Supreme Court upholds the Right to Bear Arms

[SuperJerk 0]

Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns

 

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.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_..._co/scotus_guns

 

 

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.

 

Thoughts?

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Next lawsuit - New York City, though they dont have a ban, the lengths to which someone has to go to to get a handgun permit make it essentially a ban.

 

 

[At Home 0]

I'm not going to favor repealling a constitutional right, but I think that the right to bear arms was a much, much different right two centuries ago than it is today. With gun-related deaths in the pentuple digits, something's going wrong.

 

Cue Penn & Teller

THE BEST DEFENSE AGAINST A RUNAWAY GOVERNMENT IS A WELL ARMED CITIZEN ARMY

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Well my opinion on the matter is that I think laws against gun ownership only disarm the citizenry against criminals who gets guns on the black market or through other illegal channels. How much so is up for debate, but I'm not convinced that just getting rid of guns stops violent crime. In fact, the crime wave in Chicago recently doesn't show much for that city supposedly protecting its citizenry with the ban.

 

Local gun bans won't work because people could just get guns in other localities (as the D.C. gun ban shows). However, a national ban will never take place and if they tried it I think you'd see people finally wake up and react, even violently.

 

And while the framer's may have had a different mindset on guns, we really don't have state militias anymore and I don't buy into the National Guard functioning as one because the federal government oversees/can use those (as we see in Iraq).

 

I guess its just my heavy distrust for the federal government to do much right, but I definitely do not want the federal government controlling all the weaponry because as we see in disaster after disaster (Hurricane Katrina comes to mind), when you rely on the federal government to save you then your just setting yourself up to be screwed over.

 

I just don't believe that a bunch of criminals thugs should be able to dictate the terms of gun use for the other millions of Americans who own firearms and use them responsibly. That said, I do favor increased punishments for criminals who use guns and don't believe they should be able to own guns again due to their actions.

[Jingus 0]

I wish I could find the report I saw, but it basically said that the majority of gun violence was committed with illegal guns anyway. That is, guns which weren't registered and were used by people which the law already said weren't supposed to have those guns. A new ban will not do anything to solve that.

[At Home 0]

I just think it is no coincidence at all that countries with low or even no gun ownership rates have correspondingly low gun-related death and crime rates.

[At Home 0]

Next lawsuit - New York City, though they dont have a ban, the lengths to which someone has to go to to get a handgun permit make it essentially a ban.

 

Holy shit, you can sue a city for being a bureaucracy?

[Jingus 0]

I just think it is no coincidence at all that countries with low or even no gun ownership rates have correspondingly low gun-related death and crime rates.

Obviously there's a correlation. But those countries also had a hell of a lot less guns to begin with than we do. It's a lot easier for a Japan or a United Kingdom to crack down on guns; they've had those laws in place for decades, and it's easier to keep a lid on the black market in a much smaller geographic area like that. But here's America, which already has many more guns than people, plus wide-open borders for smuggling and the world's biggest black market in every item imaginable. And it's a country where millions upon millions of people like having guns. How would you even begin to take all those guns away?

[Dobbs 3K 0]

You don't need to take the guns away...we need to do a better job punishing people who shouldn't have guns, and in many cases shouldn't be out in the streets, in the first place.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Next lawsuit - New York City, though they dont have a ban, the lengths to which someone has to go to to get a handgun permit make it essentially a ban.

 

Holy shit, you can sue a city for being a bureaucracy?

The NRA keeps on insisting that the fact that there are only 38,000 people with handgun permits in NYC (2006 figure) out of 8,000,000 suggests that the NYPD, which oversees the permit process, acts in a very biased way towards anyone who isn't rich when approving the permits. Everyone else gets the run around and by dragging it out it increases the cost of the permit to the point that its not worth a permit.

 

I found this slightly out of date (by 8 years) article on the forms needed to obtain a permit:

 

It starts with a form, of course-PD 643-041 (Rev. 1-94) h1. Some of the questions are obvious (arrest record and, excitingly, "aliases"). Others are odd ("Have you ever been denied appointment in a civil service system?") or, seemingly, aimed at members of the Clinton administration (list any incidents of "Temporary Loss of Memory"). Watch out for question 19: "Have you ever had or applied for any type of license or permit issued to you by any City, State or Federal agency?" You haven't? Well, if you are a driver you have. Forget to mention your driver's license and you will be rejected and have to start all over again.

