Bravo! D.C. v. Heller

Lo que las mayorias venian reclamando hace tiempo. Un valiente fallo de la Corte afirmando los derechos civiles!

"For the first time in the nation's history, the Supreme Court recognized today that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to keep a gun at home for protection."

"The American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon," Justice Scalia wrote for the majority, in explaining why it was not enough for the Second Amendment to protect private ownership of rifles and shotguns, but not handguns.

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited," Justice Scalia wrote. "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,"

Ver AQUI

Vease aquí la reacción de los liberales (lease izquierdistas) sobre el fallo (poniendo de evidencia la mala fe de estos bichos ya que no hay motivo para concluir que la caza en Rock Creek Park pueda estar permitida):

De la Profesora Rosa Brooks, Georgetown University.

"Hooray, Now We Can Go Hunting ... in Rock Creek Park! At last! When I bag my first D.C. deer with my handgun, I will send a shoulder of venison to Justice Scalia in grateful admiration. If I manage to take out any muggers—or bystanders caught in the crossfire—I will send him their carcasses as well."

Un "great insight" de nuestro amigo el Profesor Randy Barnett ver aquí

"In other words, the Supreme Court has now rejected the "collective rights" reading of the Ninth Amendment that has been put forth by Akhil Amar and Kurt Lash. Justice Scalia adds the following footnote that deals with an example used by both to justify a collective rights model of the Bill of Rights:

JUSTICE STEVENS is of course correct . . . that the right to assemble cannot be exercised alone, but it is still an individual right, and not one conditioned upon membership in some defined “assembly,” as he contends the right to bear arms is conditioned upon membership in a defined militia. And JUSTICE STEVENS is dead wrong to think that the right to petition is “primarily collective in nature.” "