/

U.S. Supreme Court refuses to consider case over gun rights

AFP-JIJI

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to take up a case over whether Americans have a constitutional right to bear arms in public.

It comes amid a rumbling and divisive debate between pro- and anti-gun lobbies after several high-profile shootings or massacres in recent years.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives citizens the right to bear arms, “a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country,” but states have enacted various laws governing gun ownership.

John Drake, who operates an ATM business, was challenging a strict New Jersey state law that requires people wanting to carry a handgun outside the home to demonstrate a “justifiable need.”

Backed by the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA), Drake argued that his employees need to be able to defend themselves because they are carrying large sums of money.

The NRA said in its argument backing Drake: “The Second Amendment guarantees the right to carry weapons for the purpose of self-defense — not just for self-defense within the home, but for self-defense — period.”

It added that the “right to bear arms for self-defense” was “as important outside the home as inside.”

In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to possess a gun at home for self-defense.

But in dismissing the complaint, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court of appeal decision stating that the New Jersey law is consistent with the Second Amendment.

It has declined to hear similar challenges to the concealed carry laws of New York and Maryland.

Nineteen states supported New Jersey.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence welcomed Monday’s decision, saying that “the corporate gun lobby has launched a nationwide legal assault in which they have tried — and failed — to deprive Americans of the gun laws they want and need to make their families and communities safe from gun violence, and keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

“Courts across the country have overwhelmingly refused to expand the Second Amendment into a broad right for virtually anyone to carry any gun anywhere.”

  • Charlie Sommers

    When the second amendment to the constitution was put in place the guns that were talked about were muzzle loaders. I think the founding fathers would possibly have been more cautious if they had envisioned the weapons that are available today.

    • OLE MJB

      Sorry Santa Clause, but you have no clue what guns were talked about by our founding fathers. The second amendment to the constitution states “THE RIGHT TO BARE ARMS” period, not the right to bare muzzle loaders.

      • Charlie Sommers

        I based my statement on the fact that at the time of the second amendment’s penning ALL guns were muzzle loaders. The first successful breech loader was the M1819 Hall rifle which was adopted by the army in 1819. It was still a single shot weapon and most troops preferred the simplicity and reliability of the older muskets. The first repeating rifle didn’t come into use until the American Civil War, during the 1860′s.

      • OLE MJB

        So, basically you are assuming. Assumptions are a dime a dozen and not worth a damn. I reiterate, the second amendment to the constitution states “THE RIGHT TO BARE ARMS,” period, not the right to bare just muzzle loaders.

      • Charlie Sommers

        There is no assumption on my part, the only guns available at that time were muzzle loading single shots.

        I am assuming now that you actually mean the right to bear arms rather than the right to bare arms. To have bare arms is okay in the summer but might be a bit chilly in the winter.

      • OLE MJB

        Ya, thanks for that professor!

      • Tando

        Well I guess, the right to bear arms was meant to defend freedom. I just wonder where all these Americans are to defend their freedom when their government is curtailing individual rights in the propaganda war against “Terrorism”. Are their weapons of any help in this case. I guess you have to be Amercan to understand the logic of this weapons cult.
        The rest of the developed world has opted for gun control and is therefore that much safer.

      • OLE MJB

        You just keep believing what you read, and stay nice and safe in your little fantasy world.

      • Tando

        I guess its people like you that live in a fantasy world, not willing to understand that arms in America do more harm, than protecting anything. America is paranoid, overreacting in any aspect. And before calling me retarded, you should probably reflect on your own black and white worldview.

      • Old Beau

        Shut the hell up you whiny libturd!

      • Tando

        I apreciate very much the opportunity to learn new vocabulary. After “Libtard” and “Libturd” I am very curious if there are any other variations of the the term. Is there a “Libtird”, like being tired of liberals?

      • OLE MJB

        And just what part of the developed world are you talking about libtard?????

      • 151E

        “… the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

        If you’re going to be all punctilious and literally minded in your interpretation, you should note that the founding fathers didn’t specify only ‘firearms’. So, let me ask you then, would you be in favour of letting your fellow citizens possess heavy artillery, armed drones, biological, chemical, and laser weapons too?

  • OLE MJB

    Finally, the Supreme Court did something right!