SCOTUS says individuals have right to own guns

[TitanTiger 20,508]

Court says individuals have right to own guns

Decision is justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court said on 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 strikes down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes 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.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25390404/

[TitanTiger 20,508]

Another longer article:

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.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

In dissent, 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."

Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

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."

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.

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

[CCTAU 3,336]

5 - 4? I can't even believe it was that close. Thank you GWB for appointing a conservative to the bench.

[Justin5 20]

As a follow up, now that you apply the 2nd amendment of the Bill of Rights - designed for States - on the District of Columbia, is it time to give the people of DC voting rights???

[TitanTiger 20,508]

As a follow up, now that you apply the 2nd amendment of the Bill of Rights - designed for States - on the District of Columbia, is it time to give the people of DC voting rights???

DC has always had to abide by the US Constitution. This ruling changes nothing.

Plus, they do have voting rights. Those rights gave Mondale something other than the razor thin margin he won his home state of Minnesota by in 1984. They just don't have Congressmen or Senators.

[Justin5 20]

As a follow up, now that you apply the 2nd amendment of the Bill of Rights - designed for States - on the District of Columbia, is it time to give the people of DC voting rights???

DC has always had to abide by the US Constitution. This ruling changes nothing.

Plus, they do have voting rights. Those rights gave Mondale something other than the razor thin margin he won his home state of Minnesota by in 1984. They just don't have Congressmen or Senators.

Ok, ok, I'm stretching. Yes, I know they get Pres. voting rights - its just BS they dont get Congressmen. Instead, they get 1 powerless 'member'.

[TitanTiger 20,508]

As a follow up, now that you apply the 2nd amendment of the Bill of Rights - designed for States - on the District of Columbia, is it time to give the people of DC voting rights???

DC has always had to abide by the US Constitution. This ruling changes nothing.

Plus, they do have voting rights. Those rights gave Mondale something other than the razor thin margin he won his home state of Minnesota by in 1984. They just don't have Congressmen or Senators.

Ok, ok, I'm stretching. Yes, I know they get Pres. voting rights - its just BS they dont get Congressmen. Instead, they get 1 powerless 'member'.

I honestly don't see the problem. It was a compromise designed not to give any state undue power and influence to create the District of Columbia that was a different animal. That people have decided to live there permanently is their own decision.

[GoAU 1,600]

Thanks goodness common sense prevailed and there are still some of the values this country was founded under that have not yet been perverted. We continue to think we have "evolved" beyond the values that are the the foundation of our country.

[Tigermike 3,046]

As a follow up, now that you apply the 2nd amendment of the Bill of Rights - designed for States - on the District of Columbia, is it time to give the people of DC voting rights???

DC has always had to abide by the US Constitution. This ruling changes nothing.

Plus, they do have voting rights. Those rights gave Mondale something other than the razor thin margin he won his home state of Minnesota by in 1984. They just don't have Congressmen or Senators.

If I am not mistaken Obama is all for senators and congressmen for D.C. If he were to win and the dims increase their majority look for this to be pushed.

[RunInRed 16,454]

As a follow up, now that you apply the 2nd amendment of the Bill of Rights - designed for States - on the District of Columbia, is it time to give the people of DC voting rights???

DC has always had to abide by the US Constitution. This ruling changes nothing.

Plus, they do have voting rights. Those rights gave Mondale something other than the razor thin margin he won his home state of Minnesota by in 1984. They just don't have Congressmen or Senators.

If I am not mistaken Obama is all for senators and congressmen for D.C. If he were to win and the dims increase their majority look for this to be pushed.

I don't think the Dems will need D.C. to reach a strong majority in both houses - I just hope they can reach 60 in the Senate.

[Tigermike 3,046]

As a follow up, now that you apply the 2nd amendment of the Bill of Rights - designed for States - on the District of Columbia, is it time to give the people of DC voting rights???

DC has always had to abide by the US Constitution. This ruling changes nothing.

Plus, they do have voting rights. Those rights gave Mondale something other than the razor thin margin he won his home state of Minnesota by in 1984. They just don't have Congressmen or Senators.

If I am not mistaken Obama is all for senators and congressmen for D.C. If he were to win and the dims increase their majority look for this to be pushed.

I don't think the Dems will need D.C. to reach a strong majority in both houses - I just hope they can reach 60 in the Senate.

I didn't say anything about the dims needing D.C. to reach a majority, did I?

[Tigermike 3,046]

Meanwhile, the Obama campaign, scrambles to get on the right side of the issue in light of the court's ruling, and is trying to characterize as "inartful" a previous statement by Obama in which he said he, '...believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.'"

Obama Camp Disavows Last Year's 'Inartful' Statement on D.C. Gun Law

June 26, 2008 7:35 AM

ABC News' Teddy Davis and Alexa Ainsworth Report: With the Supreme Court poised to rule on Washington, D.C.'s, gun ban, the Obama campaign is disavowing what it calls an "inartful" statement to the Chicago Tribune last year in which an unnamed aide characterized Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as believing that the DC ban was constitutional.

