Second Amendment Ruling

[montea6b]

Heard on the drive in that the supreme court struck down DC's ban on handguns. I figured the forum would be on fire!

 

Everyone must be working harder than me...

 

Knuckleheads on the radio refered to the 2nd as the "states rights to form a militia..."

[FC]

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.

[roscoedoh]

Click here to read it:.pdf of SCOTUS Decision

 

My faith in the nation is renewed. It good to see that the Court hasn't completely lost its mind.

 

This calls for a beer...

 

 

[AzRednek]

Everyone must be working harder than me...

 

Not to busy to call the Brady Campaign and laugh at them, (202) 898-0792. I wasn't out of bed 30 seconds and I immediately turned the TV on FOX News. I grew to impatient watching a commercial, turned on the puter and found it on Yahoo news. Sure wish I had the resources to open a gun shop and indoor range in DC, could make a small fortune.

[Ron J]

A very important decision and the right one. Thank God. For all of us, including me, who are sick of the NRA constantly asking for money, I'm sure they were busy with this one. I'm glad they are there and feel 35.00 a year is chickens&?t compared to what could have happened today. I'm also greatful for Bush's 2 court picks. Both were in the majority.

 

[FC]

At least the Pres. did something right of lasting value.

[FC]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25390404/ You can vote too. You'll be surprised at the results.

 

Of course, Bradyites and DCs mayor say this will lead to more violence and deaths. Let me interject my own story- I was shot when I was 15 by a stupid kid who exercised bad judgement while a group of us were out shooting whatever. It affects me to this day. Cutting down on this sort of stupidity is paramount to winning the public relations battles. As they say, death comes out of the end of the barrel every time you pull the trigger. Let's push ways to make our sport safer, cut down on events like Cheney's shotgun incident, and stuff like a relative's boy blowing out his eye with a pellet gun, and cut down on access to guns by criminals.

[AzRednek]

A very important decision and the right one. Thank God. For all of us, including me, who are sick of the NRA constantly asking for money

 

Bet the NRA will be begging for more in the near future. The NRA will be spending big bux in legal fees over turning state and local ordinances. My guess is cities like Chicago and San Francisco will put the average citizen through a maze of bureaucracy to make a legal purchase.

 

Remember what the Clinton administration did with the Brady Bill. People owing IRS, delinquent fathers and in some cases outstanding parking ticket fines would cause an application to be denied. The govt was looking for any reason to deny or delay. I gave up trying to get an M-1 through the then govt operated DCM after Clinton admininstration kept changing the requirements. After six months I gave up.

 

My guess in the future the libs will attempt to micro-manage gun control at the city and state level. The NRA will likely be in court battles in different parts of the country. As in the past I will continue to make small donations to the NRA-ILA and GOA but there is no-way I'll give ten cents to a phone solicitor.

 

[Horsefly]

What worries me is,it was a 5 to 4 vote.It shouldn't have been that close for something so important.Jerry

[montea6b]

What worries me is,it was a 5 to 4 vote.It shouldn't have been that close for something so important.Jerry

 

Yep...

[Ron J]

If you look at how Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer and Stevens view things, 5-4 is exactly what I expected. I was worried about Kennedy, but since Scalia wrote the opinion, Kennedy was on board all along. The reason it took so long is that they hold highly controversial rulings until right before they leave for recess. Yes, new laws that micro-manage and creep right up to this new ruling will be written, but this decision delivered a blow to laws forbidding ownership. Plus it directly focused on the wording of the second amendment. The first step to precedence is one ruling.

[dindvik]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25390404/ You can vote too. You'll be surprised at the results.

 

Of course, Bradyites and DCs mayor say this will lead to more violence and deaths. Let me interject my own story- I was shot when I was 15 by a stupid kid who exercised bad judgement while a group of us were out shooting whatever. It affects me to this day. Cutting down on this sort of stupidity is paramount to winning the public relations battles. As they say, death comes out of the end of the barrel every time you pull the trigger. Let's push ways to make our sport safer, cut down on events like Cheney's shotgun incident, and stuff like a relative's boy blowing out his eye with a pellet gun, and cut down on access to guns by criminals.

Check out the eddey eagle program sponsored by the NRA!

[FC]

I tried to get a program going at Ft. Hood to pass out a thousand free gun locks and show a safety program from Nat. Shooting Sports Foundation. To my utter amazement, a lawyer who supposedly is heavily involved in the NRA stopped me in my tracks. When I left Ft. Hood I still had 800+ gun locks. He, as JAG, grudgingly allowed me to give them out to "get them out of here". He was sick of hearing about it (and me).

[plumbum]

At least the Pres. did something right of lasting value.

 

amen to that! he did VERY well with the Court.

 

[swamprat]

Sorry Guy's,

The ruling say's they cannot deny the right to own, however it say's they have the right to require regisitration. So here's how it will play out. You can own a firearm in D.C. after a $200.00 background check, a $300.00 filing fee, and a $1000.00 home inspection fee, or some such stuff. At $1500.00 or some other dumb fee how many registered weapons will there be?

 

Swamprat

[AzRednek]

Sorry Guy's,

The ruling say's they cannot deny the right to own, however it say's they have the right to require regisitration. So here's how it will play out. You can own a firearm in D.C. after a $200.00 background check, a $300.00 filing fee, and a $1000.00 home inspection fee, or some such stuff. At $1500.00 or some other dumb fee how many registered weapons will there be?

 

Swamprat

 

Swampie couldn't agree more with what you're saying. It will likely be fought over again in lower courts as the city stonewalls the registration process in bureaucracy. At least with the major change in the law, if anybody is caught with an unregistered handgun in their home they will more likely be dealing with fines and confiscation. Better than going to the big house. Previously if one was caught with a handgun they were going to jail. Glad to see you back!!

[BradD]

Hey, Swampy, good to have you back.

 

If you haven't already, be sure to check the posts on that problem you were having. We were thinking of starting a victims club.

 

Brad

[FC]

No one's posts have been deleted, so there is no need for a victim's club. In fact, I think it's been about two years since I deleted a post, and that was when we got spammed. I then required registration, and no problems since then.

I have an idea, run a board for nothing but the fun of it, then see how you feel when you get accused of stuff you never did.

[AzRednek]

Hey, Swampy, good to have you back.

 

If you haven't already, be sure to check the posts on that problem you were having. We were thinking of starting a victims club.

 

Brad

 

Brad, was that really necessary??

 

[Horsefly]

Howdy Swamprat! Saw a tractor pull the other night on tv,and they had a garden tractor pull too,and I thought of you.Building a puller is still on my mind,just haven't made any progress.Sure good to hear from you.Jerry

[BradD]

Wow, guys, sorry. That wasn't a criticism or any intent to suggest that anything bad was afoot here. Maybe I was being too smartalecky again.

 

Swampy ran into what some of us have occasionally. While you are doing a long post sometimes you get timed out and lose it. On that thread I just mentioned how I found a way not to lose it if that happens.

 

I just thought he might want to go back and see what followed.

 

Tony, this forum is terrific and you do a mighty job of keeping it afloat for all the rest of us. If something pops up because of the programming my only point was look for a way to solve it (the user that is).

 

I've been a victim of bigger things than getting timed out.

 

Brad

[BradD]

Tony, after walking away, another thought came to me.

 

I am glad to to see a good contributor rejoin us.

 

I know that Swampy's exit comments were pretty hard on you even though all of us knew what the real situation was.

 

I made my apology here. I hope he might make one to you also, even if it isn't here in front of the rest of us. He does owe it to you. Thought he might see that when he read the rest of the posts on that thread.

 

Brad

[FC]

That was nice of you- thanks.