kbm8795

Yes...that does seem to be the conservative interpretation of the First Amendment. They don't allow access to the public airwaves of any content they find "offensive."

kbm8795

Conservatives have no problem using the government to tell people what they can, and cannot, say. They just like to mask it under the term "moral". . ."decent"...meaning any speech that isn't conservative is indecent and immoral.

We are still waiting for the long list of incidents of speech which were significantly restricted by the Fairness Doctrine or even an explanation of how the Fairness Doctrine signficantly restricted freedom of speech. Surely this should be a no-brainer, even for someone poorly schooled in media analysis.

bio-chem

this one is not going to be easily overturned. if obama is elected im more worried about the type of justice he will appoint and what will happen in future rulings on social issues

min0 lee

The Libertarian presidential candidate weighs in:

The ruling “will go down as one of the Supreme Court’s most important rulings on behalf of liberty,” says Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr.

Until today, the Court had never held that the Second Amendment directly applied to individuals. “Today’s decision marks a new era for gun rights in America,” explains Barr, who is a member of the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association. Barr also drafted the Libertarian Party’s amicus curiae brief in Heller. “By protecting an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment ensures that all Americans are able to participate in sporting activities, hunt, and protect themselves and their families,” he explains.

The right to self-defense is particularly important for women and minorities in a city like Washington, D.C. “Where crime rates are high, a gun may be the only means for law-abiding citizens to safeguard themselves and their families,” Barr notes. “Lawful gun ownership deters an untold number of crimes every year.”

But the Court’s ruling, though welcome, is not enough. “It is important to have a president who also supports the right of Americans to own firearms,” says Barr. “Sen. Barack Obama says that he believes in such a constitutional right, but he supports the District of Columbia’s ban, which gives criminals an advantage over law-abiding citizens,” notes Barr.

Sen. McCain has not advocated an absolute prohibition, “but he cosponsored legislation which could require registration of attendees at gun shows and even ban such shows,” Barr warns. And Sen. McCain’s campaign legislation “curtailed the First Amendment right of gun owners to protect their rights by participating in election campaigns.”

As part of the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment undergirds American liberty. “The individual’s right to keep and bear arms helps ensure all of our freedoms,” says Barr. “The Supreme Court’s recognition of the constitutional right to gun ownership is a recognition of the right to life, liberty, and property for all Americans.”

The speed with which that went out reveals the confidence a lot of people had that it would go this way. Nothing yet from those other presidential candidates. Earlier, Barack Obama had issued a fishy retraction of last year's unambiguous statement that "the gun ban is constitutional."

"That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator's consistent position," Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC News.

min0 lee

John McCain weighs in:

Today's decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States. For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers. I applaud this decision as well as the overturning of the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and limitations on the ability to use firearms for self-defense.

Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right -- sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.

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. But today, the Supreme Court ended forever the specious argument that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to keep and bear arms.

min0 lee

From Barack Obama:

“I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.

“As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.

bio-chem

i do not like obamas views on guns one bit

kbm8795

Most of South Carolina's history is made up of tales of southern repression and victimization. That was the state where I learned it wasn't the Civil War, or the War Between The States, but the War of Northern Aggression.

Too bad they didn't figure out that if they had shot cannons full of those nasty boiled peanuts at the Yankee troops, the war would have soon been over.

kbm8795

It makes me think of that quaint little gun shop in Virginia which gladly furnished firearms for the two university shooting sprees in the last year.

kbm8795

I always love it when the McCain campaign uses the word "elitist" to demonize Obama. Only John McSame, whose fortune stems from a second marriage after cheating on his first wife - past the age of 40. . .and a man who owns nine...or...ten...or..eleven homes around the country and conducts most of his fundraisers of $2300 a plate dinners at secluded, gated mansions, would know what an elitist is. . .

min0 lee

He is not really saying much, he is not saying he wants a total ban nor does he say he wants one in every home.

He does not want to see guns going into the wrong hands, I think we all agree on that.

I do agree that owning a gun in South Carolina is not the same as owning a gun in New York City.

min0 lee

Reason Magazine - Hit & Run > A Somewhat Skeptical Take on Heller


Radley Balko[/url] | June 26, 2008, 4:37pm
I hate to pee in the pool, here, but I'm having a hard time getting too excited about today's decision.

Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion avoids any decision on incorporating the Second Amendment to the states, and his history suggests a strong reluctance to incorporate individual rights. Scalia's opinion does interpret the Second Amendment as an individual right, but only for self-protection, and only in the home. The concept of the Second Amendment as a bulwark against an overly oppressive government seems dead.

In the past, when Scalia's limited government principles have conflicted with his law-and-order instincts, law and order has won handily. He's been a happy federalist when it comes to allowing states to infringe on individual rights, but will bring down the hammer of the federal government on states that defy the feds by giving their citizens a bit more freedom.

As Jacob Sullum noted earlier, Scalia also goes out of his way to note that the "individual right" the Court found today doesn't undo onerous regulations on the sale of guns, leaves untouched bans on "unusual or dangerous" weapons, and doesn't overturn existing bans on concealed carry.

So what's the real practical effect of today's ruling? Seems to me, it's limited to the following:

• A future Congress is barred from passing a uniform federal ban on handguns or rifles in the home. Just about any other federal regulation would probably still be okay, provided it meets the minimal Commerce Clause test in U.S. v. Lopez.

