Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns

Swift19 · #1 (**permalink**) 06-26-2008, 11:35 AM

WASHINGTON - Americans can keep guns at home for self-defense, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday in the justices' first-ever pronouncement on the meaning of gun rights under the Second Amendment.
ADVERTISEMENT

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most federal firearms restrictions intact.

District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty responded with a plan to require residents of the nation's capital to register their handguns. "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence," Fenty said.

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.

Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans' preferred weapon of self-defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."

Scalia's opinion dealt almost exclusively with self-defense in the home, acknowledging only briefly in his lengthy historical analysis that early Americans also valued gun rights because of hunting.

The brevity of Scalia's treatment of gun ownership for hunting and sports-shooting is explained by the case before the court. The Washington law at issue, like many gun control laws around the country, concerns heavily populated areas, not hunting grounds.

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.

Chicago mayor Richard Daley said he didn't know how the high court ruling would affect the city, but said that the ruling was "a very frightening decision." He predicted an end to Chicago's handgun ban would spark new violence and force the city to raise taxes to pay for new police.

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 Capitol Hill home a short distance from the Supreme Court.

"I'm thrilled I am now able to defend myself and my household in my home," Heller said shortly after the opinion was announced.

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.

Thursday's decision was embraced by the president, said White House press secretary Dana Perino. "This has been the administration's long-held view," Perino said. "The president is also pleased that the court concluded that the D.C. firearm laws violate that right."

White House reaction was restrained. "We're pleased that the Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment protects the right of Americans to keep and bear arms," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said.

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.

Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns - Yahoo! News

good news for people owning guns. certainly doesn't apply to me as i don't own any guns.

**Opunaya** · 06-26-2008, 11:37 AM

DAMN right I'm keepin' my guns! I wasn't gonna get rid of them no matter WHAT anyone said!

tombinghamthegreat · 06-26-2008, 11:58 PM

This ruling is just the begining. Within hours Gura(the lawyer who won this case) already filed to take on Chicago's gun ban and San Fransico ban will be contested in the next few days. It is open season on some of the unreasonable gun laws. CA is expected to be a battle ground for the gun rights movement, along with a few other states. But the down side is the ruling was a narrow victory only due to Bush appointing the judges, the 60+ pages also left some unanswered questions which will lead to further challanges down the line. Most of the current federal laws are expected to remain in effect.

**Arcángel** · 06-27-2008, 07:27 AM

Took these assholes long enough...

GentleSpikeResort · 06-27-2008, 07:40 AM

I do not mind the rights to bare arms, but at the same time, it can be absolutely fuckin' scary.

That's all I can say. :/

rightwinger · 06-28-2008, 12:57 AM

Quote:

I do not mind the rights to bare arms, but at the same time, it can be absolutely fuckin' scary.

It'd be scarier if you didn't have that right. Give the criminals a monopoly on gun ownership. Not my cup of tea.

And if "the shit goes down" you're going to want to have a gun. The most recent example, and yes O'reilly uses it I apologize, is hurricane Katrina.

You get involved in a situation like hurricane Katrina, and you don't have a gun, you have absolutely no way to defend yourself.

Even look at the LA riots, or anything like that. You have to allow the people the right to bear arms. It is their right to protect themselves. That is what the second amendment is for.

And people who try and make the argument that the second amendment guarantees the right to a "well regulated militia" those people are retards. It specifically says "PEOPLE". Probably meant to protect themselves from that well regulated militia mentioned earlier in the amendment.

tombinghamthegreat · 06-28-2008, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rightwinger

And people who try and make the argument that the second amendment guarantees the right to a "well regulated militia" those people are retards. It specifically says "PEOPLE". Probably meant to protect themselves from that well regulated militia mentioned earlier in the amendment.

You should watch on the news the anti gun politicans freaking out such as Fienstien to name one(who in 1995 said she would use the national guard to disarm everyone in the US, dispite having a gun with a CCW). This ruling should help the open carry movement ( opencarry.org ) pick up more popularity since CCW appear to not be protected. If you lived in CA, you would be pissed since the police, government, alot of people in CA and the politicans strongly believe in total gun bans. For people like me, there appears to be hope and i would like to be able to put a pistol grip, buy high capacity mags on my CA legal semi auto, magazine fed AK(also called a RAA Saiga) that i was able to get legally because of how poorly the CA laws are written.

rightwinger · 06-28-2008, 09:55 PM

Quote:

You should watch on the news the anti gun politicans freaking out such as Fienstien to name one

I can't stand her.

Quote:

who in 1995 said she would use the national guard to disarm everyone in the US, dispite having a gun with a CCW

Well, she's an ivory tower liberal and a senator.

I doubt she's ever lived in a place, where you'd want to carry a gun. Probably never been scared to walk outside in her neighborhood or anything like that.

But, seriously. I don't know what goes through these people's minds. Did they not see Hurricane Katrina? You can't rely on the government to protect you, especially in times of crisis.

BTW: Here's a comment from Feinstein in 1995:

Quote:

If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it.

Does she not realize that that is the language of a tyrant?

eta: For the record. I have no problem with restrictions on gun ownership, like background checks....and keeping them away from the mentally unstable and whatnot....but it's right there in black and white in the Constitution. The people are allowed to carry guns.

tombinghamthegreat · 06-28-2008, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rightwinger

But, seriously. I don't know what goes through these people's minds. Did they not see Hurricane Katrina? You can't rely on the government to protect you, especially in times of crisis..

Warren vs. DC, Castle Rock v. Gonzales, Maryland vs. Wilson, DeShaney v. Winnebago County, Riss v. City of New York, CA Gov't Code s. 821, 845, 846, Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, Bowers v. Devito, Souza v. City of Antioch, CA

here are a few cases that clearly state the government is not their to protect people but people still claim the police are their to protect society, even in a rich nieghborhood they are useless since they take 30 minutes to arrive and the only thing they do good is cleaning up dead bodies. If they are useless in a rich nieghborhood, imagine how useless they are in a disaster like Katrina, or in a poor nieghborhood with a gun ban. The nanny state is not effective in controlling crime.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rightwinger

Does she not realize that that is the language of a tyrant?

That is most of the CA politicans view of gun rights and it appears she does not care about the individual liberity. Just a typical CA socialist. They are still trying to pass ammo registration and it may pass, requiring the courts to overturn that law too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rightwinger

eta: For the record. I have no problem with restrictions on gun ownership, like background checks....and keeping them away from the mentally unstable and whatnot....but it's right there in black and white in the Constitution. The people are allowed to carry guns.

Yes reasonable laws like background checks are fine and should be supported but the term "reasonable" can vary. Obama reasonable gun laws views is what washington DC had which is a ban, politicans can be very tricky.