CHEERFULNESS FROM US SUPREME COURT

Here are some of my favorite excerpts from the US Supreme Court in D.C. v. HELLER:


As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990):

“ ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments,
and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments,
refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community
or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection
with this country to be considered part of that community. * * * ”

". . . We start therefore with a strong presumption that
the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans. * * * "
[emphasis exultantly added by David]

" * * * Putting all of these textual elements together, we find
that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. "
[emphasis exultantly added by David again]

"Just as the First Amendment
protects modern forms of communications, ...
and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search,
the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments
that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not
in existence at the time of the founding.

We think that JUSTICE GINSBURG accurately captured the
natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase
implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose
of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes
participation in a structured military organization. [emphasis added by David]
US SUPREME COURT D.C.v. HELLER







The US SUPREME COURT cites with approval to the holding
of the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia in 1846, adopting:

In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court
construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence”
and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly.
Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause
of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced
in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English
right:
“The right of the whole people, old and young, men,
women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and
bear arms of every description, and not such merely as
are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed,
or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and
all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing
up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally
necessary to the security of a free State.

Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution,
and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers,
trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons
and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688,
conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally
incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!”
[all emphasis joyfully added by David]