The Right To Bear Arms

http://www.huffingtonpost...09365.html

Supreme Court Upholds Right To Own Guns For Self-Defense

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.

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.

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."


That made me laugh out loud.

To quote Bono, Scalia "must be an acrobat, to talk like this and act like that."

For all of you strict constructionists and not reading anything into the Constitution that the Founding Fathers did not write, you can string Scalia up now.

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.

Isn't that what we call activist judges? He's not looking at just what is written in the Constitution but going to ""the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted."

Scalia would rip into anyone on the Court who did that and say they should stick to what is written in the Constitution and not go looking for other materials to support their creations.

Mars23 said:

The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to allow a citizen to maintain a way of keeping the government from forcing it's will unlawfully.

Police Officers say that citizen owned guns make their job more dangerous. I say not being able to defend myself against a government agent who IS allowed to have a gun makes my citizenship more dangerous.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

All Glory To the Hypno-Toad!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Dauphin said:

Dauphin said:

three different 'Super-' posts in a row.

HiinEnkelte said:

three different 'Super-' posts in a row.

HiinEnkelte said:

three different 'Super-' posts in a row.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

HiinEnkelte said:

three different 'Super-' posts in a row.

SUPRMAN said:

HiinEnkelte said:

three different 'Super-' posts in a row.

WOW
What are the odds on that?!!

people who legally own guns are not the problem, its the people who dont legally own them IMO
i own a hand gun and am glad i do considering the bs that happens in seemingly fine neighborhoods. more and more every place is becoming dangerous, a major part of that is people being displaced because of gentrification. they have no place to go so they take up residence renting in nice neighborhoods bringing their rif-raf with them, typically friends and relatives who have no jobs leaching off of the lessee. Its happen where I live as I write this.
the day someone decides that for some reason I owe them because of the life style they lead versa the life style I lead and breaks into my house and helps themselves is the day i will be happy i own a gun.
those types have no value for their own life let alone mine.
and the pointlessness is getting worse.
a couple days ago someone hid in some trees at an intersection and picked themselves off a couple of cyclist at random at 12 am in the morning. wtf?

I find it hard to see how this is going to reduce the use of guns in the nation...

To mention Horatio: wouldn't drastic programs to educate and give jobs to the new incoming residents/rif raf be a better and more long-term solution than more guns?...
I guess it must sound a little utopian in the present conditions, but still...

For us Europeans [well at least French/Belgians], most of whom don't own a gun, the ease of access to guns in the US is a little baffling I think.

How does this work? Everybody who owns a gun takes shooting classes? If you haven't taken any lessons, what makes you so sure that under the stress of the moment you are going to hit right, and not at something or somebody else [like your own kid who happened to be in the way for ex.]?
I would be shaking like a leaf.

Ohhhh...i thought you were talking about this:

SUPRMAN said:

They made the correct decision. We have the right to own a handgun. They did not say it was a free for all! Just that individuals can own a handgun for self defense of our homes. Like other rights some people want to ban, the legal ownership and use of a hand gun has no impact on the right of anyone. Just because you choose to not exercise said right that is not an argument to ban them Just because owning a gun doesn't interest you, just because you have a moral objection to them, are not arguments to support banning them. What ifs are likewise have no legal grounds to deny this right.


The old adage applies "when you ban guns only criminals have guns." If do not want a gun do not buy one. But do not tell your neighbor they can not have one.

WellInever said:

WellInever said:

My argument is not whether they made the "right" decision but the method they used to get there.
They used the same methodology as used to justify Roe v. Wade, which is going beyond the four corners of the Constitution to forge the decision they had
apparently decided in advance.
So if that makes Roe v. Wade a bad decision, then this one is a bad decision for the same reason.
But I gather the right won't be assailing Scalia as that activist judge on the Supreme Court who creates law out of thin air.
That's what has me ticked off.

Flo6 said:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

That seems pretty clearly to say that people have the right to own a gun. I find it interesting that people would ever argue against a right. It is like gay marriage or abortion, it has no affect on you so why would you be against it.

What we should be worried over is obvious political agendas being exercised by 8 of the 9 Justices. In this case and in the child rapist death penalty 4 of the 9 voted along the political line. Both cases should have been 9 to 0. (banning the DP for child rape and striking down the gun ban). It is scary that in both cases ONE guy voted correctly in both cases.

But I am glad this has been settled.

WellInever said:

WellInever said:

SUPRMAN said:

Dauphin said:

The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to allow a citizen to maintain a way of keeping the government from forcing it's will unlawfully.

Police Officers say that citizen owned guns make their job more dangerous. I say not being able to defend myself against a government agent who IS allowed to have a gun makes my citizenship more dangerous.

I'm only human . . .

Tremolina said:

WellInever said:

WellInever said:

The idea that you need to be the member of an established Militia is retarded. You miss the point of what a Militia WAS back in colonial times.

A militia was a gathering of armed citizens gathering for a cause. This is DISTINCTLY separate from a Standing Army like our Federal Army, Navy, or Air Force.

The idea that they would be well regulated would be so that you DON'T have mauraders grouping together under the 2nd amendment and putting themselves ABOVE constitutional law.

It's a checks and balances thing. The states, as members of the Union, are bound to the law of the second amendment. The 2nd amendment says that THE PEOPLE have a right to bare arms, AND that they have the right to form a militia.

This militia can be used to contract into Government service, just as they did in the Revolutionary War. Also, in the intrest of preventing the state governments from violating federal law, and federal governments from violating the rights of citizens as given by the Bill of Rights, these "militias" would be allowed to stand against the government.

The idea that a militia is a State owned Standing Army HOLDS NO WATER. Just by being a citizen, you have the ability to form an armed militia with other citizens. Why? Because it's "necessary to the security of a free State." Thus, in order to be prepared, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Done.

I get to keep a gun and you get too also. If we use it unlawfully, then we go to jail. If we think we used it lawfully, then we take it to the judicial system. Remember, it's always the citizens, the executives, and the justices. A balance of three. That's not so hard, is it?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

All Glory To the Hypno-Toad!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-