WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court struck down Chicago's ban on hand guns today and extended the reach of the 2nd Amendment as a nationwide protection against laws that infringe the "right to keep and bear arms."

The 5-4 decision voids the 1982 ordinance, one of the nation's strictest, which barred city residents from having handguns for their own use, even at home. The ruling has both local and national implications.

Two years ago, the high court ruled in a case from Washington, D.C. that the 2nd Amendment protects the rights of individuals to have a gun for self-defense. Since the District is a federal city and not a state, the court did not decide then whether the 2nd Amendment could be used to challenge other municipal ordinances or state laws.

In today's decision, the court said the constitutional protection of the 2nd Amendment extends to city and state laws, not just federal measures.

Gun-rights advocates have been closely following the Chicago case. They said a victory for the 2nd Amendment would clear the way for constitutional challenges to restrictions on firearms to be heard in federal courts nationwide.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/united-states-supreme-court-scotus-gun-control-rifle-ban-chicago-police-mayor-richard-daley-nra-second-2nd-amendment.html

maybe they will lift the ban on automatic weapons, lol, see how many get upset over that comment

Automatic weapons are not illegal, its just that the federal stamp and ammo to own one is very expensive therefore creating a very exclusive club of those with money.

I cannot understand how the supreme court can rule against any state banning firearms when the Federal government can get away with banning firearms where ever and when ever they choose.

I have a similar question as to why so many people complain when the State attempts to limit/ban firearms while the same people accept the bans enforced by Federal laws.

For all those who support the right to own and carry guns, why do you accept Federal restrictions but not state restrictions?

Let's take it a little further. Many argue that owning/carrying a gun is an equalizer. As an equalizer, it provides safety and a sense of security as protection against those who would cause others harm.

Is owning/carrying a gun then considered a basic human right, similar to food, water, shelter,and the right to protect person and family from harm?

"After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it." -William Burroughs

"Everyone has a right to bear arms. If you take guns away from legal gun owners, then the only people who have guns are the bad guys." -Bruce Willis

"You can get more with a kind word and a gun than you can with just a kind word." -Bank robber Willie Sutton/or Al Capone

The states cannot violate the bills of rights, but they can decide whether accept a federal law or deny a federal law based on the program they accept. If they place a law in the said state like Open Container the Feds give them money yearly for keeping the law......if they do away with or say F the Feds then they get no money for said law.....but drinking is not a right but a priviledge

The restrictions are pretty much staying the same anyway so it really isn't a big deal.

They did not over turn the rights of states or feds to keep restrictions or make more if needed.

yeah,, the pendulum keeps swinging,, I think I need to consider planning a move out of the states once alcholic, pot smoking, promiscuous, disease carring, gun toting americans become the norm...lol


IM really hoping it doesnt get that FAR but I have no reason to believe this country of 'freedom' loving folks will do anything to stop it,,

Ok Point one - so why can't you carry a gun in an airport? Why can't you carry a gun in a State house, or Federal building. Why can't you have a gun when martial law is declared? Why are certain employees denied the right to carry a gun to work? How do they come by that right? But it's accepted, why?


Point two: There are millions of poeple in the United States who are being denied their "human right" to carry a gun for self protection. So you would deny those people the same right to protect themselves against the very same factions that you claim you need protection from. Why?

This conversation reminds me of this episode of All in the Family every time it comes up. Definately worth watching!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLjNJI54GMM

On Democrats

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwWyzPQQHLY

Actually, they cannot legally do this. Open your Constitution and read Amendment 2. I don't accept Federal Restrictions or State restrictions, but State restrictions are more Constitutional than the former, but still absurd and without grounds.

"alcholic, pot smoking, promiscuous, disease carring, gun toting americans" have been the norm for 200+ years, msharmony. The Constitution is even written on hemp! Guess you'll have to start looking for a new country.

not sure if it should a basic right, but if they outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns... and cops

I would love that ban to be removed!

Before we rejoice too much about this temporary victory, remember that FOUR of the justices [sic] ruled AGAINST the Constitution of the United States of America. They WILL vote to take your guns AWAY when the balance of the court finally tilts to the Left ...

ummm.. if the "freedom loving folks" stop it, then it ain't very free then is it? seems like freedom is a one way street

Yes.

in texas, as long as you have a permit, you can legally carry a gun into the state capital building... not only that, but there is a line just for the permit carriers, and it is faster and they dont get searched...go figure

they will have to pry it from my cold dead fingers..