High court affirms gun rights in historic decision

[Felix The Assassin]

YES!

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j...-wL-wD91I1F080

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Silent on central questions of gun control for two centuries, the Supreme Court found its voice Thursday in a decision affirming the right to have guns for self-defense in the home and addressing a constitutional riddle almost as old as the republic over what it means to say the people may keep and bear arms.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and imperiled similar prohibitions in other cities, Chicago and San Francisco among them. Federal gun restrictions, however, were expected to remain largely intact.

The court's historic awakening on the meaning of the Second Amendment brought a curiously mixed response, muted in some unexpected places.

The reaction broke less along party lines than along the divide between cities wracked with gun violence and rural areas where gun ownership is embedded in daily life. Democrats have all but abandoned their long push for stricter gun laws at the national level after deciding it's a losing issue for them. Republicans welcomed what they called a powerful precedent.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, straddling both sides of the issue, said merely that the court did not find an unfettered right to bear arms and that the ruling "will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country." But another Chicagoan, Democratic Mayor Richard Daley, called the ruling "very frightening" and predicted more violence and higher taxes to pay for extra police if his city's gun restrictions are lost.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain welcomed the ruling as "a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom."

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, a once-vital, now-archaic grouping of citizens. That's been the heart of the gun control debate for decades.

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

President Bush said: "I applaud the Supreme Court's historic decision today confirming what has always been clear in the Constitution: the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear firearms."

The full implications of the decision, however, are not sorted out. Still to be seen, for example, is the extent to which the right to have a gun for protection in the home may extend outside the home.

Scalia said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home." The court also struck down D.C. requirements that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns. The district allows shotguns and rifles to be kept in homes if they are registered, kept unloaded and taken apart or equipped with trigger locks.

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."

But he said nothing in the 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 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."

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

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 advocates praised 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 Chicago suburbs challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.

Some Democrats also welcomed the ruling.

"This opinion should usher in a new era in which the constitutionality of government regulations of firearms are reviewed against the backdrop of this important right," said Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont.

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 the district's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and 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.

The last Supreme Court ruling on the matter came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights.

The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.

[dplax]

Originally Posted by Felix The Assassin YES!

Yes for more kids finding their parents' guns and going on a rampage at school...

Not that I wish that to happen, but with more guns...

Edit: because apparently I can't spell in the morning.

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

Pfft. What's the point?

Wasn't the intent for the people to be armed so that they could rise up against the government if need be, like what those militia people think? Do people actually believe that their rifles and handguns and anything else they could legally own could stand up to the government, which has tanks and vomit guns and flamethrowers? The framers never could have anticipated this level of technology, and so the entire thing seems futile to me.

I forget who said this, but I agree with the sentiment: Everyone should have one musket. That's all.

[Black Swan Gauntlet]

As far as I know, Illumina, you are correct. I will say that items like FISA make me nervous enough to want some kind of firearm locked away somewhere - just in case, y'know? At the same time, though...this excerpt from Ken Kesey, written shortly after the Thurston High shootings, rings pretty true to me:

"Kip Kinkel's semi-automatic held 50 rounds. What the hell does anybody need with a gun that can shoot 50 times without reloading? "For target practice," I hear from the right. Balony. What are you practicing for?

There isn't any game you can legally shoot with a .22. In fact there are damn few animals you can legally shoot with any of those makes of guns Kip owned. They have a bigger game in their sights: the customer. The .22 caliber Ruger handgun and Ruger semiautomatic rifle brought in more than a hundred million bucks for Sturm & Ruger last year. It's hard to find out what the sales were for the 9 mm Glock because Glock headquarters is in Austria. And it's my bet that if you were to trace the bloodline of Sturm and Ruger it would lead you somewhere back in Der Fodderland.

I mean let's come right out and admit it for once, you gun lovers: most pistols are made to shoot only one specis of animal, and that animal is us. And many rifles accommadate bullets that are designed to shoot that same two-legged target-- wonderful bullets, that can pierce the best police-armor made. Once they reach the flesh the slug fans out into hairsize tendrals that can turn a haunch into meat confetti. Ask a cop how he feels about those armor-piercing wonders."

Here's the link, if that piques anyone's interest.
http://intrepidtrips.com/treatise/th...homefront.html

[robertthebard]

There were 143 gun-related murders in Washington last year, compared with 135 in 1976, when the handgun ban was enacted.

Source.

Yeah, let's hear it for how effective gun control laws really are. Did you know that owning a fully automatic weapon is against the law, and yet, a fair percentage of drive bys are committed with automatic weapons? So who do these laws really affect? Law abiding citizens, since the crooks will own the weapons anyway, and you can evermore believe they support banning firearms in the home.

