Comments about ‘Court shoots down D.C. gun ban’

Now maybe we can start getting rid of the Defenseless Victim Zones (what are incorrectly called "Weapon-free Zones).

Oh please Gary. An increased amount of guns does not equal a greater amount of injury or violence.

The swiss require that a gun is in the home of every militia man, which was, is or will be virtually all it's male citizens. It is an integral part of their lives. Gun ownership is incredibly high. Guess what Gary? Violence is low. Crime is low.

Lets contrast that with the District of Columbia? No guns whatsoever. A place that is Highly violent, Burdensome crime rates, and ridiculous murder rates.

Not enough proof for you? Look at Great Britain. Guns are virtually regulated to non-existence. Guess what Gary? People are still killing others, Violence is up. Crime up. Yet where are all these guns you seem to believe is the cause of violent behavior.

The problem with America is not too many guns, it is too few. The Criminals have too many, the law abiding citizens don't. Unless they have an expressed zeal for the 2nd Amendment, they will not go out of their way to arm themselves lawfully. Gary, Criminals don't follow laws. You are only helping them and hurting society with your over-regulations of firearms.

Law abiding citizens will need to protect themselves and their families when mobs, comprising of predominantly black youths, rampage, pillage and riot through most cities attacking anyone they see...look what happened in New Orleans with the mobs there! I know it sounds harsh to say such things but people can only be prepared for the terrible times that lay ahead if they are warned and the truth spoken.

I read the majority opinion with interest and it is well written and quiet persuasive. This ruling pretty much maintains the status quo as to gun control restrictions except for the total ban on weapons and specifically allows for the regulation and restriction of private weapons as well as specifically allowing total bans on private weapons in government buildings, schools and bans felons and persons with mental health problems from owning weapons. In some ways this is a well-balanced and reasoned opinion that maintain a Constitutional right to bear arms and at the same time to provide the power of government to ensure that reasonable and sensible restrictions are put into place.

Great day!
I encourage everyone to read the majority opinion.
(search SCOTUS Gun Ban pdf)
It is an excellent lesson in history. The one part that was most enlightening for me was from 1769 where citizens prohibited from having a gun in their homes is they didn't attend the Church of England!
It becomes clear also that the part of the 2nd Amendmant about the militia was not the operative part but only a perface. Many examples and comparisons are given.
Our very lives depend on knowing our God-given rights and the history of abuses thereto.
Thank you DN for this pretty good article.

Our founding fathers were wise concerning the 2nd Amendment. The courts should have never been involved. Thank God for this fundamental right to bear arm, and thank God that it takes two thirds of a majority to override a constitutional amendment.

"'More guns mean more violence, more grief and more injury. There is a high correlation between the two,' (Sackett) said."

Are you kidding? Mr. Sackett, try reading Lott's book on the irrefutable correlation between more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens resulting in less violent crime. If you have trouble understanding the mathematics, get help. It's too important for you to be so wilfully ignorant on the subject.

This article asks how the supreme court ruling will impact the states ability to require guns on campus.

How would this impact this? The court increased peoples ability to keep and bare arms, which is already allowed on Utah campuses. If this were to be impacted, it would have to be disallowed. Which the court ruling would not do.

Don't understand what the author of this article was thinking.

For starters, I am not the Gary S. quoted in the article. I disagree with him. :-)

Whew. The Republic survives. It's sad that it survives by a narrow 5-4 crapshoot, but at least it survives.

Looking through history, freedom-friendly leaders wanted people to have guns to help prevent government abuses. Dictators and tyrants wanted to take guns away to protect their power. I'm grateful that 5/9 of the Supreme Court sided with freedom over tyranny in this case.

I live near D.C. I hope this ruling will help D.C. fix its crime problem. If D.C. does not fully comply with the ruling, it would be a good opportunity to end D.C. home rule. I'm not sure how well D.C. would fare under Congress's control, but they can't do worse than the D.C. government has done.

This landmark decision would not have happened without the Constitution-abiding Supreme Court justices appointed in recent years. It highlights the importance of electing John McCain, who in most respects abides the Constitution himself.

Yes, I agree with the Supreme Courts decision on Second Amendment rights. Washington DC (and other States) have gone too far in taking away Constitutional Rights from US Citizens (those honest citizens without mental or psychological problems). As a side note, All States that have adopted Concealed Weapons Permits for qualifying citizens have experienced a decrease in crime for each year of adoption. What does that say about decreasing crime? Criminals could care less for the gun laws of individual States. It is time to quit punishing law abiding citizens for the actions of the criminally minded! Punish criminals by taking away their relative rights, not the rights of honest citizens! The ruling had nothing to do with "legislating from the bench"! It completely has to do with interpreting the "Constitution Of The United States" the ONLY way it reasonably can to be interpreted! The problem is some States (District) enjoy ignoring the "Constitution Of The United States" and it takes Supreme Court Cases like this one to FINALLY MAKE IT TO THE HIGHEST COURT in reeling them back consistent with Constitutional Law (Check and Balance).

