Individual Rights Won in Today's Supreme Court Hearing , Says SAF

NEWS RELEASE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS WON IN TODAY’S SUPREME COURT HEARING, SAYS SAF BELLEVUE, WA – Today’s oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of District of Columbia v Heller produced a clear victory for the individual citizen’s right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment Foundation said. “We are confident,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, “that the high court will hand down an opinion that affirms the Second Amendment means what it says. Based on the questions that the justices asked, it is clear that they read the amicus briefs submitted by our side in support of District resident Dick Anthony Heller. We were impressed with the depth of questions asked by all of the justices, and we have no doubt that the court has a clear understanding of Second Amendment history, and that ‘the people’ are all citizens. “We believe the District presented a very weak defense of its handgun ban that is not supported by court precedent or historical fact,” he continued. “Attorney Alan Gura, and Solicitor General Paul Clement, however, both provided a clear and proper perspective on the meaning of the Second Amendment. Mr. Gura’s remarks left the justices with a clear understanding why the District’s handgun ban is unconstitutional.” Gottlieb believes that Gura, one of three attorneys representing District resident Dick Anthony Heller, who is challenging the 32-year-old handgun ban, “won the oral argument.” “While we do not expect the Supreme Court to strike down every gun law and regulation on the books,” Gottlieb said, “we anticipate that the court will rule once and for all that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental individual civil right, and that gun bans, even on specific types of commonly-owned firearms, do not stand up under even modest scrutiny. “An affirmative ruling, which we anticipate sometime in late June,” he concluded, “will provide a foundation upon which other Draconian firearms laws can be challenged, and more importantly, it will destroy a fantasy that has become a cornerstone argument for restrictive gun control laws. This should put an end to the lie that the Second Amendment only protects some mythical right of the states to organize a militia. That was not true when the amendment was written, it is not true today, and it will not be true tomorrow, regardless how hard extremist gun banners try to make it so.” -END-

< Please e-mail, distribute, and circulate to friends and family

---

Finally, one for the good guys.

---

i feel its a loss. they said the people can have guns in the home. guns of a common nature but not a military nature. military nature would be a 1911 but a .22 plinker would not. they just limited what type of firearm we can have. i bet a lot of DC residents will now rush to register there hand gun just to have it confiscated because it is of a military nature. if the military uses it we the people cant have it.
opinion of the court, page 8.
"The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for use and were not employed in a military capacity."
opinion of the court, page 2 section 2
"like most rights, the second amendment is no unlimited. it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: for example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the amendment"

we were given this right for this very reason. to wage war upon the government. Thomas Jefferson helped write the bill of rights. he also founded "The Sons of Liberty" google them. they waged war against the British well before Lexington. they even sunk the HMS Gillespi*. plus the Bill of Rights was not written by law abiding citizens. not a single one. law abiding citizens do not rebel. add that to the context of the 2nd. you could also ad that the founders were Christians, and Christ said "sell your cloak and buy a sword" sword being a military weapon.

---

I'm with ya here darthlung.....but hey, it is one for the Good Guys. I think it was a good thing that the case took place in our government's "backyard". It kinda kept the whole issue in the limelight.

I must say I am shocked at any win for gun owners.  I joined Gun Owners of America when the NRA allowed without comment a blow to be dealt to our veterans.

I am afraid that the document the liberals feel is a "living document", may speak a different language down the road.   This vote may be temporary appeasement.   

Who Is GOA? "The only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington."
-Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

With 50% of the Senate with a failing grade...I am surprised the Supremes didn't take this opportunity to vote the UN's wishes.

Someone was  saying McCain was pro-2nd Amendment...they need to look again.  He even had ads running in 2000 against guns.

However, Republicans are more in alignment with pro-gun issues. The few well-known RINOS always vote with the left.  The Republicans with a luke warm grade (riding the fence) really irk me.  

 For The 110th Congress

A+   Pro-Gun Leader: introduces pro-gun legislation. A & A-   Pro-Gun Voter: philosophically sound. B & B-   Pro-Gun Compromiser: generally leans our way. C & C-   Leans Our Way: occasionally. D & D-   Leans Anti-Gun: usually against us. F   Anti-Gun Voter: a philosophically committed anti-gunner. F-   Anti-Gun Leader: outspoken anti-gun advocate who carries anti-gun legislation. NR Not rated: Refused to answer his or her questionnaire; no track record.

