Supreme Court Finally Stands Up For Gun Owners Options

[alltracman78]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_..._co/scotus_guns

Nice to see

[laff09]

I'd like to chime in on this topic.

The reason this is so controversial.. isn't so much a second amendment fight. its a States rights issue. The Federal government is not supposed to interfere in States issues. period. It was a handgun ban in Wash DC, nothing concerning interstate commerce/trade or anything relating to cross state relations. I felt that it was a waste of federal tax dollars to even have this heard. Shouldn't the state courts be able to take care of this sufficiently?
However, I feel like handgun bans aren't really there to keep the streets gun free. Its just easier to lock a drugdealer up on gun charges for a couple years vs them getting out in 3-6 months on just drug charges, and thats why they made them illegal.

[GriffGirl]

I'd like to chime in on this topic.

The reason this is so controversial.. isn't so much a second amendment fight. its a States rights issue. The Federal government is not supposed to interfere in States issues. period. It was a handgun ban in Wash DC, nothing concerning interstate commerce/trade or anything relating to cross state relations. I felt that it was a waste of federal tax dollars to even have this heard. Shouldn't the state courts be able to take care of this sufficiently?
However, I feel like handgun bans aren't really there to keep the streets gun free. Its just easier to lock a drugdealer up on gun charges for a couple years vs them getting out in 3-6 months on just drug charges, and thats why they made them illegal.

I have to disagree with this. Each state is entitled to its own laws and constitution within the confines of the US Constitution. But federal law trumps state law, period. California's medicinal marijuana law is a perfect example of this, as is Oregon's assisted suicide law. There can be a federal raid on those doing something that is perfectly within the confines of the state law, but goes against federal law.

Further, by the argument that the Federal government is not supposed to interfere in State issues, this would mean that basically states could do whatever they wanted— segregation, polygamy, the list could go on and on. But they can't do this, because we have the Constitution to defend these rights.

Again— the rights afforded to us by the Constitution are inalienable. It is not the role or right of any state or local jurisdiction to take away those rights because they feel like they want to.

For whatever it's worth, I grew up outside of DC and I remember what it was like, especially in the early 80s when crack first came on the scene. I know all about Camden and Newark too, for that matter having left the DC area for NYC, I know all about Flatbush and BedStuy. I'm not arguing for or against guns, my argument is for upholding the Constitution.