 

Next, submit the form. This, naturally, can be done only in one place, and in person: Room 110 at Police Headquarters, Manhattan. Nowhere else will do-not Room 109, and certainly not Room 111. Anywhere in Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, or the Bronx is out of the question (although Queens-and nowhere else-is where you must go for your rifle or shotgun permit). The form needs supporting documentation: yes, including that driver's license. It is not enough, however, merely to present your driver's license. A notarized statement certifying that you did indeed apply for that driver's license is also essential. The fact that your photograph and signature are on the license is irrelevant. No notary, and it's no go.

 

It's at this point that capitalism comes to the rescue. Even in New York. There is no need to struggle through this process alone. A small industry of license consultants has sprung up. Some, doubtless, add little value, but the repeated official warnings against them are very reminiscent of something that might have come from a pre-Miranda cop explaining that, no, no, you really don't need that fancy lawyer. I opted for the pistol- consultant equivalent ($395 all-in) of a fancy lawyer, Larry Goodson of License Services, "Specialists in Firearms Licensing, Training, Selection and Safety," an outfit in Queens. We never met. Like Charlie in Charlie's Angels, he was a mysterious voice over the phone. I imagined him as one of those drill sergeants in an old war movie, dispensing the gruff advice that would see his rookies through their grueling ordeal. Much of which, we know, would consist of waiting for that encounter with destiny.

 

Which can take a while. There aren't many gun-license applications each year (between one and two thousand), but when it comes to processing them, the city that never sleeps, dozes off. The applicant just has to wait, hoping that his home can be a castle even without a cannon. And if the Grandson of Sam came crashing through the door? Well, a friend of mine recently managed to frighten away an intruder from his apartment, but he had a loud voice, a sand wedge, and, crucially, a cowardly burglar. Would I be so lucky? A lifetime of avoiding hand-to-hand combat would mean that any brawl would be likely to turn out badly. The only weapons in my place were kitchen utensils, a Swiss Army knife, and, perhaps, a very heavy book.

 

The weeks passed, safely, but without any word from Police Headquarters. Finally, after five months, a letter arrived. I had to contact the License Division within "five days of receipt" to fix up an interview in, you guessed it, Room 110. "Failure to respond and/or comply with this notice will result in disapproval of your application." Away on vacation? That, probably, would be too bad. Do not pass Go, do not collect handgun.

 

The interview is to be taken seriously. This is not just a quick check for drool on the chin or blood on the hands. The police want to be sure that the would-be gun owner knows the law, and they might, warned pistol consultant Larry, try to trip me up. Try they did. The interviewing officer was courteous, friendly even, but it didn't stop him from asking whether I would be taking my gun to the target range every weekend once I received my premises residence license (with target endorsement). It was a trick. As, fortunately, I remembered, holders of such permits can take their guns to the range only twice a month (unloaded, in a locked box). At the end of the interview, there is little clue as to how you have done ("That's to avoid incidents," explained Larry). Next, two more officers have to review the case.

 

Which they did for another three months. Then, finally, the great day arrived, if not the permit. I had been approved, but the permit has to be picked up in person at Police Headquarters in, for variety, Room 152. Neglect to claim the permit within 30 days and it will be canceled, and the applicant is back to square one, Room 110. With the permit comes a handgun-purchase authorization. This entitles the holder to purchase a gun from another licensee, a licensed dealer, a policeman, or, so long as the deceased held a valid license, a corpse. Fail to buy a gun within 30 days, and the authorization is canceled, along with the pistol license that it took eight months to obtain.

 

It shouldnt take almost a year to get a permit for anything, even in a city of 8 million people when they only get at most 2,000 applications a year. Its not being done to be bureaucratic, its being done on purpose to keep regular people from owning guns in NYC. Someone who fights this will no doubt win given the Supreme Courts decision.

 

Also, for reference..I dont own a gun, dont want to own one and wouldnt even probably be able to pull a trigger and shoot at anything if I had to. BUT, I do recognize the necessity for people to have the right to own a gun to protect themselves and their property. It was put in the Constitution specifically to give Americans protection from our own government, not from wild animals, Indians and the Brittish or for hunting purposes.

