His quotes were in wrong order so I thought he was going a different direction.

But no, not out of habit. I'm sure he'll twist it a different way some where along the line.

the people whom should have them will never out of fear that they will be thrown in prison..while the ones that do have them and use them are thrown in prison for less time than the ones whom simply possess them..!we as a people have the right to possess and bear arms..period..

Joyce, are you just saying copy is wrong out of habit. He just said that the 2nd amendment protects individuals from the states as well as the feds.

The first 9 are for individuals! To protect us from state and fed.

Funny that this three judge panel wants to pretend they believe in states rights. However, I'm sure the same three judge panel would also rule that the state does not have the right to refuse federal stimulus money.

This has probably been addressed, but I'm too lazy to look through all the posts.

If the wording of the Second Amendment makes it applicable to only the Fed (no mention of Fed, only right shall not be infringed), then the First Amendment DEFINITELY only applies to the Fed (Congress shall make no law).

So, states can restrict free speech, press, etc. with being unconstitutional.

The 1st 10 amendments to the US Constitution were expressly designed to limit the power over the federal government. Read the Jefferson Papers as to his intent on the amendments. This matter is precisely why Roe vs Wade is such a travesty.

I for one, wish the BOZO admin. had addressed the gun control issue first,right out of the starting blocks.They could have ramped up the brown shirts and started coming door to door to collect all personal weapons.This way,a lot of us would not be forced to watch the slow destruction of the United States.Ask yourself what you would do, and be honest with yourself.When they got to your front door, would you give up your weapons freely or would you say NO? If you say NO,what do they do? Kill you on the spot and take your weapons,or come back in the middle of the night and do the same thing. My guess is the middle of the night, less witnesses.Until this comes about,most Americans are willing to sit in their homes(under a soft Tyranny) and bitch about this and that.This is the only way to separate the folks who are willing to die for their freedoms and those who are not. Don't get me wrong,I do not have a death wish, nor do I want to die by the hands of my own government.But I refuse to give up my weapons and my right to defend myself.So,with that said,let's get the party started.I'll volunteer to be first,if the Statist wants all our weapons,they can start with me. Come and get them.There I said it, and I'm proud of it, come and get mine first.Then and only then can the American people see just how far the Statist is willing to go. Oh hell,gotta go, someones here,Damn these people are fast.

So if a state decides to allow slavery, that's okay because the 13th amendment doesn't apply either, right?

"The city of Chicago has banned handguns and automatic weapons since 1982." Can someone tell me which state has AUTOMATIC gun ownership LEGAL? I thought it was outlawed in all 50 states?

Just remember: you're a guaranteed victim in a gun free zone and you’re guaranteed a victim in a gun free zone.

I do not live in GA anymore, but it seems like there is an old law in Kennesaw that states that home owners MUST own a firearm.

Wow, since 1982 gun ban in Chicago, there are NO guns there.
Idiots!

Pages 2 and 3, paragraph 3 of the ruling in Heller make it crystal clear that the Heller decision and the 2nd Amendment DO cover state and municipalities. This 3 judge panel is going directly against the specific words of the majority opinion authored by Justice Scalia. Here's the link: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf

The 7th Circuit Court ruling is rubbish.The 7th Circuit Court three-judge panel ruling is rubbish. It was the District of Columbia not the Federal Government that wrote and passed the law that was overturned in the District of Columbia v. Heller case. For all intensive purposes the District of Columbia is a municipality.

One must assume the reasoning for this ruling come from the fact that all laws passed by The District of Columbia Council are subject to congressional review . If Congress does nothing, the legislation passed by The District of Columbia Council becomes law.

I was about to say the same thing. According to this logic, the only people who can be guaranteed their constitutional rights are those living in the District of Columbia.
Somehow I do not think that was the intent of our founders.

Does this mean by the same standard that the first,fourth, fifth and other amendments do not apply to the states? I find that absurd. A Constitutional amendment either applies to all of the states or it is being violated in my view.

Why bother banning guns in this hellhole. The bad guys don't care and there seem to be more gun deaths in Chicago than anywhere else. Since when does the trash listen to guns bans? Give the law abiding citizens gun rights and watch the bad guys crawl into a corner and cry that they are being treated (and shot) as criminals as the law abiding citizens rightfully defend themselves and blow them away. Like duh..those morons supposedly running Chicago clearly have their priorities screwed up to a fairthewell..

Well this is scary…will we no longer be allowed to own guns? Thanks to the change we can believe in.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/text

I would die (or kill if necessary) to defend our right to keep and bear arms. On the other hand, I support Californians and others when they assert that their physicians may lawfully prescribe marijuana or any other drug they deem advisable, despite what the pedantic Pharisees want us to do. The DEA is Unconstitutional and should be promptly dissolved.

The principle behind these two positions is not inconsistent, as some sheep might believe. In California, as in any other Sovereign State that tells the DEA to go crawl under a rock and die, they should have the authority to arrest and punish the DEA when those thugs violate their laws. (Don't hold your breath waiting for the Governator to sprout a big enough pair to actually enforce their laws.) By the same token, if Chicago is foolish enough to prohibit lawful ownership of firearms, the Supremes should recognize that they do not have jurisdiction to undo that law either.

So, what should the federal government do? Only those things written in our Constitution. Drug prohibition isn't on that list. Neither is intrusion in Chicago's affairs despite their foolishness. The Second Amendment only constrains the federal government, not Chicago's government.

SDA: Select-fire (or "fully automatic" if you prefer) firearms are perfectly legal in most states, provided they were in civilian circulation before 1986 and you pay your $200 BS tax to the ATF to transfer ownership.

While it's true that the 1st Amendment is limited to only the Federal government (i.e. CONGRESS shall make no law...), but the 2nd Amendment makes no such statement. Therefore it must apply to all levels of government, right?

If states don't have to abide by the Bill of Rights, does that mean this panel of judges would be ok with Alabama, for instance, bringing back slavery? After all, it's only outlawed at the Federal level.

This is an inane ruling.

Didn't hundreds of thousands of Americans die in a war that ultimately decided that federal law trumps state law?

"when guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns?"

When guns are outlawed, only criminals will have guns. Which in our case is pretty much the gub'ment.