« Discussion Topic: On Hunting Threatened Polar Bears | Main | Breaking News: Supreme Court Declares Individual Gun Rights »

June 26, 2008

This page has been moved to http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes

If your browser doesn’t redirect you to the new location, please visit The Field Notes at its new location: www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes.

Discussion Topic: Second Amendment Ruling Expected Today

From the Washington Post:

With its term coming to an end, the U.S. Supreme Court this morning is expected to issue its ruling on the District's handgun-ownership ban in a case that could result in a landmark interpretation of the Second Amendment. . . .

The ruling could settle a decades-old debate over whether the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own firearms or only confers a collective right for states to form armed militias.

And from the ABA Journal:

SCOTUSblog predicts that Justice Antonin Scalia will write the majority opinion in the gun case, District of Columbia v. Heller. During oral arguments in the case Scalia appeared to endorse the individual rights interpretation of the amendment, which reads: “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.”

So, are you on the edge of your seat?

Look for an update later today.





Yesterday the liberal members of the Supreme Court ruled Louisiana can not execute a man who raped an 8 year old girl. All four of the conservative justices, that Obama has criticized by name and called extreme, voted to allow the State of Louisiana to decide the penalty for child rape. Today, the justices that Obama opposed voted to uphold our basic right to gun ownership, while the liberals said there is no Second Amendment Right to bear arms. If child rape and gun bans were popular- I guess the Democrats wouldn't need the courts to make policy for them. The next president will probably appoint at least 2 justices.


Why is the Presidential election important?

The. Supreme. Court.

The liberals on the court made a horrible decision regarding punishment for child rape.

The conservatives on the court made a heroic decision on individual rights to firearm ownership.

The great debate about President for 2008 should center around Supreme Court appointments.


But the court held that the individual right to possess a gun “for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home” is not unlimited. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,” Justice Scalia wrote.


Milson Wilson

Congratulations American citizens. Your constitution has survived for another day.

I predict some lawsuits in the state of California. Some of their laws are even more restrictive than Canada's laws.

A sympathetic Canadian

We did NOT win much here:

n a concluding paragraph to the his 64-page opinion, Scalia said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."

In one breath the court affirms the 2A as an individual right but in that same breath left much room for infringement. See that last clause.

With as close a decision as this was and the ambiguity of the majority ruling we aren't done with litigation.

We already see the anti forces lining up; Feinstein has issued a statement that people are less safe due to this ruling.

We haven't won anything here.

Mike Diehl

This is a small victory in defense of civil rights. Now we must be on guard against "Jim Crow" like legislation that basically acknowledges our right to keep and bear arms but that in practice prevents us from exercising that right through insurmountable bureaucratic hurdles, and excessively restrictive conditions. Totalitarians used that ploy to deny voters' rights in the "Jim Crow" era in the south, and totalitarians on the left are already brainstorming ways to employ similar tactics against firearms owners.


following up SA:

The ruling does not mean, for instance, that laws against carrying concealed weapons are to be swept aside. Furthermore, Justice Scalia wrote, “The court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

I believe Justica Scalia's language is a celebration of rights AND responsabilities, and for that reason, I applaud it.



I should say, "rights AND the responsabilites inherent in having those rights."



Our lord who art inheaven how will it be thy name-! Judgement day for self-defenders has come. I hope there arent many liberals in the court.

Our Blogs