What the United States Supreme Court Says

[tessa]

Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns

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 case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.

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."

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.

Full article here

[butterflySlave4u]

I own one...it was obtained legally, and is licensed...

by law, i am required to qualify for accuracy at a local police department gun range yearly...i have since, in addition, obtained a CCW (Citizens Concealed Weapons license) that allows me to carry it on my person at all times for my personal protection. I can't run down to the local bank and legally stop a bank robbery in progress (unless the gun is leveled directly at me, in front of witnesses) but i can use it within the confines of my legally defined home, to defend myself or my loved ones against armed intruders....

i am a card carrying member of the NRA, and like Charlton Heston once said "You can relieve me of my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands"....

[denuseri]

Me too butterfly me too,, i am a responsible law abiding gun owner,, i inherited three guns from my father and have a pistol for personal protection just in case, heck my whole famiely knows how to keep and bear firearms we couldnt imajine nor stand our government stripping away our common right to defend ourselves if need be.

Nothing keeps criminals from getting guns illegally, so long as badguys have them then we citizens should be able to protect oursleves, especially since the police force is more about deterence and retribution than protection.

"Fear the government that fears your guns"

[tessa]

I don't own a gun. Don't know if I want to. Conflicted feelings on this for me.

What doesn't cause conflict is the way a gun feels in my hands, the way it almost pulses with life as you pull the trigger, the way you hold on tight after the shot, very aware of the power you have at your fingertips.

Maybe the above lends itself to my conflicted attitude about it all. Still, I can't find it in myself to wish for the disallowing of gun ownership.

One of the few topics I can't seem to level within myself.

[Thorne]

Nothing keeps criminals from getting guns illegally, so long as badguys have them then we citizens should be able to protect oursleves, especially since the police force is more about deterence and retribution than protection.

Actually, you can pretty much drop the deterrence part of that statement. In most cases, there is precious little the police can (or will) do prior to the actual commission of a crime. And in far too many instances there seems to be evidence that even during the commission of a crime they will wait until after the criminals have left, then make a show of "investigating" the crime.

For sure, I wouldn't want to put my life on the line as the police do, especially for the pitiful pay they generally make. And in many of the cases there are judicial bars to them actually doing anything constructive before the crime. And now it's gotten to the point where, when they do catch a criminal, they have to treat him or her with kid gloves or risk a lawsuit and horrific publicity.

It's just not worth it! People had better be prepared to defend themselves and their own.

[DowntownAmber]

Gun toting subbie here, with all the proper permits papers and accoutrement.

That being said, I firmly believe it should be effin' DIFFICULT to obtain a gun and to keep it. You need to pass tests to drive, same thing for guns. You drive without a liscense or you hurt someone with a vehicle, you lose the priveledge and there are penalties. With guns, doubly so. Holding a firearm of any sort is hold the power to take someone's life in the blink of an eye and there should be the utmost of respect for that.

[butterflySlave4u]

said with humor, but it makes a whole lot of sense...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=PdJGcrUk2eE

[_ID_]

I am conflicted about gun laws. I personally feel that if you want a gun in your home, it should be something with a barrel longer than 8 inches, not be automatic, and that you must have proven your ability to use it by someone licened to say you have. Guns have the same potential to kill as an automobile. Use it wrong it will cause great harm. Use it well, and it will serve you well.

[Virulent]

I am conflicted about gun laws.

I'm not sure I see any conflicts. You actually seem to have a very clearly articulated position on gun laws... though I'm not sure I see the reasoning behind some of them...

Why >8 inch barrels? And when you say "a gun in your home...", do you mean that one shouldn't be allowed to carry their gun around in public?

Honestly though, I think the "not be automatic" part is pretty well taken care of. Not that an automatic weapon is one iota more effective of a killing device than a semiautomatic one...

