some sensible gun controls might not be such a terrible Idea ?

Mind you in Britain we have gone way too far the other way ....

Nothing wrong with a 7.62 for home defense if you're using Glaser Safety Slugs. Of course, 12ga 00 buckshot is still the clear choice.

MMMMM Is taking a life in defence of property moral ? Should I be able to kill someone for taking my car ? If I have a burglar in my house is it ok to use a .50 in his back and say 'Well he deserved it !" ?

[Wumbologist]

Terrible news but hardly unexpected. With activists conservative judges on the SCOTUS the idiocy of gun rights will win out.

One might equally argue that the clear split along ideological lines points to activist liberal judges.

At any rate, it'll be interesting to read both the majority and the dissenting opinions on this.

Agreed. A person should have to demonstrate competence with a life-threatening weapon, whether it's a motor vehicle or a 9mm. I've got a carry permit that's valid for a dozen states or so, due to reciprocity agreements.

No doubt, that's one of the few Massachusetts gun laws that I agree with. They require passing a firearms safety course to get a license to carry.

[Feck]

Terrible news but hardly unexpected. With activists conservative judges on the SCOTUS the idiocy of gun rights will win out.

One might equally argue that the clear split along ideological lines points to activist liberal judges.

At any rate, it'll be interesting to read both the majority and the dissenting opinions on this.

Agreed. A person should have to demonstrate competence with a life-threatening weapon, whether it's a motor vehicle or a 9mm. I've got a carry permit that's valid for a dozen states or so, due to reciprocity agreements.

No doubt, that's one of the few Massachusetts gun laws that I agree with. They require passing a firearms safety course to get a license to carry.

Surely getting a firearm should be A LOT harder than a driving licence ?

[Wumbologist]

Surely getting a firearm should be A LOT harder than a driving licence ?

It shouldn't be hard if you're competent with a firearm. If you can't handle basic firearm safety and can't hit the broad side of a barn from inside, it should be impossible.

[Martok]

One might equally argue that the clear split along ideological lines points to activist liberal judges.

Nah, you really can't.

What we're getting with this Robert's court is what we would have gotten with a Bork court.

[Martok]

Surely getting a firearm should be A LOT harder than a driving licence ?

It should be, but gun wackos think gun access should be unrestricted.

[Feck]

Surely getting a firearm should be A LOT harder than a driving licence ?

It shouldn't be hard if you're competent with a firearm. If you can't handle basic firearm safety and can't hit the broad side of a barn from inside, it should be impossible.

I think that you should Prove you have a legitimate use ,reason and safe place to fire a firearm .Not up to the police to prove you should not be allowed one .

I should be able to join a gun club and fire almost any fire arm I want as long as they are kept securely at the club .....I should not be allowed a hand gun in my bedside table or a .338 on my wall without having legitimate access to deer stalking .