McCain on gun case: "landmark victory"

With the Supreme Court jesters we have, every thing concerning the citizenry of America is off the table. It's corporate America time. Hang on to your lives, my friends, you may not have money for health insurance, food, gasoline and jobs, but Corporate Americans are having Filet Mignons, while, we the working and middle class, pay for their wonderful life. Where did America Go !!?? Who stole America !!??
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

I guess the operative words here are 'self defense'.

Self defense on the streets of DC may mean a whole different thing to someone out in the country somewhere.

I support the second amendment, but I also support localities that feel they need tougher laws to stem the tide of gun violence in their communities.

I disagree wholeheartedly with McCain on this one.

Yeeeeee hawwwwwwww!! I can git me a flamethrower. And I can finally put landmines in my front and backyard. The SCOTUS says I can!!! Hollow points please! YEEE HAWW!!!

Like all our rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, the right to bear arms is an individual right.
Just look at how well the "ban" has worked here in Chicago. CPS students are murdered in gunfire weekly and violence on the south and west sides kills hundreds a year. All this ruling will do is give law-abiding citizens a chance to defend themselves. Thank God that at least Senator McCain understands that has nothing to do with "bitterness," but rather, self-preservation. A shame that the democrats' nominee doesn't get that perched in his Ivory Tower.

Note how the Swamp reporter sets the case in the context the Left wishes it--one of "gun rights". Even though the article is on how John McCain applauds the decision as a victory for the PEOPLE'S rights. Even though the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and McCain, ALL speak of the PEOPLE'S rights.

All the Supreme Court has done is to rule that the "people's right to bear arms" means .... the people have a right to bear arms.

Since the reporter didn't link to the text of the decision, here is a link: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

Jeff,
So students should be carrying guns around with them???
PS Violence in Chicago hit a 60 year low last year thanks to our current laws. Square that.

I'd like to hear from John W. and other attorneys who post here what they think of the Court's ruling.

I don't understand how the Court could ignore the "A well regulated militia..." part of the 2nd amendment? If you agree with the Court's decision, how did the Court read into the Amendment limitations on what kind of "arms" a citizen could own or where they can take them? The only other SCOTUS decision on the 2nd Amendment was a 1930 something case that made sawed off shotguns illegal - does this decision overturn that?

This "activist" judical decisoin has opened the door for more tragedies like this one.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-joliet-boy-shot_webjun26,0,5646843.story

The Founding Fathers put "regulated" in the 2nd amendment for a reason. Why do conservative activist judges not understand that?

Where is Obama's opinion? Or have his puppet masters not told him what to say? Tough call. Will he defend the rights of citizens to protect themselves or come down on the side of the gang bangers who shoot people nightly in Chicago and not far from Obama's home?

I can't particularly argue against this. While I would not own a gun myself, I can't see denying those the right to protect themselves with "reasonable" means that they wish to.
Similar to the abortion issue (of which I also am against personally), personal protection is a private issue that all should have the right how to best determine that on their own and for their family. Without some outside source deciding what is morally acceptable to each.

So, for us who might not be the best shooter in the west, does this mean we can have hand grenades? How about personal nuclear bombs? Interestingly, the 2nd amendment doesn't have the word "gun" in it, just the right to "bear arms". The supreme court has apparently conferred this right to bear arms to the individual, and the last time I checked, we still call it nuclear arms, so by extension, I should be able to purchase and own nuclear weapons. So why are we so worried aobut Iran??

To Jackson:
you need to watch the news. Violence did not hit a 50 year low. In fact, the new police Chief just was on WGN this morning and indicated violent crime/murder was up 12% over the same previous 2 year periods. Defend yourself, it is your right.

Let's ban bullets. Doesn't sound like the Supreme Court's majority opinion said anything about banning bullets, but I must still go and read the opinion.

Wonder what Obam twisted answer will be?????

OK, I want these justices, Bush and McCain to march their behinds down every DC street, with a gun or not, and see how they feel about this "right".

Senator McCain shows his concern over the People's rights when it comes to handguns.

Too bad he doesn't show the samconern over the People's rights when it comes to Habues corpus or illegal wiretapping.

I am a Democrat. I support Obama. And I want to have the same right to own guns as any other law-abiding citizen who lives outside the City of Chicago has.

Get a clue, the gun ban did NOTHING to stop the criminals who were going to steal or illegally buy a gun. If Katrina taught us anything, it's that people must be prepared to protect themselves and their families because neither party -- Republican or Democrat -- is up for the job.

