Supreme Court May Have Final Word on Obama’s Gun Control

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:


1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;


2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;


3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;


4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.


I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!


This is a Reblogged from




WASHINGTON – The fate of President Obama’s new and controversial gun-control initiative, which includes provisions to ban certain assault rifles and clips carrying more than 10 rounds of ammunition, may come down to whether they meet a U.S. Supreme Court standard of “dangerous and unusual weapons.’’

Federal courts over the years have consistently held the right to bear arms as extended under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not total and is open to some restrictions and regulation. The open question is whether the president’s proposals, should they pass Congress and become law, exceed constitutional boundaries.

In 2008, while asserting that a law prohibiting residents of Washington, D.C., to own handguns violates the Constitution, a majority of the court nonetheless signed on to an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, who said certain restrictions could pass constitutional muster. He made note of the “historical tradition’’ of prohibiting “dangerous and unusual weapons.’’

Anti-gun groups are confident the president’s proposals can meet any test. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence noted in a statement that, “Despite more than 500 challenges to gun laws nationwide by the gun lobby and gun criminals, courts have overwhelmingly upheld the validity of gun laws keeping guns away from dangerous people and restricting public gun possession.’’

But Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and others maintain that several Obama initiatives, including a proposed ban on so-called assault weapons, violate the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, and Inhofe vows to oppose the effort to impose the restrictions on any level.

“Statistics demonstrate that a ban on particular weapons will not significantly decrease crime,’’ Inhofe said. “Such a ban will, however, significantly decrease our rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The text of the Constitution clearly confers upon an individual the right to bear arms – and not just for the purposes of hunting as many liberals will claim. Our Founders believed that the people’s right to own guns was an important check on the powers of the government and ‘necessary to the security of a free State.’ I couldn’t agree more and I stand firm in my support of this right.”

The high court ruled in 1939 that certain types of weapons could be regulated under the Second Amendment. The case titled U.S. v. Miller involved a violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934, which required firearms, like Thompson submachine guns and sawed-off shotguns, to be registered with the predecessor to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

The defendants in the case were cited for transporting an unregistered shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches in length across state lines. The case was thrown out by a federal district judge who held the law violated the Second Amendment.

But the high court reversed. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice James C. McReynolds wrote, “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”

That decision held up – it proved to be the only Supreme Court case involving the Second Amendment for almost 70 years. During that period the federal government adopted several regulatory measures, including the Gun Control Act of 1968 that, among other things, required the licensure of gun merchants, a move that effectively ended the practice of selling guns through the mail.

The situation changed as a result of District of Columbia v. Heller, a 2008 case that challenged the constitutionality of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, which imposed the handgun restriction on D.C. residents. Scalia and the majority in this case held that individuals maintain a right to have a gun under the Second Amendment for purposes like self-protection even if such possession has nothing to do with belonging to a militia.

But the decision didn’t end there. Scalia opened the door to some forms of unspecified regulation, asserting that the Second Amendment did not grant an unlimited right to own a firearm.

“Nothing in our opinion should 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,” Scalia wrote.

Retired Justice John Paul Stevens, who dissented in the case, nonetheless said recently that the Heller decision failed to close the door on some forms of regulation.

“Prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons, on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill and laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places, such as schools and government buildings, or imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms, are specifically identified as permissible regulations,” Stevens said.

Several gun-control cases have cropped up in the federal courts since Heller. Last October, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court dismissal of a suit brought by the National Rifle Association challenging a federal law prohibiting anyone under the age of 21 from purchasing a handgun from a dealer. A unanimous panel found that “preventing handguns from easily falling into the hands of 18-to-20 year olds remains critical to public safety.”


Single Post Navigation

3 thoughts on “Supreme Court May Have Final Word on Obama’s Gun Control

  1. Greetings from California! I’m bored at work so I decided to browse your site on my iphone during lunch break. I love the knowledge you provide here and can’t wait to take a look when I get home. I’m surprised at how quick your blog loaded on my cell phone .. I’m not even using WIFI, just 3G .. Anyhow, superb blog!

  2. Hey there! This is my 1st comment here so I just wanted to give a quick shout out and say I genuinely enjoy reading your blog posts. Can you recommend any other blogs/websites/forums that cover the same topics? Thank you so much!

  3. We appreciate you mention %blogtitle . It is a truly interesting area.


Honor America

China Daily Mail

News and Opinions From Inside China


GOLD is the money of the KINGS, SILVER is the money of the GENTLEMEN, BARTER is the money of the PEASANTS, but DEBT is the money of the SLAVES!!!

My Opinion My Vote

America needs saving

America: Going Full Retard...

Word: They are acting. They are creating. They are framing their reality around you. And we … we bark at the end of our leashes. Our ambition for freedumb is at the end of our leash.


The greatest site in all the land!

I am removing this blog and I have opened a new one at:

Reclaim Our Republic

Knowledge Is Power


— Corporate whistle blower and workers’ comp claimant, now TARGETED INDIVIDUAL, whose claims exposed Misdeeds after the murder of my husband on their jobsite by the U.S. NWO Military Industrial Complex-JFK Warned Us—

Linux Power

Just another weblog

The ‘red pill’ and its opposite, ‘blue pill,‘ are pop culture terms that have become symbolic of the choice between blissful ignorance (blue) and embracing the sometimes-painful truth of reality (red). It’s time for America to take the red pill and wake up from the fog of apathy.

The Mad Jewess

Mirror Site For Reflection

Freedom Is Just Another Word...

Rules?? What Are rules? I don't need no stinking rules!!!

sharia unveiled

illuminating minds


Sudden, unexplained, unattended death and a families search for answers


TGR Intelligence Briefing | Sign up for newsletter to receive notifications | Visit us at

Dedicated to freedom in our lifetimes

News You May Have Missed

News you need to know to stay informed


Making the web a better place

%d bloggers like this: