Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns

[Gfted1]

Jun 26, 11:09 AM (ET)

 

By MARK SHERMAN

 

WASHINGTON (AP) - 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.

 

The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.

 

**** 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 **** 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.

 

I was fascinated by the bolded, I never knew the issue hadnt come before the court since its inception. Thoughts on the ruling?

[qt3.14159]

Hrmmm....

 

As the granddaughter of a card carrying member of the NRA and a believer in the 2nd amendment I have a little bit of a problem with this...

 

The second amendment wasn't put into place so that we can defend ourselves from our fellow citizens. It was put into place to protect us from our government. The right to bear arms is a measure set to deter a militaristic takeover of the nation.

[taks]

the one issue with the constitution i've always had is that rights are lumped together in one sentence. granted, related rights are lumped together, but it offers the chance for loophole interpretations. in this case, the opposition position is that since the right to bear arms is listed along with a well regulated militia, then it means you aren't guaranteed the right to bear arms unless you're in a militia. i agree the framers should have put the AND in there, i.e., a well regulated militia AND (OR would have worked, too) the right to bear arms. IMO, these are the two rights guaranteed in this clause.

 

taks

[taks]

The second amendment wasn't put into place so that we can defend ourselves from our fellow citizens. It was put into place to protect us from our government. The right to bear arms is a measure set to deter a militaristic takeover of the nation.

motive for having the weapons is immaterial. if you are prevented from carrying a gun, it's a bit difficult to do either. besides, i quite believe that the framers came from a time when it was often necessary to defend oneself from other citizens (as well as other predators) and the thought of this was on their minds when the 2nd was written.

 

taks

[Walsingham]

You are free to interpret the damn thing any way you want. But in terms English grammar and historical context I can't see any other inrepretation than that it is about regulated militias.

 

Moreover, as George Washington would tell you then, and I'm telling you now, without a regulated trained militia your guns are less than worthless if you are intending to take on a tyrannical State.

 

Like I say, if you want to have guns be my guest. I don't like them, but I have liked them, and I appreciate their utility. But PLEASE quit putting on your powdered wigs and pretending like the framers wanted you to own a .357 magnum to shoot crack addicts.

[Enoch]

The second amendment wasn't put into place so that we can defend ourselves from our fellow citizens. It was put into place to protect us from our government. The right to bear arms is a measure set to deter a militaristic takeover of the nation.

motive for having the weapons is immaterial. if you are prevented from carrying a gun, it's a bit difficult to do either. besides, i quite believe that the framers came from a time when it was often necessary to defend oneself from other citizens (as well as other predators) and the thought of this was on their minds when the 2nd was written.

 

taks

Not as much as you might think. The gun-toting frontiersman was a pretty small minority in the colonies by the late-18th century. Most of the citizens were townspeople or farmers in well-settled areas by that point. The farmers might have had a weapon to use on deer eating their crops, and the townspeople might have had one for militia duty, but 18th-century firearms are pretty poor tools for self defense against a burglar or the like.

 

I've skimmed over today's majority opinion, and it's hard to disagree with from a historical point of view. There never really was any one "original intent" of any constitutional provision-- the different founders and state legislators all had different intents in writing and ratifying the document. Thus, you can find support for both an "individual right" view of the Amendment and a "collective right" view, depending on where you look. But the former one is probably the most prevalent and straightforward reading of the text and it's history-- for the most part, the Amendment was a reaction to English history, when the Stuart monarchs used loyal militias and royal decrees to disarm people in communities opposed to their rule.

 

The other important thing to note is that the holding, in the end, was pretty narrow. It invalidated a statute because it barred people from possessing (without a permit, and the government issued zero permits) a handgun in their home. But, because the language of the 2nd Amendment implies a preservation of a pre-existing right ("shall not be infringed"), the Court looked to restrictions on gun usage under 18th century English and colonial law. (You couldn't just stroll around Boston in 1791 with a loaded musket on your shoulder.) Additionally, the court held that "dangerous and unusual weapons" can still be banned, restricting their holding to the ban on guns commonly kept for lawful purposes (such as self-defense), and declining to overrule an older decision that upheld a ban on sawed-off shotguns. Also, restrictions like background checks, bans on sale to felons or the mentally ill, and registration laws are still allowed.

 

 

Edit: Just for the record, from a policy point of view, I think widespread gun ownership in a modern society is a really dumb idea. But, in America, there are already so many guns out there that a flat ban would be ineffective. A well-enforced scheme of licensing and registration (preferrably national in scope) is the best way to go, along with banning the more exotic types of weapons that have no purpose other than mowing down crowds of people.

Edited June 26, 2008 by Enoch

[Gorgon]

American pop culture at its finest.

[qt3.14159]

The second amendment wasn't put into place so that we can defend ourselves from our fellow citizens. It was put into place to protect us from our government. The right to bear arms is a measure set to deter a militaristic takeover of the nation.

motive for having the weapons is immaterial. if you are prevented from carrying a gun, it's a bit difficult to do either. besides, i quite believe that the framers came from a time when it was often necessary to defend oneself from other citizens (as well as other predators) and the thought of this was on their minds when the 2nd was written.

 

taks

 

Perhaps...

 

I guess my problem with all of it is that I don't really like that the arguments in favor or against have begun to revolve around home defense. With all of the carrying on that people have done about the Patriot Act and how GWB is stripping us of our freedoms, etc., I guess I'm just surprised that more people don't seem to "get" the notion that our constitution / bill of rights was set up because of a mistrust of government and that the second amendment is the assurance that we have the right to stand up to whatever government comes into power.

 

That doesn't mean you won't get mowed down if you decide to fight the government and everyone else thinks you're crazy (i.e. Waco / Ruby Ridge). You will.

 

All that being said, coming from the viewpoint that the second amendment protects us from our government... I really don't like the idea of registries. Once the goverment knows where the guns are... it's just a very short step to sending out the troops to collect them.

[Walsingham]

like I said, if you want guns, be my guest. As I said in the recent thread on violence, I don't ebelieve the chokepoint for interdiction is the means of violence. It's the human being with the gun.

 

My problem in this instance is that of justifying gun ownership based on a two hundred year old document whose endorsement is at best highly debateable. If you can't do better than that I'm not impressed.

[Laozi]

I believe that every American has the right to own a gun, foggy constitutional wording and all, but I know for a fact that the "Founding Fathers" had no inclination of the advancement in technology and how it translates to the ability to mas murder. Really the whole "cult of the constitution" is insanely retarded, gun laws need to be under a microscope, BOR or not.

[Walsingham]

Actually I'm being needlessly fractious - read the what you did today thread - and apologise. The SC has to rule on the constitutional basis. That's its job.

[qt3.14159]

lol, I was rather amused by your reply since whenever we talk about 200 years being a long time you European types roll your eyes...

 

What's the saying...

 

This world will be a much more peaceful place when American's realize that fifty years is NOT a long time and Europeans realize that 50 miles isn't very far.

[Walsingham]

and Europeans realize that 50 miles isn't very far.

 

We have to think that or we'd be terrified about the Balkans.*

 

 

*hildegaard is of course an exception. We're terrified of him anyway.

[Tale]

My problem in this instance is that of justifying gun ownership based on a two hundred year old document whose endorsement is at best highly debateable. If you can't do better than that I'm not impressed.

The 2nd amendment is an amendment to the Constitution. Which, by definition, is a change to it. Which is a demonstration that it can be changed. This is not simply a document that is held onto for 200 years and not criticized, revised, or changed.

 

That is to say, the reason the right to bear arms has been a part of the Constitution for 200 years is not simply because it was part of the Constitution 200 years ago. But because there has not been significant cause for that right to be revoked.

Edited June 26, 2008 by Tale

[Gorgon]

50 miles is like 80 some kilometers. I go everywhere by bike, thats quite a long haul.

[walkerguy]

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."

 

I interpret there being allowed a militia, as I think we can all agree. And the right for individuals to bear arms (right of the people to keep and bear arms). I believe that "People" would mean the general public. Firearms should be legal widespread for self-defense until there are few of those who own them illegally. (Until violent crime is lowered significantly.) What for? Defense against fellow citizens, the government, or even a foreign threat. Regardless of whether or not a militia is maintained, people should have the right to weapons. Exclude the lunatics and violent felons- no weapons on government property or in schools, e.t.c. I think it is clear actually, that people should have the right to bear arms. I mean:

 

"right of the people to keep and bear arms"

 

Thats my interpretation. What, do you guys interpret people as the same thing as the militia?

 

And uhh...

 

The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President **** Cheney supported the appeals court ruling,

 

Word filters at their finest.

[Gorth]

lol, I was rather amused by your reply since whenever we talk about 200 years being a long time you European types roll your eyes...

Hey, my highschool celebrated it's 800th anniversary while I went there. It involved a lot of beer

[Kaftan Barlast]

Since nearly all firearms-related violence exclusively involves pistols and revolvers, it is clear to me that we need to ban the small guns and free up ownership of really big ones. Especially for home-defense, I mean what could be more effective as a deterrent than an M240 7.62mm machine gun? And I doubt any crackhead would attempt to rob a convenience store with a gun that weighs more than they do. And dont give any crap about over-penetration, property damag and hitting your neighbours and innocent passer-by's by accident, its called collateral damage for a reason. A bullet being fired in good faith is not something anyone has the right to hold you accountable for.

[Dark_Raven]

Up yours District of Columbia! The murder capital where low life criminals had guns and regular people couldn't have them to defend themselves.

[Humodour]

Up yours America! The murder capital where low-life criminals are legally allowed to own guns and the homicide rates are the highest in the world.

[Tale]

Up yours America! The murder capital where low-life criminals are legally allowed to own guns and the homicide rates are the highest in the world.

I know Honduras, Colombia, Bolivia, Venezuela, and El Salvador are in America, but that's not the America we're talking about. And Jamaica is technically the Carribean.

Edited June 27, 2008 by Tale

[Calax]

Interesting.

 

at least they didn't yell guns for everyone and start dumping them off the Court roof onto the poor reporter sods.

 

but seriously, I actually support the decision to strike down the DC law. I don't know the circumstances of the other laws that are mentioned (and I'm not sure exactly but is there a law in both washington state and DC that they were talking about or just DC?).

[Aram]

What can I say, but...

 

[Humodour]

Up yours America! The murder capital where low-life criminals are legally allowed to own guns and the homicide rates are the highest in the world.

I know Honduras, Colombia, Bolivia, Venezuela, and El Salvador are in America, but that's not the America we're talking about. And Jamaica is technically the Carribean.

 

Hah. About as unsubstantiated as the claim that more guns = less violence.

[Gorgon]

Firearms should be legal widespread for self-defense until there are few of those who own them illegally. (Until violent crime is lowered significantly.)

 

 

So one happens as a consequence of the other ?