McCain just lost my vote. Drug dealers, gang members and criminals are not the ones manufacturing guns. However, they still get their hands on these guns. So that means that some American citizens that purchase guns legally are reselling guns to criminals, therefore becoming criminals themselves. If guns were only purchased for self defense then we wouldn't have any guns in the hands of criminals. The fact remains that despite efforts to track gun purchases guns are still getting from the manufacturer to criminals. For gun violence to seriously be addressed more pressure and responsibility needs to be placed on the companies that make and profit from the gun in the first place. You have to start with the source. You can’t be hard on crime and soft on gun control. Right now the Republicans seem to be pro-crime.

The correct decision was made. Chicago gun laws have done nothing except make the honest citizen easy prey for criminals. I wonder how often the mayor and the governor leave home without armed guards surrounding them? You can be sure if a mugger approaches, the mayor does not call 911 as he wants us to do! A fine double standard!

I'm sure Obama is waiting to hear what he should say. I think everyone behind the scenes script every word that comes from his mouth. He has millions of dollars in marketing campaigns behind him for presentation.

The Supreme Court simply upheld the constitution which is fair and right. Each individual should have a right to bare arms. We just have to ratchet up the laws that say - what penalties there will be for any other action than self defense, and REALLY get tough.

* * * * *
Posted by: Doug "Hussein" Zook | June 26, 2008 11:40 AM

Doug, I fear that I have already taxed the bandwidth of the Swamp too much explaining the relationship of the preamble clause (beginning with "A Well Regulated Militia . . .") to the operative clause (beginning with "the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms . . .etc."). What I suggest you do is look at my old post, which I addressed to you on the same issue, which can be found here: http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/gun_rights_supporters_livid_at.html
I have read the U.S. Supreme Court opinion and, to no one's surprise, it explains the issue much the way I did in those prior posts.

People kill each other because of lack of respect and lack of discipline, not because of of gun ownership rights.

Students should have the right to bear arms. A semester of PE should be dedicated to the proper handling and discharge of a firearm. We nurture students in their free speech rights by providing English, rhetoric, and speech classes in high school. We should nurture their 2nd amendment rights by providing structured training in firearms.

Thomas Jefferson was famous for saying that free speech we don't like should not be banned; it should be countered by more free speech (take that, McCain-Feingold!). We don't like criminals and gang-bangers terrorizing our cities? Then arm the citizenry and watch them crawl back into their holes or, better yet, go back to school and learn some life skills.

Gun laws restrict the right for law abiding citizens to defend themselves. This is a right given long before the Constitution was ever framed. Criminals do not abide by laws, what makes any naive person think more laws against guns will protect us against criminals? That is foolishness and gives a false sense of security. An armed populace is much safer against criminals.

The only shock for me was that this was not a 9-0 ruling. What constitution do the lefties use? It was comical that Stevens attempted to reference original intent in his dissent with Scalia. What a joke.

First let me say that I do not like to be around guns and that I do not own any. However I do not object to responsible people owning guns.

The Chicago law did nothing to get illegal weapons out of the hands of gangs/terrorists. There will always be ways for people to buy "illegal" contraband (guns, drugs, etc.) Law enforcement should concentrate its efforts on imprisoning those who sell illegal weapons.

There will always be people who own guns legally that do not practice good gun habits, such as keeping gun unloaded, locked up, out of reach of children, etc.

This decisions allows people to have the fundamental right to protect themselves. If someone chooses to own a gun and wishes to use it for sport of self-protection, they have the right to do so.

Responsibility cannot be legislated. While events, such as the recent toddler self-inflected gun shot incident in Joliet, are tragic, the decision points out that it is an individuals right and responsibility to practice gun safety.

I'm not suggesting that students be allowed to carry guns, but responsible adults who attend a gun safety course ought to be able to defend themselves if they wish. One needs a FOID card to possess weapons in Illinois. Why not also pass a requirement to attend a gun safety course?

So if I respond to shots fired and I come up on two families shooting at each other, who are the law abiders and who are the law breakers? Maybe it's not a gang fight but a family defending themselves. Who do I shoot first?

When the second amendment was written, it was about the limits of the federal government to confiscate arms from state militias. The laws in D.C. and Chicago are about stemming inner-city violence. The elitists here are the ones who can't tell the difference, because they are off in their gated communities, where almost no one actually owns a gun (hence the safety of their communities).
Saying an armed community is a safer community is the same as saying more crack on the street builds a stronger economy. Give me a break.