 

 

[Guest]

You don't need to take the guns away...we need to do a better job punishing people who shouldn't have guns, and in many cases shouldn't be out in the streets, in the first place.

Exactly. Those not holding permits and/or in possession of illegal weapons need to be put away for longer.

[Vampiro69 0]

The trouble with wanting to make tougher gun laws is that it punishes the law abiding citizens. The criminals that use guns aren't going to register them. They will get ones on the black market.

 

I would like to point out that I was in Washington D.C and got to see them argue the case at the Supreme Court for about 5 minutes. Scalia looked bored out of his mind so I was somewhat surprised to see him write the majority opinion.

[SuperJerk 0]

THE BEST DEFENSE AGAINST A RUNAWAY GOVERNMENT IS A WELL ARMED CITIZEN ARMY

 

Given the weapons technology and level of training the government gives not just the military, but also federal law enforcement agencies and the CIA, I'm going out on a limb and saying I think the Citizen Army would probably lose that fight.

[Perfxion 0]

my 2 cents:

 

As a person with a well liberal bias, I still believe keeping guns out of law abiding citizens is utterly retarded. With felons bad, "assault" rifles ban, machine gun ban, extended clip semi-auto ban, unregistered ban, sawed off ban; with background checks, permits, and required registration, its already illegal for people who shouldn't have guns not to have them. Any more laws are not going to help the problems of the ones we have not being enforced.

 

With the machine gun ban as an example, since 1936's law was enacted zero guns registered were ever used in a criminal activity. In fact, the problem has been, and will always be the black market. Stamping out the black market will do more to keep guns off the street than permits on Colts and Dirty Harrys.

[Gary Floyd 0]

You don't need to take the guns away...we need to do a better job punishing people who shouldn't have guns, and in many cases shouldn't be out in the streets, in the first place.

QFT

[EricMM 0]

I'm just annoyed that this law was pressed by people who don't even live in D.C., just because its the nations capital.

 

Not that they would every try to IMPROVE the city of D.C., but heaven forbid a city try to stem the gun violence inside it.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

You don't need to take the guns away...we need to do a better job punishing people who shouldn't have guns, and in many cases shouldn't be out in the streets, in the first place.

 

I agree with this.

[RepoMan 0]

I'm just annoyed that this law was pressed by people who don't even live in D.C., just because its the nations capital.

 

Not that they would every try to IMPROVE the city of D.C., but heaven forbid a city try to stem the gun violence inside it.

This is the quote of the thread for me.

 

Apparently, it's now easier for DC to keep a well regulated militia. Thank God, I don't want those dirty Brits to burn down the White House again.

 

If the average Joe wants to go hunting, I'm totally cool with that. But we're talking about hand guns, designed to kill PEOPLE.

 

I wish people would realize that by owning a gun, you're much more likely to have a family member commit suicide or accidentally shot someone than to kill a burglar.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Yeah...as far as the home security thing, while I don't think citizens should be precluded from owning guns for such purposes, it's usually ignored that there are, you know, other ways to protect your home. It's the 21st century with home security systems and such.

[Perfxion 0]

Um, the simplest way to protect a home is to load a shotgun. The barrel pump click is universal sound of shits going down. Handguns do work as well as a .44mag will have most people running out of the door. Security systems work, but a really expensive for some people. A gun is a lot cheaper and works just as well. Besides, all guns are designed to stop targets. No gun is really made to kill people. People will kill people. A gun is just a tool. It is no different than a shovel, a knife, an axe, or a hammer. They are still objects that can't do anything themselves. If you want guns to "stop killing people". Teach humans to stop shooting at each other. And that is not going to happen anytime soon.

 

As for shootings. If people want a gun, they will get a gun. If people want to kill themselves, they will kill themselves. It isn't committing suicide it is completing suicide from a gun. A lot of people try to kill themselves, from hanging, pill swallowing, drowning, and CO exposure in a garage. Guns just do a better job to people who really are just a waste of air.

[SuperJerk 0]

[The Robfather 0]

[i do not see those as 'reasonable' gun control laws.