[fetishdj]

I think the problem here is an inherent one in a written constitution which, like written scripture, ends up being seen as immutable. It is a fact that the reason why the firearms clause is in the constitution is now obsolete becasue:

a) America has a standing army not a citizen's militia which is perfectly capable of defending its own shores and can recruit as needed.
b) I am not aware of the Monarch of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth having any current plans to reinvade her lost colonies in the Americas. If she does let me know of any such plans, I would be sure to let you know

However, precedent is the lifeblood of the law and I think there has been a mass of precedent supporting the interpretation of that written law to be any citizen may bear arms regardless of the circumstances.

Maybe you should look to the model in Switzerland where there is no standing army (apart from the Swiss Guard who don't count as they are in the Vatican) and every male between a certain age range is expected to bear arms and train as a soldier in case of invasion but generally keep their guns in the house until needed during war.

The trouble with the right to bear arms is that criminals can also bear arms. The trouble with gun regulation is that criminals are rarely known for their respect for the law and so ignore it. This leads to an arms race between police/honest citizens and the criminals where the criminals get bigger guns so the police have to get bigger guns and so the criminals get bigger guns and ad infinitum.

This is a tricky loop to get out of as once you have allowed guns you can rarely manage to ban them again - especially when so many consider it part of their constitutional rights. Once Pandora's box is opened it cannot be closed.

An interesting piece of trivia. For many centuries, nobles and gentlemen of England were not only permitted to bear arms but were actually required to do so. A gentleman of the 17th century could not be seen without a blade in public and there were many fashions around that requirement (hence all the various decorative rapiers on display in many museums). It was (I think) Robert Peel (home secretary during part of the Victorian period, founder of the metropolitan police and source of the name Bobbies and Peelers) who brought in legislation to ban weapons. In Leeds Armouries (a museum of weapons and warcraft in Leeds) there was an exhibition on Victorian weapons and there were an awful lot of 'secret weapons' used after the ban was in place - swordsticks originated in this time, there were a lot of small knives and coshes for the lower classes and, the wierdest exhibit, an umbrella gun. A working shotgun hidden inside the shaft of an umbrella. All of these were made because certain criminals needed secret weapons and certain gentlemen bridled at the loss of their right to bear arms.

[stripedangel]

"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."

One must remember that the people were the militia back then, too. Everybody was involved, not just those who "signed up."

Master and i have had and will have guns again. Master and i believe in this right. Sure, regulate it, monitor it, make people wait three days to buy a gun, whatever...

Criminals can go and get guns on the streets, under the radar. They have their militia, in a sense...which makes me, law abiding, gun-toting citizen a part of a militia too...and our shores are protected by the folks in uniform who are spread around the globe, rather than being here to do said protecting.

i gotta say this...i'm too small to fire a rifle or shotgun. The fly right out of my hands and hit the dirt..the deathgrip i have on these guns means nothing, and this creates a danger to anyone who is nearby. i can fire a lil .22 pistol just fine. It woulod do me absolutely no good to have a rifle or shotgun, i must have something with a short barrel.

Train us up and license us and make sure that we are all able to clean, keep, and handle with respect, our very own firearms. Teach us to respect the power and danger that we wield when we hold a gun, but don't make us unable to protect ourselves when the police put us on hold.

...and as Chris Rock says, charge $5000 for each bullet.

[Warbaby1943]

I'm glad the Supreme Court finally got off their asses and got something right for a change.

[MMI]

The Supreme Court has simply interpreted the Consitution and stated what the law is. That's its job.

That doesn't alter the fact that the law is wrong, and sets USA back 300 years or so. It now falls to politicians to protect their people from the assinine notion that universal gun possession will rid the country of crime, or will provide protection to the law-abiding citizen, or will enable them to muster arms against the English.

Get rid of guns, and the murder rate WILL fall, I promise you. Let guns be freely available to anyone who wants them - including, now, convicted killers and lunatics, and more people will be murdered, and more people will die through accidental shootings.

A lost opportunity, I call it. No, not lost, spurned.

