Question
•
U.S. Government
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
11 minutes ago
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.
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.
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.
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.
11 minutes ago
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
Answered NO and comment
Hmmmmmm. Please read my whole comment.
I think the Constitution seems pretty clear with the militia part of the Amendment. It has always read to me that, due to the lack of a standing Army, a citizen could hold a weapon for use in times of war if called upon by the government. Arms then and arms now are very different.
HOWEVER: the country has always worked on the principle that an individual right was implicit in the Amendment, therefore a lot of people have guns. It would be virtually impossible to take that right away now. If they said an individual does NOT have a right to bare arms and guns could be taken from people, they would be in violation of the 4th amendment and it's guarentee of security in effects.
Unfortunatly the Supreme Court seldom rules by what the Constitution says or means. They seem to rule on what the individual Justices party want to happen. I understand a lot of people don't want to extend legal rights to people held at Guantanamo, but if you want to be the good guys you have to abide by your own laws. It is not "giving terrorists rights" because they have not been proven to be terrorists yet. Once they are in front of a judge, A CIVILIAN, they can be charged and treated as dangerous terrorists, but right now they are kidnap victims. Before you disagree, think how we felt about the "hostages" that Iran held for all that time during the Carter administration. Same thing. Not easy being the good guy is it? However, I digress.
So, shor...Hmmmmmm. Please read my whole comment.
I think the Constitution seems pretty clear with the militia part of the Amendment. It has always read to me that, due to the lack of a standing Army, a citizen could hold a weapon for use in times of war if called upon by the government. Arms then and arms now are very different.
HOWEVER: the country has always worked on the principle that an individual right was implicit in the Amendment, therefore a lot of people have guns. It would be virtually impossible to take that right away now. If they said an individual does NOT have a right to bare arms and guns could be taken from people, they would be in violation of the 4th amendment and it's guarentee of security in effects.
Unfortunatly the Supreme Court seldom rules by what the Constitution says or means. They seem to rule on what the individual Justices party want to happen. I understand a lot of people don't want to extend legal rights to people held at Guantanamo, but if you want to be the good guys you have to abide by your own laws. It is not "giving terrorists rights" because they have not been proven to be terrorists yet. Once they are in front of a judge, A CIVILIAN, they can be charged and treated as dangerous terrorists, but right now they are kidnap victims. Before you disagree, think how we felt about the "hostages" that Iran held for all that time during the Carter administration. Same thing. Not easy being the good guy is it? However, I digress.
So, short answer: I think the Constitution does not guarentee an individual right, BUT, I think the Constitution is wrong on this. The Second Amendment should not read the way it does.
And please remember, I am fuzzyface, not Thomas Jefferson so what the hell do I know?(less) -
Just take out the phrase "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state". The gun lobby usually leaves that bit out and quotes the Amendment as "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
I would not presume, as too many do, to know the intent of the founding fathers when they wrote this amendment. However, referencing the Militia, not just saying 'the people' would seem to suggest that they thought the people could be called upon to serve instead of keeping a standing army. That is pretty much how the Revolution was fought. We now have a standing army, we don't need a militia. The point of keeping and bearing arms now would seem to be about freedom of choice and a 'quid pro quo' from the Government for taxing us. If they tax us but don't trust us with weapons then we have a problem.
I know we've talked about this before HH, but where do you stand on me owning weapons as a legal resident alien but not a citizen? -
Answered YES and comment
Yes; we should be able to have guns to protect ourselves. The
criminals are going to get them whether we can or not. So I'd like to
be prepared. I know there have been issues with children getting them,
but that's another story and maybe another poll. When my brothers and I
were growing up; my Dad was in Law Inforcement. He had guns in the
house for hunting and also carried a pistol for work. When he came home
each evening; he hung his pistol on the chair in the kitchen. None of
us would touch it. Never even crosed our mind. We knew better. It was a
respect thing. If it wasn't a toy; you better not touch it. Everyone I
knew had guns in their homes. You never heard of accidents back then
with children. -
Answered YES and comment
But, with small children in the house and a safe neighborhood, I'm more old school in home protection. My weapon of choice...

Seriously though... I defend the right for law abiding, mentally competent citizens to bear arms. I do feel there needs to be minimal oversight.. but some oversight. -
Answered YES and comment
several people show several views for and against it in the answers...
simple fact is if i have a gun i have the ability to protect myself, my family and my country, if you take away my right to have one, you leave me, my family and my country at the mercy of the criminals who will have one anyway...(no matter what the law says)
just my thought... -




Answered YES and comment