 

Glad the court got this one right. It was a "Duh" ruling.

 

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a

firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for

traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

 

That is such a "Duh" statement.

 

Surprised the 4 libs drew a line in the sand on this one. I guess I thought they had more common sense, but I think a few of them may have been a tad intellectually dishonest. IF we're starting at a point where they say I got to join the national guard to have the right to bare arms, well, I'm glad those fuckers lost this case.

[Kristianna 0]

I've had my concealed handgun permit for about 4 years now, as it is so permitted in Texas. I've never had the occasion to actually have to use it, or even draw it, and I'm actually grateful of that.

 

Still, its nice to know its there. And its nice to know that the government isn't going to go around trying to round up legally owned guns, just yet.

[Nighthawk 0]

Why would you keep bringing that up, just to make me hate you?

[Kristianna 0]

Why would you keep bringing that up, just to make me hate you?

 

... who me? Besides Milky, being hated by someone on the internet isn't really a big deal.

[Nighthawk 0]

That's a very good point, Kristianna. Besides Milky, being hated by someone on the internet isn't really a big deal. But if Milky hates you, that's a big deal.

[Kristianna 0]

My fragile internet-heart sinks at the notion. But yet... somehow... I'll carry on.

 

But on a more serious note, and at least close to the topic... what is it exactly about me carrying a gun is so bad? Is it that you're against handguns in general?

[Nighthawk 0]

You need to stop that. A person's incapacity to be bothered by hate on the internet is directly proportionate for a person's capacity to hate on the internet. Being hated on the internet is no better worse than being hated anywhere.

 

The thing I hate about it that you're going to get hurt, and that would devastate me.

[SuperJerk 0]

Lawsuit filed over Atlanta airport barring guns

 

The nation's busiest airport duelled with gun rights advocates Tuesday over whether a new Georgia state law allows visitors to carry firearms at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.

 

City officials in charge of the airport declared it a "gun free zone" when the new law took effect Tuesday. Gun rights supporters, including a state legislator who helped pass the law, quickly filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the designation.

 

"My message is simple, 'Leave your firearms at home'," airport general manager Ben DeCosta told reporters at a news conference.

 

Atlanta officials said anyone carrying a gun at the airport could be arrested and charged with a misdemeanor.

 

The new state law allows people with a concealed weapons permit to carry guns into restaurants, state parks and on public transportation.

 

John Monroe, an attorney for the gun rights backers who filed the lawsuit, argued the Atlanta airport qualifies as public transportation. There are also restaurants in the terminal, which Monroe said should be accessible to gun-toting visitors under the new law.

 

Rep. Tim Bearden, a Republican from Villa Rica and a former police officer, is a plaintiff in the lawsuit. Bearden sponsored the state law.

 

He had told a newspaper he would carry a concealed weapon to the airport Tuesday when he picked up his family. But he told The Associated Press by telephone Tuesday morning, "There will be no reason for any confrontation at the airport."

 

The gun group argues that weapons should be allowed in the terminal up to the point where passengers pass through security to board their flights. The parking lot is off limits under the state law, but it allows travelers to carry a gun on MARTA trains and buses, which run directly to the airport.

 

Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin said citizens can't bring guns into the terminal and argued that airports remain attractive targets for terrorism.

 

Allowing citizens to carry firearms "would create an environment that would endanger millions of people," she said.

 

Franklin said she will lobby Congress to withhold federal funds from facilities that allow firearms on their premises.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080701/ap_on_re_us/airport_guns

 

Ah, geez...

 

 

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

55% of all gun related deaths were suicides in 2005.

 

I wonder how that stat will be spinned. You can't say "Well, if they take the guns away then suicides will go down" because then you'll just have people jumping out of their 8th floor apartments to kill themselves a la that Russian Model in NYC last week. Oh, but..but..the success rate with a gun is 90% vs 34% for other means of suicide attempts..if someone tries once without a gun and doesn't die..Im guessing most will keep trying.

 

And more importantly, only 33,000 people died at the hand of guns in 2005. Car accidents claimed almost three times that number. I think we need to ban cars! Save lives! Save the environment! Stop global warming! More exercise! YES!