[新闻]Now THIS is nuts

入得谷来,祸福自求。
Post Reply
幻儿
Posts: 1636
Joined: 2007-07-31 10:47

[新闻]Now THIS is nuts

Post by 幻儿 » 2008-06-26 9:32

拥有枪械被最高法院的五位大法官定义为“individual's right”,也就是说这个权利和第一修正案里的freedom of speech and press, religion, assembly and petition处于同等的地位。以后再要限制这个权利就难了。
最高法院现在是4个保守派,4个自由派,每次裁决都阵线分明,只有Kennedy是墙头草,他站哪边哪边胜。这就是美国人引以自豪的神圣宪法。 :speechless001:

June 27, 2008
Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights
By DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON ― The Supreme Court declared for the first time on Thursday that the Constitution protects an individual’s right to have a gun, not just the right of the states to maintain militias.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the 5-to-4 decision, said the Constitution does not allow “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.” In so declaring, the majority found that a gun-control law in the nation’s capital went too far in making it nearly impossible to own a handgun.

The decision upheld a federal appeals court ruling that the District of Columbia’s gun law, one of the strictest in the country, went beyond constitutional limits. Not only did the 1976 law make it practically impossible for an individual to legally possess a handgun in the District, but it spelled out rules for the storage of rifles and shotguns.

But the long-awaited decision did not necessarily mean that gun laws from coast to coast, many of them far less restrictive than Washington’s, would be swept aside.

Joining Justice Scalia were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas, Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

A dissent by Justice John Paul Stevens asserted that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.” Joining him were Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

The high court’s ruling was the first since 1939 to deal with the scope of the Second Amendment, and the first ever to directly address the meaning of the amendment’s ambiguous, comma-laden text: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The court concluded that the amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, but it also said that the right is not absolute, opening the door for more fights in the future. Lawmakers across the country may look to the decision as a blueprint for writing new legislation to satisfy the demands of constituents who say there is too much regulation of firearms now, or too little, depending on the sentiments in their regions.

In March 2007, Washington city officials expressed disappointment and outrage when the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned the city ordinance. The Supreme Court ruling is sure to prompt work on a new ordinance that can withstand high court scrutiny.

The last time the Supreme Court weighed a case involving the Second Amendment, in 1939, it decided a narrower question, finding that the Constitution did not protect any right to possess a specific type of firearm, the sawed-off shotgun.

By contrast, the issues in the District of Columbia case seemed much more “mainstream,” if that term can be used in reference to gun-control issues. When the justices announced on Nov. 20 that they were accepting the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290, they indicated that they would go to the heart of the long debate.

The question, they said, is whether the district’s restrictions on firearms “violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes.”

Dick Anthony Heller, a security guard who carries a handgun for his job protecting federal judiciary offices, challenged the District of Columbia’s law after his request for a license to keep his gun at home was rejected.

When the case was argued before the justices on March 18, Mr. Heller’s lawyer, Alan Gura, did not assert that the Second Amendment precluded any kind of ban related to gun possession. He said that a ban on the shipment of machine guns and sawed-off shotguns would be acceptable, and in answer to a question from the justices, so, too, might be a prohibition on guns in schools. Some of the justices signaled during arguments that they thought the District’s near-total ban on handguns went too far.

A legislature “has a great deal of leeway in regulating firearms,” Mr. Gura argued, but not to the extent of virtually banning them in homes.

The Washington law not only established high barriers to the private possession of handguns, it also required that rifles and shotguns be kept either in a disassembled state or under a trigger lock.

Walter Dellinger, the lawyer who argued for the district on March 18, asserted that “the people” and “the militia” were essentially the same, and that the Second Amendment gave people the right to bear arms only in connection with their militia service.

Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, representing the federal government, argued on behalf of the individual-rights position, which has been the Bush administration’s policy. But he said that the appeals court had also gone too far in overturning the ordinance and that the right to bear arms was always subject to “reasonable regulations.”
Last edited by 幻儿 on 2008-06-26 9:41, edited 1 time in total.

Knowing
Posts: 34487
Joined: 2003-11-22 20:37

Post by Knowing » 2008-06-26 9:36

THIS IS NUTS!
有事找我请发站内消息

Knowing
Posts: 34487
Joined: 2003-11-22 20:37

Post by Knowing » 2008-06-26 9:47

拥有枪械被最高法院的五位大法官定义为“individual's right”,也就是说这个权利和第一修正案里的freedom of speech and press, religion, assembly and petition处于同等的地位。以后再要限制这个权利就难了。
最高法院现在是4个保守派,4个自由派,每次裁决都阵线分明,只有Kennedy是墙头草,他站哪边哪边胜。这就是美国人引以自豪的神圣宪法。



所以同学们,绝对绝对绝对不能再选共和党了呀!共和党再当四年八年,塞进一个保守派法官,就完蛋了!
有事找我请发站内消息

tiffany
Posts: 24866
Joined: 2003-11-22 20:59

Post by tiffany » 2008-06-26 9:59

呃,老子没有选举权⋯⋯
乡音无改鬓毛衰

洛洛
Posts: 2564
Joined: 2003-12-05 12:35

Post by 洛洛 » 2008-06-26 10:17

Knowing wrote:所以同学们,绝对绝对绝对不能再选共和党了呀!共和党再当四年八年,塞进一个保守派法官,就完蛋了!
我看那本讲述supreme court的《the nine》(没看完),选什么法官也得看时候。老布什任期好多法官死掉/辞职,克林顿虽然任期长,可是好像只有一次机会任命法官。
混坛上另一颗新星
luoluo11.ycool.com

Post Reply