Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns

grnizfrkn

Rising Star
Platinum Member
Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns


WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be

infringed."


The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.


Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.


The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.


In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."


Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."
Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.


Gun rights supporters hailed the decision. "I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.


The NRA will file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several of its suburbs challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a leading gun control advocate in Congress, criticized the ruling. "I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it," she said.


The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.
Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.


The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.


The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.


Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."
In a concluding paragraph to the his 64-page opinion, Scalia said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."
The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.


Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The

Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.


The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved

a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights.
Forty-four state constitutions contain some form of gun rights, which are not affected by the court's consideration of Washington's restrictions.

The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290
 
I'm personally inclined to agree with the decision on legal principle since I don't think D.C. should make it extremely difficult to possess a handgun.

That said, looking at the practical effects of this, I don't think that it will change much for those who want to commit crimes/violence with handguns since those are the people willing to circumvent the laws in place on possession a weapon (i.e. license/ registration) since they know they are going to be breaking the law soon with that weapon.

Second, the city just has to come up with an other ordinance that is less restrictive than the one that they had. It may still have some of the same provisions as the previous one.
 
I am for restricting handguns in every way possible. Despite what some people say, guns do kill people (albeit with the assistance of people). I also believe that with the proliferation of hand guns in this country has come a corresponding tragedy of death and injury, by hand gun.

Nevertheless, I realize that the Constitution protects the ownership of guns -- though contrary to the majority opinion today, I believe it is questionable whether the founding fathers ever intended the protection of arms in the hands of others than those who are members of a "well regulated militia." On the other hand, considering life in America in the late 1700's, perhaps it was anticipated that those who were called to defend the nation, etc., in a crisis would be expected to enlist in some kind of militia and bring with him his arms, therefore, one would be expected to have a gun in the home protected by the Constitution. Hence, I believe that the Supreme Court correctly ruled, the D.C. law barring the ownership of gun in the home is, contrary to the Constitution.

QueEx
 
Gun control doesn't work. Good luck getting the criminals and predators to turn their heat. It's not gonna happen bruh. Gun control turns law abiding citizens into victims and leaves us open to the tyranny that is rapidly sweeping over this nation.
 
Que, after all this time I think it might be fair to say you and I have a fundamental disagreement on the point of the Constitution itself. I have an unwavering belief that the point of that document was to limit government.

The authors of that document was suspicious of government in my view, so to me it is entirely consistent to think they would never have intended for a citizen of the Republic to be limited by government in regards to gun ownership. I believe they intended the right to bear arms for the average citizen as an additional check on government. All derived from the mindset that government is the overriding threat to freedom of the individual and not their fellow citizens owning a gun.
 
<font size="5"><center>What's next after Supreme Court's gun decision?</font size></center>

McClatchy Newspapers
By Michael Doyle
Thursday, June 26, 2008

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court's landmark decision Thursday striking down the District of Columbia's gun ban will have wide-ranging legal, political and public safety consequences.

There will be more lawsuits, probably lots of them. Some guns laws will survive, while others will fall. The decision will help showcase the Supreme Court as a potential issue in the 2008 presidential campaign and will put some other politicians on the spot.

Most immediately, the court's 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller poses myriad questions for which answers are still a work in progress. Here are some of them.
Q. Does this eliminate all gun restrictions?

A. No.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court's majority, stressed that the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee an "unlimited" right to bear arms. Scalia cited as legitimate longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, as well as bans on carrying firearms into schools and government buildings.

Laws imposing "conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms" are also probably safe, Scalia wrote, adding that his list of Second Amendment-friendly gun restrictions "does not purport to be exhaustive."

Q. But the ruling will extend beyond Washington, D.C.'s gun ban, right?

A. Yes, although not right away.

The latest federal compilation of state and local firearm laws is some 458 pages long, and it was published in 2005, so it's not up to date. Boston, Chicago and Denver, for instance, ban the possession and sale of assault weapons. Los Angeles and San Francisco ban the sale of .50-caliber handguns. Oakland, Calif., bans the sale of ultra-compact handguns.

