# No brainer



## Curve1 (Nov 25, 2009)

06/28/2010 
U.S. Supreme Court Rules 5-4 that the ’Right to Keep and Bear Arms’ Applies to States


_The Rutherford Institute 
WASHINGTON, DC -- In a 5-4 ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the United States Supreme Court has declared that the "right to keep and bear arms," which is guaranteed by the Second Amendment, "applies equally to the federal government and the states." The McDonald ruling expands on a 2008 decision in Heller v. District of Columbia in which the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess guns, at least for purposes of self-defense in the home. 

The Rutherford Institute had filed a friend of the court brief with the Court in McDonald v. City of Chicago. A copy of The Rutherford Institute’s amicus brief is available here. 

"The Second Amendment was appended to the Constitution to provide citizens with the means to protect themselves, and was meant to restrain overbearing legislatures at all levels of government bent upon interfering with the basic right to keep and bear arms," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "In keeping with this country’s historical roots and traditions, the Supreme Court’s decision ensures that state governments cannot ride roughshod over this bedrock principle of liberty—a right which pre-dates the establishment of the United States." 

In its 2008 ruling in Heller v. District of Columbia, the Supreme Court expressly extended the application of the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms to the federal government, holding that citizens of the District of Columbia had the inherent right, as individuals, to keep and bear arms in their homes. 

In McDonald v. City of Chicago, the City of Chicago maintained that it had the power to forbid citizens of Chicago from possessing handguns in their homes. However, as The Rutherford Institute pointed out in its brief, under the City’s argument, "virtually nothing prevents states and localities from barring citizens from possessing handguns in their homes, even for purposes of self-defense and irrespective of the serious crime problems encountered by residents of that city and other cities and states throughout the nation." 

Calling the Court’s ruling in Heller "a triumph of individual liberty over encroachment by government of any sort," the brief went on to state that "although it is clear that militias as the authors of the Second Amendment knew them do not exist today, the need for self-defense and defense of the home has not disappeared."_ 


Most of us already know what the Constitution says regarding the 2nd Amendment.
Once in a while the Supreme Court gets one right.


----------



## BigBirdVA (Nov 5, 2002)

Guess they forgot to tell the people in Chicago. 



> Just 96 hours after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Chicago's handgun ban was illegal, Chicago's City Council has approved a less restrictive set of gun restrictions, one that will allow Chicagoans to legally own handguns and other firearms.
> 
> With a 45 - 0 vote, according to the Chicago Tribune, the council approved an ordinance that allows qualified adults Chicagoans to register one handgun a month. By qualified, that means an adult with no felony convictions. People with two or more drunk driving convictions would also be prohibited from owning a gun.
> 
> ...


----------



## Curve1 (Nov 25, 2009)

That's a problem we've had for a long time.
Either the Federal goverment wants to step on the _States Rights_, or the states want to violate peoples rights........that the Constitution already clearly addresses.
No state is *suppose* to pass any legislation that violates any citizens rights that the Constitution already deals with.

But, what else is new.


----------



## UCNYbowhunter (Mar 31, 2007)

Wasn't there a law also requiring Felons to register with the city so they can keep a eye on violent felons who have used firearms to commit crimes?


----------



## Curve1 (Nov 25, 2009)

UCNYbowhunter said:


> _Wasn't there a law also requiring Felons to register with the city so they can keep a eye on violent felons who have used firearms to commit crimes?[/QUOTE_]
> 
> I dont think criminals abide by the rules, all the gunlaws in the world will not convince a criminal to obey the law.
> If someone uses a firearm to commit a crime they give up their rights....but the problem is liberal judges slapping folks on the wrist for violent crimes.
> ...


----------



## UCNYbowhunter (Mar 31, 2007)

I agree with you 100% about criminals I just read somewhere (NRA newsletter I think)it was also voted on and into law.Kinda funny that they would think there going to walk in and register.Or Chicago's Mayor will try and turn that into something to support a new gun ban.I honestly don't understand how someone (Politicians)could think a felon can buy a legal gun.Makes people shake there head as to what politicians think


----------



## Curve1 (Nov 25, 2009)

Gun laws will not prevent criminals from possessing guns.
But here in Alabama, my son [_just finished his hitch in the Marine Corp_] could not get a permit because he was not employed.......he is attending college right now.
_Liberal philosiphy _never makes sense to me......there's no common sense involved. 
My son has no criminal record ,so he should not be denied a permit. According to the Constitution, no state should have the right to require a law abiding citizen to carry a permit. Though I believe in _States rights_, a state cannot [not suppose to] over rule what the Federal Constitution already gives a citizen the right excersise.


----------