"That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator's consistent position," Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC News.

The statement which Burton describes as an inaccurate representation of the senator's views was made to the Chicago Tribune on Nov. 20, 2007.

In a story entitled, "Court to Hear Gun Case," the Chicago Tribune's James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins wrote ". . . the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he '...believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.'"

http://www.topix.com/content/trb/2007/11/c...o-hear-gun-case

The Chicago Tribune clip from Nov. 20, 2007, is an inaccurate representation of Obama's views, according to Burton, because the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee has refrained from developing a position on whether the D.C. gun law runs afoul of the Second Amendment.

When Obama has been asked on multiple occasions to weigh in on the D.C. gun case he has regularly maintained that the Second Amendment provides an individual right while at the same time saying that right is not absolute and that the Constitution does not prevent local governments from enacting what Obama calls "common sense laws."

Although he has been willing to describe his general views on this topic, Obama has sidestepped the question of whether the ban in the nation's capital runs afoul of the Second Amendment.

Asked by ABC News' Charlie Gibson if he considers the D.C. law to be consistent with an individual's right to bear arms at ABC's April 16, 2008, debate in Philadelphia, Obama said, "Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven't listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence."

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., by contrast, has been forthcoming when it comes to the D.C. gun law.

He signed an amicus brief in the District of Columbia v. Heller case, signaling not only his belief in the Second Amendment but also his view that the DC gun ban is incompatible with it.

The D.C. ban prohibits residents from keeping handguns inside their homes and requires that lawfully registered guns, such as shotguns, be locked and unloaded when kept at home.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/20...-camp-disa.html

[AFTiger 282]

But four justices voted against the constitution.

[TheDrewYouKnew 3]

As a follow up, now that you apply the 2nd amendment of the Bill of Rights - designed for States - on the District of Columbia, is it time to give the people of DC voting rights???

DC has always had to abide by the US Constitution. This ruling changes nothing.

Plus, they do have voting rights. Those rights gave Mondale something other than the razor thin margin he won his home state of Minnesota by in 1984. They just don't have Congressmen or Senators.

If I am not mistaken Obama is all for senators and congressmen for D.C. If he were to win and the dims increase their majority look for this to be pushed.

I don't think the Dems will need D.C. to reach a strong majority in both houses - I just hope they can reach 60 in the Senate.

Blasphemy! By the way, can I have some money since you have more than me?

[AURaptor 1,126]

So, now we MUST go out and buy guns ? I'm confused.

[LegalEagle 22]

So, now we MUST go out and buy guns ? I'm confused.

I cannot imagine not owning guns. I think I'll go shoot something in support of the Court's ruling!

[RunInRed 16,454]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I wouldn't give CCTAU a water pistol permit...

[autiger4life 3]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I wouldn't give CCTAU a water pistol permit...

I guess it is a good thing for CCTAU that no asked you if he could have a permit

[CCTAU 3,336]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I wouldn't give CCTAU a water pistol permit...

I guess it is a good thing for CCTAU that no asked you if he could have a permit

CCTAU already has all of the requirements met. Folks like me who carry understand that it's a responsibility. Just because you own a gun does not mean you have to shoot someone. Then again, like Texas law, some of you may need shooting. LIBRULS

Great thing about America. You buttwipes who THINK you know best...really don't.

[BamaGrad03 0]

So let me get this straight...if ONE vote had gone the other way, would we have to turn in our guns?

Or was this just a ruling for show?

[tiger88 934]

Yep. One vote away. On the dennis miller show they pointed out that most liberal law professors even agree now that the framers of the constitution intended for all americans to have the right to own a gun, and not just for military service. Yet, the supreme court gets it only by a 5-4 majority. This tells me along with other recent decision that they are out of touch to a big degree on a ot of major issues.

[TexasTiger 12,990]

So let me get this straight...if ONE vote had gone the other way, would we have to turn in our guns?

No.

[BamaGrad03 0]

So let me get this straight...if ONE vote had gone the other way, would we have to turn in our guns?

No.

If not, what was the ruling for?

[TexasTiger 12,990]

So let me get this straight...if ONE vote had gone the other way, would we have to turn in our guns?

No.

If not, what was the ruling for?

It ruled DC's handgun ban unconstitutional-- DC residents could still own rifles. But had the ruling gone the other way, folks in other jurisdictions would not have had to "turn in" their guns. Some jurisdictions might have passed tougher handgun laws, though, had that been the ruling, although most jurisdictions so inclined to do so, probably already had done so.

The Court did recognize, however, the validity of restrictions some 2nd Amendment purists would oppose:

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."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/06/...r_of_second.php

[BamaGrad03 0]

The Court did recognize, however, the validity of restrictions some 2nd Amendment purists would oppose:

I don't have a problem with those limitations. Nor do I have a problem with assault rifles being banned. And while I like being able to have 15 round magazines for my handgun, I don't think limiting mags to 10 rounds would be unreasonable.

But limiting handguns across the board is wrong. And it obviously isn't cutting down on crime in DC.