An untold number of these existing laws will be subject to challenge. This will take time and money as lawsuits are filed and ordinances are revised.

"At the very least," the American Bar Association predicted in a legal filing, "(a) shift in the law will prompt years of litigation regarding the constitutionality of statutory, regulatory and administrative provisions."

Q. Will the ruling allow those who're arrested or convicted on gun charges to challenge their cases?

A. Yes.

"Virtually every defense attorney" whose client is facing "a gun count" in the indictment is obligated to seek dismissal, said Jack King, a D.C. attorney and the director of public affairs for the National Association of Criminal Defense lawyers.

The impact could be extensive because many of the gun charges are linked to drug raids, he said, adding that, "Very often guns go with drugs in this town." Fifteen percent of state inmates and 13 percent of federal inmates carried a handgun during commission of their crimes, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics figures.

Q. How about federal gun laws? Will they be affected?

A. Potentially yes, although most firearm regulations are at the state or local level.

Congress has passed a number of firearms laws in the past, such as a since-expired assault weapon ban written in 1993. Only time will tell which gets challenged next.

"I fear that the District's policy choice may well be just the first of an unknown number of dominoes to be knocked off the table," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in dissent, adding that resulting litigation will "surely give rise to a far more active judicial role."

Q. What kind of gun laws will probably survive?

A. Narrowly tailored laws may be safe, along with laws that target the most sophisticated weaponry.

Scalia and the court's majority stress D.C.'s "absolute" prohibition of handguns and the fact that the District "totally bans" such firearms. Presumably, laws that have a narrower focus will have a better chance in court.

The court also noted that the Second Amendment right to bear arms may be limited to those weapons "in common use at the time" the amendment was written. In other words: no rocket-propelled grenade launchers. Although this certainly doesn't mean only 18th century flintlocks may be legally owned, the court stressed that sawed-off shotguns as well as "M-16 rifles and the like may be banned."

Q. How about Washington, D.C., itself?

A. Most immediately, the court orders the D.C. government to issue a firearm license to Richard Heller, the District resident who challenged the gun ban. The gun ban itself, Mayor Adrian Fenty said Thursday, will technically remain on the books for at least "several weeks."

In the meantime, Fenty said, he's ordered D.C. police to "implement an orderly process for allowing qualified citizens" to register handguns.

Q. How will this decision play politically in this election year?

A. In the short term, the decision highlights the importance of the Supreme Court, and offers a wedge issue for political operatives. In the long run: Who knows?

Presumptive Republican presidential candidate John McCain instantly embraced the decision, while his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, offered a more nuanced view seemingly designed to minimize differences on the volatile gun issue. Obama stressed that, like the court's majority, he believes that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms. Obama sidestepped other parts of the decision, saying simply that it offers "much needed guidance" to officials.

As one of the Supreme Court's most closely watched decisions of the year, and one of 11 decided on a narrow 5-4 margin, the gun case may be Exhibit A in the importance of electing a candidate who's likely to appoint at least one new justice.

Below the presidential level, operatives will exploit the ruling, particularly in congressional districts where gun rights are taken seriously.

"Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, D-N.H., found herself on the losing end of the Supreme Court's ruling today, as her liberal opposition to Second Amendment rights was defeated," the National Republican Congressional Committee declared shortly after the decision was announced.

Q. How will interest groups fare?

A. Pro-gun and anti-gun groups could both benefit.

Controversy has a way of mobilizing activists, enhancing fundraising and giving volunteers a jolt of adrenalin. The fresh court, legislative and public relations challenges empowered by the court's ruling could guarantee years of full employment. As Alan Gottlieb of the small Second Amendment Foundation put it Thursday, "Our work has only just begun."
(Dave Montgomery contributed to this report.)

McClatchy Newspapers 2008

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/42356.html
 
921-06272008Morin.slideshow_main.prod_affiliate.91.jpg
 
Back
Top