Washington DC's gun ban, just like every other similar law, was not intended to make anyone safer. Those laws were intended to make the law-abiding citizens of this country totally dependent on the police for personal protection. I don't need the cops to protect me, I'm able and willing to do that myself. The fact of the matter is that by the time the cops get there someone is dead and the criminals are gone.
Now we'll read all the posts from the cry-babies about how this will only make the streets more dangerous. The streets couldn't be any more dangerous. How many murders is enough?

Hey, " DAG", that was most astute:
"...Scalia. What a joke." What a bunch of court jesters and they are trying to define the law of the land. It might as well be in the hands of some monkeys, they would come up as good if not better rulings!! Another fine mess, President Bush got us into !! Just think, Senator " Questionable Conduct " McCain will have the opportunity, if he is mistakenly elected, to appoint some more ideologues. That sure is something to look forward to, right !!??
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

2007 saw the lowest number of homicides in Chicago since 1965. So our laws work. Claims to the contrary are nothing but pure FEAR mongering. You have a greater chance of locking your keys in your car than being a victim of violent crime if you visit Chicago today. That is FACT.

Geewiz, I'm so excited I just shot my gun off into the air! My right to own a gun is greater then my life itself. Let the shootings begin!!

Perfect!

Let's allow muskets, and pitchforks. Isn't that what the Founding Fathers wrote into the second amendment? Gang members would also learn some history as they maim and kill with their trusty "new" weapons.

The number of homicides doesn't tell the whole story. 23 CPS students have been murdered (almost all due to guns that Richie's ban didn't stop) since last Fall. There's more than half the year left to beat last year's pathetic 27 CPS students killed.
http://www.nbc5.com/news/16559132/detail.html
If you think this city is truly safe because of Daley's hairbrained "ban" then you need to wake up and get a clue.

If you go from the beginning of the school year last September, 27 CPS students have since been killed by "banned" handgun violence. This is a FACT. If you think that number is acceptable or that you have a greater chance of locking your keys in your car than a child in your west side neighborhood being murdered then you're not facing reality.

"Hey, ' DAG', that was most astute:
'...Scalia. What a joke.'"

Whoa, Don, you're sure clever, aren't you? Blind in your hatred and clearly unable to address the issues rationally and with logic, you resort to put-downs and attacks. You scare me, Don. Excuse me while I polish my .38 Baretta.

When it comes to the Constitution, I sure hope we have nine ideologues on the bench who recognize their role is to interpret laws with respect to original intent.

ornery: I'm still waiting for that Constitutional quote that codifies a right to privacy. You might want to start with the fourteenth amendment but, please, no emanations. We'll be waiting a long, long time because it's not there. No right to privacy = no right to an abortion. Let's get that issue back into the hands of the people/states where it belongs.

"syj"

Did you read that article? It was a stolen gun. Surprisingly no one has any idea where it came from....Right. I don't think stealing guns is protected by the 2nd amendment. It’s tragic that kids are dying because of poor choices made by their guardians who have chosen to participate or at lease condone illegal activities.

No restrictions on guns is working well for Iraq.

Today, I cry for my country. This ruling has just made it much more dangerous to live in. Misinterpretation by a Republican oriented Supreme Court that knows this will be it's only chance to change this law. This will be the Bush legacy: a country that isn't safe for it's citizens in or out of it. Fear has won, along with the NRA's lobby dollars. You gonna fix that Mr. McCain? Thanks SCOTUS for selling us all down this river of fear.

Jeff, and anyone else that disagrees,
Look at the number of emergency phone calls to locksmiths on any given day and compare that to the number of shootings. I stand by my FACTS. You are more likely to lock your keys in your car than you are to be the victim of violent crime in Chicago today.

Posted by: syj | June 26, 2008 11:50 AM

That's not really the issue. We should make sure parents, guardians, criminals, etc. are held accountable when a child dies from a gun in this manner. Someone, somehwere allowed this child to get the gun. He/she should be punished.

In other news a 3 year old was shot in the head playing with a gun today in Chicago. Yes, that is what we need - everyone get a gun.

I'll bet McCain would feel differently if his 3 year old nephew was dead today.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-joliet-boy-shot_webjun26,0,5646843.story

Relieved that the court ruled on this. I am a gun owner for protection, hunting, and sport. I rely on nobody but myself. It is a shame that people in Chicago and elsewhere must rely on the government for protection. When that government is not available, or too busy dealing with other problems, you will be stuck. Countries in Europe with high rates of gun ownership have exceptionally low crime. Countries with extremely strict gun control have very high rates of crime. Take a look at Chicago--all the crimes and murders committed by the criminals, who don't give a hoot about gun laws. Well, the people should be allowed to defend themselves since nobody else will.

