Gun Bans Unconstitutional

[Gaspar]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9GKARU01&show_article=1


WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court says the Constitution's "right to keep and bear arms" applies nationwide as a restraint on the ability of government to limit its application.
The justices on Monday cast doubt on a Chicago area handgun ban, but also signaled in their 5-4 decision that less severe restrictions could survive legal challenges.

[we vs us]

So am I reading this correctly?  That limiting gun rights is now only a federal ability?  That municipal, regional, or state bans aren't legal?

Also:  it's obvious now that one of Bush II's biggest conservative accomplishments will have been to keep the court with a reliable 5-4 rightie majority. 

[Gaspar]

So am I reading this correctly?  That limiting gun rights is now only a federal ability?  That municipal, regional, or state bans aren't legal?

They are not constitutional. 

[we vs us]

I haven't read the decision yet and know I won't understand all the legal resonances, but I'm curious as to why this issue can't be decided by the states.  There seems to be much agitation on the right to bring certain decisions down to state or municipality level (ie gay marriage), but in this it's a great victory if you can bring it out of the states and into the federal jurisdiction. 

What distinguishes gun rights that they should only be regulated federally? Aside from the fact that it's a victory against restrictive (read: liberal) cities like Chicago?

[Gaspar]

I haven't read the decision yet and know I won't understand all the legal resonances, but I'm curious as to why this issue can't be decided by the states.  There seems to be much agitation on the right to bring certain decisions down to state or municipality level (ie gay marriage), but in this it's a great victory if you can bring it out of the states and into the federal jurisdiction. 

What distinguishes gun rights that they should only be regulated federally? Aside from the fact that it's a victory against restrictive (read: liberal) cities like Chicago?

Cities can still implement softer laws, but they cannot ban gun ownership. 

I'm waiting for the "Executive Response" from the administration. 

[we vs us]

I'm waiting for the "Executive Response" from the administration. 

You may be waiting awhile.  Obama's been completely hands-off re: gun rights.  As a matter of fact, most Dems on the national level have been completely hands-off re: guns rights since Clinton.  While it's a niche issue on the left coalition, but it isn't a center plank anymore.

[Conan71]

I haven't read the decision yet and know I won't understand all the legal resonances, but I'm curious as to why this issue can't be decided by the states. 

I'm no Constitutional scholar, but I think it would be akin to states regulating free speech or any other amendment for that matter.

[RecycleMichael]

I will defend your right to own a musket.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Conan,
I know we don't always agree, but you hit that nail right on the head.  "The People" in the First Amendment are exactly the same people as in the Second Amendment.  It's English.  5th grade English.  Shows how many can't even understand that much.

And RM, it says "arms".  Nothing particular about muskets.'

Join the NRA!!
Lifetime Member (and never to resign like George Bush I),
Heir

[cynical]

The specific legal question in this case was whether the 2nd Amendment was incorporated in the 14th Amendment and therefore is applicable to the states.  Since the Supremes say it was,  incorporation takes gun bans by states and their political subdivisions off the table.  Since some "softer" means of regulating firearms may still be legal, the NRA will continue to raise money from its members for political purposes.  I suspect the remaining area for state and local regulation would be akin to the permissible restrictions of 1st amendment expression.  Time, place, and manner. 

[we vs us]

The specific legal question in this case was whether the 2nd Amendment was incorporated in the 14th Amendment and therefore is applicable to the states.  Since the Supremes say it was,  incorporation takes gun bans by states and their political subdivisions off the table.  Since some "softer" means of regulating firearms may still be legal, the NRA will continue to raise money from its members for political purposes.  I suspect the remaining area for state and local regulation would be akin to the permissible restrictions of 1st amendment expression.  Time, place, and manner. 

Thanks.  That helps clarify some of my questions.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Sometimes the Supremes giveth; sometimes they taketh away.

This one they got right.   Finally.....

[RecycleMichael]

And RM, it says "arms".  Nothing particular about muskets.'

Do you really believe the writers of the constitution believed that the word "arms" meant unlimited firepower and and an unlimited number of guns? Their only experience was muskets and cannons at that point and I doubt anyone they knew owned more than a few of them.

I find it hard to believe that they anticipated any American would need the right to own a thousand Uzis.

[Cats Cats Cats]

any American would need the right to own a thousand Uzis.

You Sir have obviously never been hunting with Sarah Palin.

[TeeDub]

I find it hard to believe that they anticipated any American would need the right to own a thousand Uzis.

I don't see why owning a thousand would be any different than owning two.

It isn't like you can use any more than two at a time.

(No, I am not insinuating that there should be limits on gun rights.)