Second Amendment Upheld by Supreme Court

[DiebytheSword]

WASHINGTON - 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.

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 home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns

 

[sub]

Glad to hear.

 

[Sonic the Vampire]

Sounds like it was pretty much along party lines. I still don't personally understand how people can read that sentence completely oblivious to the term 'militia,' or selectively disregard it as an application of the latter rather than hold the firearms as an application of the former. Can't say I feel real strongly about firearms being legal or otherwise, but I can't make heads or tails out of people who fight so hard to believe the founding fathers really intended every American to have a handgun in times of peace.

I might feel more comfortable about the ruling if I didn't live in a state where I wasn't required to have a license to own and carry a firearm.

 

[Nuttzy]

i own a fairly large assortment of guns, handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc. So this news makes me giggle with glee a little bit.

"Better safe than sorry" prettymuch sums it up.

the way the economy is going, crime rates are only going to come up,.... Even now, this usual quiet neighborhood has been getting several reported breakins in cars/houses, I plan to be prepared for it.

 

[DJ-Ready]

Lets see ... guns without special license are illegal here in germany and we have much less crime problems then america .. same goes for lots of other countries where weapons are illegal.

What a coincidence ....

 

[wheres_]

Yeah pretty much DJ, although when the crims know that the people they'll be knocking off are packin- what do you their gonna do? Get their gun on!

Good luck to them, this is one problem that will take care of itself atleast.

 

[SailorAlea]

Not to pick bones or anything, but the "second amendment" wasn't upheld. Why? The Supreme Court can't rule an amendment unconstitutional.. it's part of the constitution.

You can't really rule the constitution unconstitutional. However, they can declare that a State constitution violates the Federal constitution, much like what has happened in Colorado.

This just reaffirmed that the 2nd amendment guarantees an individual right as well as a collective right. People debate whether or not it implies one or the other.

I identify as liberal, and libertarian; I agree that the government should be able to heavily regulate gun use (which this decision does affirm), but don't think it should be impossible or next-to-impossible to ban gun ownership unless the government has a very valid, strict reason (applying the "strict scrutiny" test.)

 

[Grega]

I think everyone who would want to buy a gun should have to make a psycho test.

The tests should be repeated every couple of years like your drivers license has to be renewd.

That way you could make sure a lot less mentaly unstable morons get possession of guns.

 

[Prozac]

in Somalia over 80% of the people have guns, that country is in great shape too.
I've yet to see that gun ownership has improved overall safety in any country.

oh well.

 

[DiebytheSword]

Not to pick bones or anything, but the "second amendment" wasn't upheld. Why? The Supreme Court can't rule an amendment unconstitutional.. it's part of the constitution.

You can't really rule the constitution unconstitutional. However, they can declare that a State constitution violates the Federal constitution, much like what has happened in Colorado.

This just reaffirmed that the 2nd amendment guarantees an individual right as well as a collective right. People debate whether or not it implies one or the other.

I identify as liberal, and libertarian; I agree that the government should be able to heavily regulate gun use (which this decision does affirm), but don't think it should be impossible or next-to-impossible to ban gun ownership unless the government has a very valid, strict reason (applying the "strict scrutiny" test.)

You picked a bone, and you know what I meant. The right to bear arms as an individual is threatened daily by those who believe that only regulated militias can have them. Jefferson once wrote that America should have an armed revolution every few years to remind the government who the boss is here. I agree with his view of the Second Amendment.

As for you Euros who think that banning the guns from civilian hands is a good idea, lets look at Somalia, since someone brought it up. Even if the governement in Somalia banned those guns tommorow, the crooked warlords would still have them, and still use them against the law abiding citizens. In the US, the problem would be the same. Japan has stricter gun control laws than the US, and they have had a bunch of mass stabbings. Clearly the gun ban worked there too. If one, just one, person in that crowd had been packing, 17 people might not have been stabbed. True the crook could have had a gun himself, but then this just goes to show that banning knives would lead to criminals using crowbars, etc.

Violence is a social issue, not an equipment one.

 

[SailorAlea]

You picked a bone, and you know what I meant. The right to bear arms as an individual is threatened daily by those who believe that only regulated militias can have them. Jefferson once wrote that America should have an armed revolution every few years to remind the government who the boss is here. I agree with his view of the Second Amendment.