[dplax]

Robert, wasn't there a population increase during that period also? (I don't know, just wondering)

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

Originally Posted by robertthebard Source. Yeah, let's hear it for how effective gun control laws really are. Did you know that owning a fully automatic weapon is against the law, and yet, a fair percentage of drive bys are committed with automatic weapons? So who do these laws really affect? Law abiding citizens, since the crooks will own the weapons anyway, and you can evermore believe they support banning firearms in the home.

I think drivebys are a bad example. Aren't those mostly gang related? Gang people aren't law abiding citizens. And is the implication that people should be walking around fully armed? I don't trust the public walking around with guns, or taking them to bars or Little League games... or driving with them. Especially driving with them.

As for guns in the home... Isn't a gun in the home more dangerous for the inhabitants of the home than for an intruder, statistically speaking? It's something I've heard, but I don't care to look for said statistics at this moment.

[Felix The Assassin]

Originally Posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar I think drivebys are a bad example. Aren't those mostly gang related? Gang people aren't law abiding citizens. And is the implication that people should be walking around fully armed? I don't trust the public walking around with guns, or taking them to bars or Little League games... or driving with them. Especially driving with them. As for guns in the home... Isn't a gun in the home more dangerous for the inhabitants of the home than for an intruder, statistically speaking? It's something I've heard, but I don't care to look for said statistics at this moment.

I agree with your first segment ID. There are certain places a law abiding citizen cannot carry, which accentuates law abiding, most of which are the places you speak of, to include several other public places and schools. That is taught in the first phase of gun ownership. Driving, becomes another portion of society that you have eluded to. Again it takes law abiding citizens to do what is right, and the daily news tells us not all people are law abiding, or competent drivers, and without rage.

Guns in the home. To the untrained yes, you are correct.

Two things need to happen, IMHO should have happened several years ago.
1. Training and testing. You cannot walk in off the street and get a drivers license here in the Blue Grass state. One must take a test of knowledge, then log 60 hours of driving with a licensed driver. Only then are they able to apply for a license and take a behind the wheel test with a state tester.

How hard is it to mandate these same simple procedures into gun ownership? Once an applicant submits their background paper work and the wait begins, the training can commence, and 'must' be completed prior to purchase.

2. Crime and law enforcement. There are some guns on the market that need to go away. I say that with the same grain of salt that others say guns cause the crime, (when the gun is only the tool, the person is the perpetrator) because once one type of gun is removed, that is not enough, it becomes every gun must be removed (bill clinton tried). But the limits should go back in place. Yes, I own an SKS, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKS which is from the bill clinton era. A ten round box magazine is perfectly adequate. The gun with it's ten round capacity is fine by me, illegally owning a larger magazine then breaks the law abiding citizen status, and one must forfeit the right to own! . I do not agree with anybody outside of government agencies having anything fully automatic without licensed restrictions (gang made weapons). Federal class three license holders are probably the most watched individuals on the continent.

Focus attention to crime, and crime fighting, with an emphasis on gang related activities and known locations. I was stationed in California in the mid 1990's. Everyday Dianne Feinstein (D) was on the news about gun control etc... Folks, Dianne Feinstein is on the California state register as a licensed CCW owner! She does not want law abiding citizens to own a gun, but places herself above the common citizen and has a CCW, all the while she has state security at her disposal. Put the emphasis where it belongs, and everybody can live in harmony. For truly, a lock only keeps an honest man honest.

[Bungleau]

Nightline did a feature on the right to openly carry weapons...



John Pierce in there is a colleague of mine... Notice how with all those guns on hips, just how many of them are actually touched during the taping. And while the Nightline report "adjusts" the words, the local police said, when asked for comments about this get-together, that ""It's perfectly legal and we are not paid to editorialize on legal behavior".

Guess that didn't make for good point-counterpoint reporting...

Personally, I feel that those most opposed to the right to bear arms are those who most feel that the government, that beneficent organization, is here to take care of them and make all the bad things go away. See the "I'm voting Republican" video for details

[robertthebard]

I don't have access to a census, however, it would have had to be one hell of an increase, more like an explosion, to cause more crimes after the ban than before. I've seen this quote before, and have no idea who said it, but it still rings true, "An armed society is a polite society." Good, bad or indifferent, this is still true.

Pointing out criminal activity is exactly what I was trying to do. Just because it's illegal doesn't mean that criminals won't own the weapons. By very defiinition, they are criminals. The tried and true, if a bit cliche "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will own guns". I don't have any idea, but I just have to wonder how many of the gun crimes in my previous post were committed with legally registered firearms?