This moment in history has been look forward to with both anticipation and foreboding neither side could know where the supreme court would come down on this issue.
And as we all know now the decision of the court was beneficial for the gun rights crowd.
Aready different gun rights organizations have announced pending challenges to gun control laws across our country.
"SAF Files Texas Lawsuit Defending the Gun Rights of Citizens Living Abroad, Challenges 'Sporting Purpose' Restriction"
"CCRKBA, NRA CIVIL RIGHTS COALITION SUES SAN FRANCISCO OVER PUBLIC HOUSING GUN BAN"
"NRA Files Second Amendment Cases in Illinois, California"
Clinging To Our Rights by Wayne LaPierre
6/27/2008Thursday, June 26, 2008, will go down in history ... not as the day that the Supreme Court found a new right, but the day the Court recognized an ancient and unalienable right. The right to keep and bear arms has been with us since before the founding of this great nation. The dedication and perseverance of millions of American gun owners paid off when five justices agreed that not only does the Second Amendment protect our right to own and use firearms, but that we have a basic right of self-defense as well. The importance of the Heller decision cannot be overstated. Because of it, Americans across this country now know their right to own a gun is just as real and important as their right to speak freely or to worship God without government approval.
With the Supreme Court's monumental ruling in the Heller case, gun owners aren't going to rest. Armed with the judicial recognition that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm for any lawful purpose, we're taking the fight to the cities that have denied residents their Second Amendment rights. We're going after Chicago and those suburbs that have banned handguns. We're going after San Francisco and their laws that block Americans in poverty from owning a firearm. We're going after New York's licensing laws that allow the rich to exercise their rights, while telling working-class men and women that the Second Amendment is not for them.
We're not just going to cling to our recognized right to keep and bear arms, we're going to embrace it. We're going to make sure our right is strong, not out of arrogance, but out of concern that the fragile 5-4 decision could be ripped apart by lower court rulings, legislative overreach, and local politicians who put their elected office over the constitutional rights of their constituents.
We have to prepare for the other side to go after us, as well. The Court ruled that they may find some gun-control laws acceptable. Our opponents will try to exploit the language of the Heller decision for their own gain. Some are claiming that the court's decision was actually a victory for gun-control supporters. With our continued push, we'll make sure they're wrong ... again.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 15
I don't think I have ever hear of any gun rights organization being against reasonable restrictions.
But I guess since the majority of NRA members don't live in the projects and do not have to deal with violence generally associated with living there, they can act moraly superior and attack the City's officials as being against individual freedoms.
The supreme court has properly interpreted the second amendment to be an individual right and that right should be extended to all citizens no matter where they reside.
The wealthy, entertainers, and public figures etc. usually say they have to be able to protect themselves of because who they are; famous as it were. Yet they are the ones able to afford security, body guards, etc. It's a very weak explanation often given. Diane Feinstein herself has used it when calling for a ban in San Francisco I think it was.
The 2nd amendment is what it is, re-affirming an individual right like the 1st and so on...
Since the right to bare arms has been established and the Constitution does not say anything about convicted felons and or the mentally challanged not being able to carry guns, it will be a short time before some criminal and some sly attorney sues as well and since the Supreme Court has all ready set a precedent they can very likely win.
I have done both recently.
My CCW required me to fill out papers with a perjury clause, surrender fingerprints, and pay a fee. My application was then called in for an FBI level background check. They checked the criminal records in ALL 1700 counties in the U.S. as well as Fed records. Following the check, I was issued a CCW, my 3rd one from the same state, with no interruption.
When I purchased a handgun recently, I surrendered my license, and filled out papers with a perjury clause. The dealer then called into the State Police. They ran my info through the Insta- check system (that the NRA helped create). This checked criminal records in all 1700 counties in the U.S. as well as federal. When I was cleared through th system, I was able to purchase.
Juan, what exactly do you see as not enough in this system?
You are right, government housing should come with rules.
BUT, for you to decide that simply because someone has a need of the social "safety net", that you are then able to take away their constitutional rights is mind-boggling to me.
Just because someone is on a lower economic rung, you have decided they are even more dangerous than other Americans? Not only are you violating their rights, you are adding insult to injury in training them to not only look for the government to provide them a home in bad economic circumstances, now you want them to ONLY turn to the government in terms of their PERSONAL safety and security?
I have NO problem with a law abiding ,tax paying citizen owning and/or carrying a firearm. If they get STUPID while doing it ,we have TONS of laws to punish them. THe notion that disarming those people will solve the problem of criminal use of guns is laughable on its face.
Juan I'm unsure where you live but I've never lived in such a very liberal (classical liberal) state that it was easier to buy firearms than get a pet. Exaggeration does not aid your argument.
The Federal Constitution on this is clear and at least in that the Court finally did its job (some 70 years late). Citizens have a right to own firearms.