Supreme Court decision handed down today

[PV29]

Remember, the justices said something about guns that were "normal and common" when the amendment was written. As that would pertain to knives, All manner of swords, bayonets, daggers and fixed blade knives were normal and common Arms at the time, and so the "reasonable restrictions" seem to have been ruled out.

This was the language that the dissent (written by bleeding heart Justice Stevens, I believe) criticized. The argument was that if someday machine guns become "popular" defense weapons, then the Second Amendment must be read to protect ownership and carry, which would result in carnage. Even though they've been proven wrong many, many times, the folks who insist on banning objects to prevent behavior always predict chaos and violence if the People are actually allowed to carry arms.

I think the "reasonable restrictions" can never be completely eliminated for any right contained within the Constitution. There will always be a "compelling state interest" and a law which is "narrowly drawn to achieve that interest" for any right of the People, including even the First Amendment. However, the ridiculous laws in NYC, Chicago, Boston and San Francisco are now going to be attacked, and hopefully they'll be defeated.

 

[gsuburban]

What surprised me was the 5 to 4 vote. So let's see 4 out of nine Supreme court justices think the Constitution is unconstitutional?

A valid concern here. Those 4 need to be demoted to small claims actions until they have it figured correctly. You either support the constitution or you don't so...why the mixed vote?

The fewer guns we have, the more crime will grow. Criminals always obey the laws right? Maybe those justices should spend about 6 months "trading places" so they can assimilate with the real people.