Fact - If you own a gun, you are far more likely to be killed by it than by an intruder.

I would like to know if anyone on the Supreme Court has an inerest in guns or received anything from the NRA....

To go against the second amendment is to go against the foundations of America. If guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns.

Wow! Some really far out FACTS being vomitted by people who obviously have no clue as to what a FACT might even be. To the confused cop?? You must have slept through your training there fella. You're supposed to shoot at the person who is shooting at you or you could just say "Drop your weapons, this is the Police" and see what happen's. The law abiding citizen will drop his/her weapon and the criminal will fire a few off at you! It's truely unfortunate that on the issue of firearm ownership, there is such a hateful and decisive anti-gun position. If you don't own a car, you won't lock your keys in it (if that's your biggest worry) and if you don't own a gun you won't get killed with it now will you? If you detest guns, that's your opinion and you shall live with it when some criminal has a gun to your head but if I want to own one legally, you can have your opinion and call me names but don't even try to keep me from my right to legally own a firearm! Who was the idiot comparing this SC opinion to legalizing nuclear weapons? That's the ignorance that gives the anti-gun crowd a name. That and spewing falacy as FACT and actually thinking people shoudl believe your phoney statements about crime statistics and anti-gun laws.

"Perfect!

Let's allow muskets, and pitchforks. Isn't that what the Founding Fathers wrote into the second amendment?"

Ah the worn out "technology" argument. So taken to that extreme, let's ban the internet as the founding fathers could not have imagined protecting the filth that can be spammed into your mailbox. Further let's ban any religion and or other "social tendencies" that the founders could not foresee ....

Oh yeah, that would make us like all of those countries that liberals like to glow on about but won't dare move to ...

More Guns=More Gun Death and Injury:
http://www.endgunviolence.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7B0D44C5F1-C425-4ACA-B209-0D51F4F97474%7D&DE=%7BCBC8379A-D930-4B9D-95EF-05BDDD5A099E%7D

Violent crime is relatively rare in Minnesota. Additionally, most murders and assaults happen between individuals known to each other. In 2001, of the 111 Minnesota homicide victims:

24% were murdered by a member of their nuclear family
63% were murdered by another family member or friend or relative
6% were murdered by strangers
in 7% the relationship was unknown
Crime prevention specialists do not recommend guns for self protection. Handguns can present very serious safety considerations around the home. Keeping a weapon loaded and accessible is especially dangerous for households with children. A handgun can be used against you in an attack if it is taken away. Nationally, thousands of unsecured guns are stolen in residential burglaries each year.

It makes sense and intuitively and research supports the premise: more guns=more gun death and injury. Guns do not make us safer.

This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms. But today, the Supreme Court ended forever the specious argument that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to keep and bear arms."

Sustitute "a woman's right to choose" for "keep and bear arms" I guess this means Roe v Wade ended forever another specious argument!

Rob--You got it! If the Supremes rule against RRR, it's an illegitimate ruling by activist judges. But if it goes the other way, they've ENDED FOREVER a specious argument. Just like "Separate But Equal" ended the segregationist debate--Eh?

This would be a landmark decision IF the people of this country would take accountability and responsibility for their actions, however because it has become increasingly apparent that we're existing in the abyss known as narcissism, than we should lose the right to bear arms and every other benefit to being an American. To be American used to mean that you tried to prosper united as a country, but these days it seems more like everyone is trying to grab what they can. I thank the current administration for that direction the country has gone and THAT is why we need a change. Until people are ready to be responsible as a whole, than guns should be banned.

The only "landmark" about this decision is the Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment as conferring an individual as opposed to a collective right to bear arms. The practical effect is hardly "landmark," since the Court only held that an absolute prohibition against possession of guns in one's home violates the Second Amendment. Justice Scalia also explained that this Second Amendment right is not absolute and subject to regulation as other individual constitutional rights. The decision should have little practical effect other than with respect to similar absolute bans in one's home.

Simple solution, if weapons scare you don't own one. If you would like a sign to post in front of your home declaring that it is a "GUN FREE ZONE" please contact the NRA.

Great victory for freedom today!!