United States Senate
ALABAMA SESSIONS A SHELBY B		ALASKA MURKOWSKI B STEVENS D
ARIZONA KYL C MCCAIN F-		ARKANSAS LINCOLN F PRYOR D
CALIFORNIA BOXER F- FEINSTEIN F-		COLORADO ALLARD B SALAZAR B
CONNECTICUT DODD F LIEBERMAN F		DELAWARE BIDEN F CARPER F
FLORIDA MARTINEZ A NELSON F		GEORGIA CHAMBLISS A ISAKSON A
HAWAII AKAKA F INOUYE F		IDAHO CRAIG B CRAPO A
ILLINOIS DURBIN F OBAMA F		INDIANA BAYH F LUGAR F
IOWA GRASSLEY C HARKIN F		KANSAS BROWNBACK B ROBERTS B
KENTUCKY BUNNING A MCCONNELL C		LOUISIANA LANDRIEU F VITTER A+
MAINE COLLINS F SNOWE F		MARYLAND CARDIN F- MIKULSKI F
MASSACHUSETTS KENNEDY F- KERRY F-		MICHIGAN LEVIN F STABENOW F
MINNESOTA COLEMAN B KLOBUCHAR NR		MISSISSIPPI COCHRAN C LOTT B
MISSOURI BOND B MCCASKILL NR		MONTANA BAUCUS D TESTER B
NEBRASKA HAGEL F NELSON C		NEVADA ENSIGN A REID F
NEW HAMPSHIRE GREGG C SUNUNU B		NEW JERSEY LAUTENBERG F- MENENDEZ F-
NEW MEXICO BINGAMAN F DOMENICI D		NEW YORK CLINTON F- SCHUMER F-
NORTH CAROLINA BURR B DOLE A		NORTH DAKOTA CONRAD F DORGAN F
OHIO BROWN F VOINOVICH D		OKLAHOMA COBURN A INHOFE A
OREGON SMITH F WYDEN F		PENNSYLVANIA CASEY NR SPECTER D
RHODE ISLAND REED F WHITEHOUSE NR		SOUTH CAROLINA DEMINT A GRAHAM B
SOUTH DAKOTA JOHNSON D THUNE B		TENNESSEE ALEXANDER A CORKER NR
TEXAS CORNYN A HUTCHISON B		UTAH BENNETT B HATCH C
VERMONT LEAHY F SANDERS F		VIRGINIA WARNER F WEBB NR
WASHINGTON CANTWELL F MURRAY F		WEST VIRGINIA BYRD F ROCKEFELLER F
WISCONSIN FEINGOLD F KOHL F		WYOMING ENZI A THOMAS A

---

Beyond:  I too am pleased with a favorable ruling even though it's very limited and does not affect the hundreds of other gun statutes on the books across the country.  You can bet the anti-gun crowd will not be gone for long.  In fact, they're already forwarding their own liberal interpretations of the decision which of course, is totally opposite 2d Amendment supporters.  They consider this a minor setback at best.  Pelosi immediately stated D.C. can still regulate guns.

It's damn spooky to think that 4 of the justices do not believe the 2d Amendment conferred an individual right.  Only one more solid liberal on the court and it's a whole new ballgame.  Which brings me to McCain.  He has stated he'll nominate justices like Thomas, Alito, et.al. but his record on gun issues is not good and, he can nominate all the strong Constitutionalist justices he wants but they aren't going to be confirmed.  The Senate is going to gain liberal seats, maybe even the super majority needed to outright reject anyone McCain nominates..........until he gives them the liberal justice they want.  Again, I'm happy with the ruling today but it's far from over.

What Obama and McCain said--

McCain backs gun decision, Obama straddles issue

"Voicing a stance that could help him woo conservatives and libertarians, McCain said, "This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms."

 

Senator McCain, I am well aware this is not the end, especially with the fact being you are an INVITED MEMBER of the elite little club known as the CFR.  With all the string pulling and manipulating. they not only put life back into your dead campaign, but are now trying to give you a leg up over Obama. I will remain vigilant and my skeptical eyes will be upon you.

 Did anyone ask him why he has this documented and well deserved F- regarding the 2nd Amendment rights?  Are we just suppose to smile and exclaim..."Oh what a Maverick!"

I can't determine which of the two could do the most harm to America.  Boy are the voters boxed in.

---

McCain will Flop tomorrow. He flipped today.

---

Ladies and Gentlemen, I really need to say to Paul Helmke Josh Sugarman and all the anti bill of rights pushers.

 

 

YOU GUYS LOST!!!! In your faces!!!

 

We won people but the fight is just starting. Now we need to start attacking the little peoples republics like New Jersey, New York and the other freedom hating  bill of rights violating states.  

 

We won!!!! 

---