Federal judge severely limits Second Amendment rights

[Fyrguy]

http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/24/federal-judge-severely-limits-second-amendment-rights/

Excerpt:

In other words, despite the victories in the Supreme Court, the battle for Second Amendment rights in America is far from over. There is perhaps no better reminder of this unfortunate state of affairs than a recent ruling by U.S. District Judge Sue Myerscough, an appointee of President Barack Obama.

Two pro-Second Amendment groups — the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Illinois Carry — filed a lawsuit last May challenging the ban on carrying concealed guns in the Land of Lincoln, which is the only state with a complete ban on the books. The common-sense basis for the lawsuit is that Illinois’ ban on concealed carry deprives citizens of the fundamental right of self-defense, simply because they are in public.

While Judge Myerscough conceded the Second Amendment protects a “general right to carry guns that include a right to carry operable guns in public,†she tossed out the lawsuit, claiming that the “Supreme Court has not recognized a right to bear firearms outside the home.â€

As absurd as this federal judge’s ruling appears on the surface, it unfortunately finds some basis in the inchoate opinion issued four years ago by the nation’s high court in Heller. While the five-member majority in that case importantly recognized the fundamental right of an individual to keep and bear arms — and in so finding, invalidated the District’s restrictive gun control ordinance — the actual language of the opinion has been interpreted now to recognize the right to possess a firearm only inside one’s home.

[Glenn]

Just goes to show how fragile our freedoms are.

Glenn

[hipower]

First we had to listen to the endless chatter of how to interpret the very clear, concise wording of the second amendment and how it was "meant" in that form.

Now we get to see the "real" meaning of the Court's decision.

Puhleeesee!!!

[LagerHead]

I am not a lawyer but it is my understanding that the lower courts are supposed to follow the lead of the Supreme Court where precedence exists. In this case the Supreme Court fell short of saying that we have the right to carry, so unfortunately this is probably the correct legal opinion. Hopefully this will make it to the Supreme Court and get properly hashed out and guarantee our right as it was meant to be guaranteed.