As for you Euros who think that banning the guns from civilian hands is a good idea, lets look at Somalia, since someone brought it up. Even if the governement in Somalia banned those guns tommorow, the crooked warlords would still have them, and still use them against the law abiding citizens. In the US, the problem would be the same. Japan has stricter gun control laws than the US, and they have had a bunch of mass stabbings. Clearly the gun ban worked there too. If one, just one, person in that crowd had been packing, 17 people might not have been stabbed. True the crook could have had a gun himself, but then this just goes to show that banning knives would lead to criminals using crowbars, etc.

Violence is a social issue, not an equipment one.

Sorry. Wasn't trying to be picky =). I agree in principle, but the difference is that a person with a gun can kill a great many more people before being taken down than a person with a knife; a person with a knife can kill many more people than a person with a stick, etc.

I believe the best way to deal with violence is to treat the cause of violence. In most cases, it's poor living conditions (e.g., violent crime) or mental health problems (i.e., schizophrenia, severe bi-polar disorder/dimensia, etc). We've seen how easy it is for a real criminal to get a gun; all banning guns for normal, law-abiding citizens does is reduce accidental "Daddy didn't lock up the gun" deaths (which are significant).

Statistically, you're more likely to shoot a family member with a gun than an intruder.

 

[DiebytheSword]

Sorry. Wasn't trying to be picky =). I agree in principle, but the difference is that a person with a gun can kill a great many more people before being taken down than a person with a knife; a person with a knife can kill many more people than a person with a stick, etc.

I believe the best way to deal with violence is to treat the cause of violence. In most cases, it's poor living conditions (e.g., violent crime) or mental health problems (i.e., schizophrenia, severe bi-polar disorder/dimensia, etc). We've seen how easy it is for a real criminal to get a gun; all banning guns for normal, law-abiding citizens does is reduce accidental "Daddy didn't lock up the gun" deaths (which are significant).

Statistically, you're more likely to shoot a family member with a gun than an intruder.

I call that natural selection.

Guns need to be treated seriously in the home. How to touch is better than no touch, and locking stuff up is good way to make sure your kid never becomes a statistic. I had a childhood freind killed in that manner, it was quite disturbing for all involved, and I still believe that the parent that owned the gun was incredibly negligent, but I will never believe that the gun should have been something that the law should abridge.

 

[Spunky]

in Somalia over 80% of the people have guns, that country is in great shape too.
I've yet to see that gun ownership has improved overall safety in any country.

oh well.

Well, of any country in Africa, you're the least likely to get AIDS there. I guess that's something to take comfort in if you ever visit.

 

[harSens]

You picked a bone, and you know what I meant. The right to bear arms as an individual is threatened daily by those who believe that only regulated militias can have them. Jefferson once wrote that America should have an armed revolution every few years to remind the government who the boss is here. I agree with his view of the Second Amendment.

As for you Euros who think that banning the guns from civilian hands is a good idea, lets look at Somalia, since someone brought it up. Even if the governement in Somalia banned those guns tommorow, the crooked warlords would still have them, and still use them against the law abiding citizens. In the US, the problem would be the same. Japan has stricter gun control laws than the US, and they have had a bunch of mass stabbings. Clearly the gun ban worked there too. If one, just one, person in that crowd had been packing, 17 people might not have been stabbed. True the crook could have had a gun himself, but then this just goes to show that banning knives would lead to criminals using crowbars, etc.

Violence is a social issue, not an equipment one.

Yes, but with the right equipment you can do a whole lot more damage. The Japanese stabbing incident could have been a shoot-out with way more victims. One madman with a gun can kill a lot of people. Your argument also works the other way:allowing hand guns will result in the bad guys getting something better than hand guns. Where do you want to draw the line?

 

[Sonic the Vampire]

One could make the argument that even with a ban criminals who want guns will still acquire them by some illegal means, but I'd argue back and say that the very possession of that firearm puts them at risk of being stopped by a cop, and if they're concealing it and get caught, that's jail time. It also keeps the borderline crazies from going out and buying guns. If we allowed handguns and kept people from being allowed to purchase rifles there'd be even less potential for damage, since we don't need rifles for self defense outside of wartime, but they cause tremendous damage in the wrong hands.

