quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Personally, I think it's a tragedy. Oh well, business as usual.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Radical left-wing attack .

quote:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not 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

or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast

doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by

felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms

in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or

laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of

arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those

“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition

of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

The majority opinion isn't available yetbut teh syllabus is one of the most weasel worded pices of crap I've ever read.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf?loc=interstitialskip

First they say that existing precedent isn't really precedent so they're not actually overturning better than a century's rulings on gun rights. Then they say that while the second ammendment does apply to individual ownership of firearms that there are undefined limits to the right:

quote:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not 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

or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast

doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by

felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms

in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or

laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of

arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those

“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition

of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

In particular this now becomes a right that SCOTUS says can be taken away by judgement of a court. Not exactly what I'd call a right then.
 
To put it bluntly the majority opinion had better be a masterpiece of legal scholarship or be utterly unrelated to the syllabus or this decision will not be respected and will get reversed by a less ideological court.