I know this is not R6 news or anything but it would be nice for us to take brake from all bashing and angry posts don't you think.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns

I won't copy the entire news article but just what the court stated.
The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks. In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons." He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.

Moved to Off-Topic

Anti-gun liberals just got PWNED!!! lol

Seriously though, this is a great first step. NRA lawyers are already filing suits using this landmark decision as a precedent in other cities with strict gun laws like San Francisco and Chicago.

Although I find it hilarious that it took the Supreme Court to tell us that the right to keep and bear arms means... the right to keep and bear arms... I never knew reading English was such a difficult task for these anti-gun law makers...

quote:

Originally posted by Demon_Mustang:

Although I find it hilarious that it took the Supreme Court to tell us that the right to keep and bear arms means... the right to keep and bear arms... I never knew reading English was such a difficult task for these anti-gun law makers...

They said that they had to distinguish whether the founding fathers meant that you could only bear arms if you are enrolled in a militia or that you can bear arms in order to form a militia if necessary to revolt.

"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."

Plain English, separated by commas, and they were VERY precise with their words: "the right of the PEOPLE" not "the right of the militia." The writers of the Constitution and the amendments didn't joke around, they meant exactly what they wrote.

All of this has to do with the fact that the PEOPLE who took up their own personal arms being part of the fight for independence, their ability to form a militia to fight off their own government if they chose to. This would have been impossible if the individuals were not allowed to possess firearms, and they knew that, so they made sure that it was there, in plain English, not the 9th Amendment, not some side note somewhere, but the SECOND Amendment, right after the very first! They obviously recognized the importance and it was one of the very first things on their mind when they wrote this.

I know that is what they always claim they are trying to "figure out", but really, it's all right there. I'm sure some lawmakers are somewhat intelligent, but I find this hilarious that they need the Supreme Court to tell them that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" meant "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I mean, WOW. Genius.

That's a great victory! FINALLY they have officially interpreted what is already there, in plain English, as Demon said. I find it funny that the same people who couldn't read what was written, are the same people who read things into the 1st Amendment that aren't even there. People like the ACLU, supposedly "defending" the 1st Amendment, by petitioning the government to make laws against religious references, ANY kind of religious references (except for the "underdogs", of course) in government institutions. Well, I've got news for them...THEY are violating the 1st Amendment by doing that. Nobody passed any laws that required those religious references, they were simply there.