• The 600,000 residents of Washington, D.C. and residents of other federal protectorates now have the constitutional right to own a handgun, provided they meet a set of conditions put forth by the city council—the limits of which will be litigated at a future date. Also, even this right for this small group of people extends only to handguns or rifles kept in the home.
Any other city, state, or locality may still pass a gun law just as restrictive as the one struck down in D.C. And even the D.C. city council can still make its citizens jump through a number of hoops before allowing them to own a handgun.

Today's ruling gave the right a rhetorical victory (remember, elections are "all about the judges!"), but I'm not sure what it accomplished in actually protecting Second Amendment rights. To be fair, Scalia explains that Heller was basically a case of first impression, and there's much to still work out through litigation. But given the narrow reach of his opinion, I guess I'd just caution against too much optimism that any new litigation will come out the right way

min0 lee

I see nothing wrong with this, so what you have to wait a few days, if your clean you have nothing to worry about.

DaMayor

What's wrong with boiled peanuts?
*shchk shchk..locks and loads*

DaMayor

I can agree that there are differences between the states, but I'm torn on the need for/the degree of variation in regulation there should be in each.

WillBrink

What, you never been to San Fran?

- Will @ BrinkZone


The No#1 Science Based Performance, Fitness, and Bodybuilding Resource on the 'net....

WillBrink

- Will @ BrinkZone


The No#1 Science Based Performance, Fitness, and Bodybuilding Resource on the 'net....

WillBrink

No. Nothing is EVER that simple. Your state laws are what matter and still apply.

- Will @ BrinkZone


The No#1 Science Based Performance, Fitness, and Bodybuilding Resource on the 'net....

TexanTA1996

Wrong.

He's basically saying he's against gun owner's rights.

clemson357

Typical fucking liberal. He cannot take a single breath without lying. Also, he has a fundamental inability to address things for what they are, like all other liberals he must constantly bring in emotion based arguments like "save the children," "its about racial equality," and so on.

As an Illinois politican, he was one of the most anti-gun politicians in the country. He is opposed to all concealed carry. He favors licensing and registration of all guns. Most importanlty, he has said he would support a complete nationwide ban on handguns. A handgun ban was specifically the issue addressed in Heller, the highest court in the land came out directly and explicitly saying Obama's prior position is unconstitutional. Like most liberals who get to the Presidential stage, he has spent a great deal of time trying to backtrack on his previous positions, mainly because middle class America doesn't support liberal ideals.



Finally, with respect to the bolded quote, have you ever heard someone say "You can always tell a racist because they keep talking about how many Black or Hispanic friends they have?" Well, analogously, you can always tell someone who is anti-second amendment because they insist of talking about hunting every time the issue comes up. The reason being that if you can assert that the second amendment is linked to hunting, then you can ban all guns that aren't necessary for hunting. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, and everything to do with self-defense, both from criminals and from a tyranical government.

________________________

bio-chem

It's something about the form and function of how he says it. I can't really put my finger on it, but it kind of seems to be against what i've read of his previous statements.

and i disagree. chicago, washington, new york. they all have severe gun crime. but it doesnt mean lawful citizens should loose the right to gun ownership because they live there. an effort to take away my guns in my home bothers me. I am a good citizen who votes, i do not have a criminal record, or any mental issues that require treatment or medication. from my point of view no matter where i live in the united states I should be allowed to have a loaded hand gun in my home for self defence. this law assures that.

clemson357

Can you imagine an argument that First Amendment rights are stronger in certain geographical locations?

________________________

bio-chem

WOW nice point.

dg806

Don't be fooled. Someone that is not totally in support of gun owners and who dodges the question like he does and is in favor of "SOME" gun support, is in favor of "Total" gun banning. Read between the lines.

1-Andro Rx Pro-hormone

min0 lee

clemson357

Its clear that your mentality is that so long as you get in the last post on an issue, you have won. You just keep repeating the same garbage. It is akin to someone getting on the stand and confessing to murder, and then in closing arguments asserting "they still haven't proven that I committed murder."

If you cannot understand how legislation restricting the content of speech limits free speech, you are beyond help.

________________________

min0 lee

These politicians will say anything for votes.

WillBrink

You don't have to read between the lines here, he stated he was for a TOTAL BAN on CCW nation wide and a total ban on semi auto handguns. No between the lines needed here. He's just talking out of all holes in his body as politicians often do. He knows few people will look into his prior statements (most people being only slightly smarter then a house plant) and making general "I support the Const. Rights of gun owners" to garner votes regardless of whether it's actually true or not.

- Will @ BrinkZone


The No#1 Science Based Performance, Fitness, and Bodybuilding Resource on the 'net....

clemson357

Seriously, thats political double-talk. Its just lip service; something he has to say to avoid a media frenzy. You can't take everything politicians say at face value.

Really, how seriously would have take McCain if he said "I support the constitutional right to have an abortion," yet it was clear from his past voting that he wants a complete ban on abortion? What if he goes on to say "I will protect the right of all Americans to have an abortion, thats why I think women should be able to have an abortion within the first 6 hours of finding out they are pregnant, so long as they can conclusively prove that they were raped by someone in their own family." How convinced would you be that he supports abortion rights?

It is just bullshit. Saying you support something, and then casting every vote in favor of limiting and restricting it is simply dishonest and unconvincing.

________________________

min0 lee

When I say a difference I am talking about carrying a gun in a crowded subway with hudreds of passengers...when I visit my sisters upstate Rochester I can see being able to carry a concealed gun but here in the crowded city....I don't know.