I disagree that this ruling may not have some potential impact on Utah's firearm laws. Scalia specifically acknowledged government's ability to regulate the carrying of concealed weapons.

Interestingly though, his interpretation of the phrase "bear", his reference to open carry laws struck down by State Constitutions,and his noted exclusion of open carry in his list of permissable regulations seem to indicate that overly restrictive open-carry restrictions may be unconstitutional. Once the incorporation issue is addressed, and I don't think the court can square this opinion with their other incorporation case law and fail to incorporate, this issue will likely be litigated.

I always believed that the Court would in its current configuration find that an individual right existed. (Mainly based on Kennedy's revelations during oral argument.) However, I was concerned that Kennedy would insist writing the opinion and forever muddle any right granted with incomprehensible multi prong balancing tests or even insist on rational basis scrutiny that would gut any meaningful consitutional protections.

Scalia brilliantly clarified the obvious and did so without encumbering the second amendment with the Court's rediculous fundamental right jurisprudence.

Finally we had a good day for Freedom and Common Sense.

I thank God for the right to keep and bear arms. Thank you Dad for my loving upbringing and the many years we spent in the mountains hunting. I realize now, the reason I hunted was not for the sake of the hunt but to be with my dad. No wonder I stopped hunting when my dad did. without that trusty old 30-40 Krag none of those dear memories would have been possible. Can you imagine going deer hunting with out a weapon? When I vote, I will consider which of the candidates will do their best to protect my second ammendment right to own guns and thus enjoy the outdoors and have some defense for my property, home, loved ones and life.

Obama is alright with this ruling. A liberal having a Mitt moment? My guess is few conservatives will call it "flip flopping."

Under this ruling, people have a right to have guns but the court didn't restrict a states right to deturmine who can own guns, the proceedures to purchase a gun and what guns are sold.

I know, the facist in conservatism couldn't strict the hand of government in your life.

This ruling with be job security for the NRA elite.

I like it that Obama isn't crying about the evil courts. That line as gotten old because conservatives have gone to that well one too many times.

Interesting that only 5 of the 9 judges understand the second ammendment or its history. The sad part about this is possible licensing-ie registration- of firearms which will be the first step in taking away our right to self defense.

Judicial activism by conservatives
The high court's 2nd Amendment opinion makes the majority's agenda clear.

The bill of rights clearly states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged. I'm delighted that the SC, by however small a margin, reinforced that, but it left wide open the door to the further infringement at a state level. As someone who no longer keeps a handgun in my home or on my person, I still am apalled at how often the bill of rights is assailed by those who see themselves as do gooders, peace at aLL costs, I know more than you crusaders. The price of freedom is still and evetr will be eternal vigilance. Lest we forget...

To the Founding Fathers,and their wisdom for the Bill of Rights, Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!

I am amazed that the Supreme Court was finally capable of stating that the Constitution means what it says. The language of the 2nd amendment is extremely clear, and reading Stevens' dissent was almost painful, watching how he twisted meaning and logic in a vain attempt to make "the right of the people" mean something other than what it means in the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. Now if the Court would only agree that the Constitution means what it says on things like the Commerce clause...

I do have one problem with the opinion, and that is that Scalia did not indicate what level of scrutiny will be applied when judging gun restrictions. I know that he hates the 3 level classification, and I agree with him that it usually just gives judges excuses for doing what they want, but at least stating explicitly that gun control laws would be judged under strict scrutiny would have sent the proper message that you better have a VERY good reason for any gun control law you want to pass. As stated, the opinion allows people to argue that "reasonableness" means the rational basis test, and everything passes that.

Bang! Bang!
You're dead.

It is interesting to note that as all but of a few of the states passed "shall issue" concealed carry statutes, the violent crime rate in the US started to fall, and with the exception of one year, has continued to drop. HMMMMMMMM
One problem that exists is the passive nature of the general public, as it relates to meeting the requirements for a carry permit and then carrying. Too many people have this false notion that somehow law enforcement has things in control and will be there when called. Any number of the natural and man caused disasters we have seen recently illustrate the limitations of law enforcement to protect the individual. Remember, It is the 2nd ammendment that insures the rest of the constitution. It is better to have a gun handy all the time and not need it than to need it for one minute and not have one!