There are positive benefits to regulating guns, and there'd be benefits to banning them outright as well. I'd personally rather be allowed to own a gun, but I think I'd gladly give up the right to it if all my neighbors had to as well. If criminals want to rob me they're going to get away with it, because the odds of me actually getting the chance to murder them with it is much lower than the odds that I'll get shot if they see me armed, in my state at the very least. In Arizona, as in many other states, if someone breaks into your property who is not armed with a lethal weapon (like say, a bum, or a crazy neighbor) and you shoot them down in your own house, you go to jail for murder. Laws like those make owning a gun almost entirely purposeless because I'm not going to be taking a real good look at some guy coming into my house in the dark.

It's all circumstantial but there are benefits to allowing everybody to arm and benefits in disallowing everybody to arm. Either way we all have to abide by the supreme court rulings so at this point the arguments are moot.

 

[Chakra-X]

Now see, if we had constant, Orwellian surveillance, we would not have this problem :X.

Too many people in bad conditions own guns, and I think that the guns in those situations are usually illegally obtained anyway. I'm pretty sure there are more responsible legal gun owners than irresponsible ones, but the raw idea of any person being able to control the lives of people around them with a press of a trigger is still unsettling to me.

 

[DiebytheSword]

Yes, but with the right equipment you can do a whole lot more damage. The Japanese stabbing incident could have been a shoot-out with way more victims. One madman with a gun can kill a lot of people. Your argument also works the other way:allowing hand guns will result in the bad guys getting something better than hand guns. Where do you want to draw the line?

My point is banning a gun is as ineffective at stopping the problem as banning sharp sticks. If someone is determined to kill someone else, they will do so with what they have, at what point do you draw the line? That same Japanese Murderer ran his two ton truck through that same crowd before going on his stabbing rampage, do we ban trucks too?

Europeans crack me up with this. You invented the gun, you conquered the Earth with it, and now you call for gun control. The reason why the United States has a right to bear arms is because we learned some 200 years ago that fighting the British with sharp sticks didn't work when they had exsquitely crafted rifles and cannons. Weapons in the hands of the people keep tyranny in check.

 

[Sonic the Vampire]

Europeans invented the gun? I always thought that was a Chinese development. I wouldn't necessarily equate owning a gun today with "fighting tyranny."

Psychologically speaking, a gun is a weapon used exclusively for killing. It's also compact and concealable which means it is easy to pick up and take off with on impulse. I don't think anybody is making the argument that guns encourage first degree murder, I personally am more worried about accidents and second degree murder. If you're on the edge about hurting someone and there's a super convenient method laying on the table in your bedroom you're more likely to act than if you have to figure out a way to stalk and run the person over with your car.

 

[J-Dude]

I agree with Sword on this one.

While I'm not a fan of people getting guns who don't intend them for home protection or simple self defense, keeping weaponry from civilian hands does place any country's people in a prime spot for bullying by a tyrant government.

While I hope against and doubt the United States will become a tyrant nation anytime soon, the forefathers indended the people to be capable of properly protecting themselves, and I can tell you I'd be much more disturbed by people running amock with swords and axes and home-made explosives than a simple gun. It may be deadly, but at least it's sorta' clean...

 

[harSens]

My point is banning a gun is as ineffective at stopping the problem as banning sharp sticks. If someone is determined to kill someone else, they will do so with what they have, at what point do you draw the line? That same Japanese Murderer ran his two ton truck through that same crowd before going on his stabbing rampage, do we ban trucks too?

Europeans crack me up with this. You invented the gun, you conquered the Earth with it, and now you call for gun control. The reason why the United States has a right to bear arms is because we learned some 200 years ago that fighting the British with sharp sticks didn't work when they had exsquitely crafted rifles and cannons. Weapons in the hands of the people keep tyranny in check.

I'd regulate anything designed for killing people. Let me ask you again, where do you draw the line? If you want to stand up against possible evil from your government, shouldn't you be allowed to own nukes to stand an equal change?

Americans crack me up on this. You insist on the right to bear arms to defend against evil government powers, yet when other countries are even suspected to do the same against the very same American government, you invade them.