Anyone who doesn't think this nations founders did not want individual citizens to own firearms is simply misinformed or ignorant of the historical facts. Educate yourself. They had just had a REVOLUTION and thrown off the yoke of a Tyrannical Oligarchy. These people were REVOLUTIONARIES. They wanted citizens to have weapons to defend themselves not only from Foreign powers, but from the Government at large if it became tyrannical. Also worth noting is that Dianne Feinstein, miss gun control, had a Concealed weapons permit while Mayor of San Francisco. Johnny Carson had one, Sammy Davis Jr. had one. Sly Stallone had one. Sean Penn HAS one. Feinstein thinks it's ok for the Elite to have this right but doesn't trust the people. I trust the American People and want them to have all the freedoms possible. If you want to live in a gun free country, you can go back in time to 1941 and live in either of the 2 countries that had the strictest gun control in the world at the time: the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

Anyone who thinks this nations founders did not want individual citizens to own firearms is simply misinformed or ignorant of the historical facts. Educate yourself. They had just had a REVOLUTION and thrown off the yoke of a Tyrannical Oligarchy. These people were REVOLUTIONARYS. They wanted citizens to have weapons to defend themselves not only from Foreign powers, but from the Government at large if it became tyrannical. Also worth noting is that Dianne Feinstein, miss gun control, had a concealed weapons permit while Mayor of San Francisco. Johnny Carson had one, Sammy Davis Jr. had one. Sly Stallone had one. Sean Penn HAS one. Feinstein thinks it's ok for the Elite to have this right but doesn't trust the people. I trust the American People and want them to have all the freedoms possible. If you want to live in a gun free country, you can go back in time to 1941 and live in either of the 2 countries that had the strictest gun control in the world at the time: the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Have a nice trip.

Great victory for freedom today!!

Posted by: ralph | June 26, 2008 5:11 PM
* * * * *
Well, maybe. I think of the whole thing as rather anticlimactic. It's not like we got some new freedom we didn't have before. The Supreme Court simply said "the right of the People to keep and bear Arms" means that people have the personal right to possess firearms. If it didn't mean that before, I don't know what else it could have meant. So, what did we gain?

OMG...some of you must have been sleeping in your American History Classes. I guess it stands to reason that you don't know the facts. you plrobably don't know how to research a subject if you were asleep in school.

Fact: Crime rises when hand gun bans are put into place.

FACT: Criminals don't care about hand gun laws.

Fact: Our founding fathers wanted us to be able to protect ourselves against both criminal and an oppressive government.

And you people vote?!?!? There should be a test that one has to pass before they are allowed to vote!

Please read the US Supreme Court decision here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

McCain has garnered my vote, why ? you might ask. It is because he perceives the value of the Constitution,.
I have been a registered Democrat all of my life, but, in this election, I view Senator McCain as most likely to protect America and my inalienable rights.

Criminals gain access to guns by illegal means. Lets make crimes with a Gun really tough, life imprisonment for example, and leave law abiding citizens alone.

Imprisonment Violent Offenders and freedom for law Abiders

Yeah, we all need guns for protection. Consider the 8-yr old boy sitting in a van with his parents in Chicago recently who was hit multiple times by a drive-by gunman. We failed him: we didn't arm him. Shame on us. I'm sick of this "guns for defense" angle: anyone thinking that that is legit is an idiot.

The gun was invented as a means to fight, a means to wage war, and has become a means to do harm to others, whether they deserve it or not.

There's a thing called escalation. No matter what we use to defend ourselves, whether it be our fists, or a chunk of metal flying faster than the speed of sound, there's always something bigger.

I don't think the ability to defend yourself is a bad thing. I think It's unfair to take the life of someone else, no matter what they did, because who gave us that right? Tell me where in the constitution it says "We the people have the right to seek revenge and act as God."

Just as many children and teenagers, as innocent as those killed by stray bullets in violent neighborhoods, or by someone pulling out a semi-automatic in a school classroom, are killed by accidental shootings in homes, on hunting trips, in war.

The entire world should ban this weapon, but until that happens, don't live in fear. Live in hope.

I'll vote for John McCain because I know where he stands. Obama, on the other hand, is indecisive and chooses to take the path of least resistance in every issue, and often offers conflicting positions. This country is looking for a leader like John McCain, not some wishy washy guy like Obama.

Of course, McCain has to use his statement on the Supreme Court ruling as an opportunity to distort Obama's position. This guy has no class.

We should have the right to bear arms to protect ourselves?? ..to defend ourselves?? How do you defend or protect yourself against the nut who's already killed you?

"Tell me where in the constitution it says 'We the people have the right to seek revenge and act as God.'"
* * * * *
Posted by: Glenn | June 26, 2008 9:35 PM

Well, for starters, its in the Fifth Amendment. Go read it.

To Scarzo,
Sir, when the constitution was written, state militia members took their muskets home with them after drill. When you fit that into your logic, the constitution says that citizens have a protected right to have guns in their homes.