[denuseri]

also in the United States, it is implied several times by many of the founding fathers that we the people need and must have the wherewithall and means of changing our government as need be with or by force if nessesary,

our right to own guns is also our right to protect ourselves from tha macications of tyranny in any form including both those foriegn and domestic

a bad guy can get a gun from anywhere in the world,,under the table etc

take away our right to defend ourselves with guns and you place us on the mercy of the criminals and or at the wellfare of the "state"

as far as the usa being invaded by brittian,,LMAO
as far as the consitution no longer being aplicable,, we have ammended it a few times as needed

as far as taking our guns away,,you might as well take our freedom away with it

i say give me freedom or give me death, call me old fashioned lol

thanku for letting me rant,, adjusts my shooting glassess and goes back to blowing holes in paper targets with my pistolas

[rora]

I am also a legal gun toting citizen.

Gun control is using both hands.

Ok, I am out of here. Off to ask my hubby if we can practice today.

[Warbaby1943]

Get rid of guns, and the murder rate WILL fall, I promise you. Let guns be freely available to anyone who wants them - including, now, convicted killers and lunatics, and more people will be murdered, and more people will die through accidental shootings.

Tell that to those countries who have tried your suggestions. Try convincing them that you are right and the statistics kept since guns were outlawed are incorrect.

That is bullshit rhetoric and I'm, glad most people see through it.

[MMI]

Like I said - set back 300 years

[MMI]

Reposted below

[Warbaby1943]

Like I said - set back 300 years

I'm very happy they didn't agree with you.

[butterflySlave4u]

The Supreme Court has simply interpreted the Consitution and stated what the law is. That's its job.

That doesn't alter the fact that the law is wrong, and sets USA back 300 years or so. It now falls to politicians to protect their people from the assinine notion that universal gun possession will rid the country of crime, or will provide protection to the law-abiding citizen, or will enable them to muster arms against the English.

Get rid of guns, and the murder rate WILL fall, I promise you. Let guns be freely available to anyone who wants them - including, now, convicted killers and lunatics, and more people will be murdered, and more people will die through accidental shootings.

A lost opportunity, I call it. No, not lost, spurned.

Oh.....WHERE to begin here.....

A, Number One, and First...i AM a law abiding, gun licensed holding, citizen of the US...i'm not sure where you are from, as you've chosen to hide your Location...

B, "Get rid of guns, and the murder rate WILL fall, I promise you."

can you?? can you REALLY?? sorry, i'll take my chances....i want my odds to be 'even up' with the moron that climbs in my window with a rifle at 3am...

and C, "universal gun possession" was NOT what the ruling said...

"The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting", was what it said....those weapons have to be registered...

not sure what point you're trying to make...but i'll defend to the death, your right to make it...would you do the same for me?

[Warbaby1943]

Oh.....WHERE to begin here.....

A, Number One, and First...i AM a law abiding, gun licensed holding, citizen of the US...i'm not sure where you are from, as you've chosen to hide your Location...

B, "Get rid of guns, and the murder rate WILL fall, I promise you."

can you?? can you REALLY?? sorry, i'll take my chances....i want my odds to be 'even up' with the moron that climbs in my window with a rifle at 3am...

and C, "universal gun possession" was NOT what the ruling said...

"The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting", was what it said....those weapons have to be registered...

not sure what point you're trying to make...but i'll defend to the death, your right to make it...would you do the same for me?

Somewhere in this forum itself are posts that absolutely disprove the statement about crime rates and murder rates going down. If I'm not mistaken, and I have been before, I believe it was Australia where the crime skyrocketed after guns were outlawed. I also think England has very similar problems and many law abiding citizens there want their guns back.

I'm with you butterfly though I'm not sure I'd defend his/her, since I don't know which, right if it involved my death over this issue since he/she thinks guns are not vital to our well being as a free society.

[MMI]

I live in Britain. We abolished the right to have unlicensed guns years and years ago. It was virtually impossible to own a gun unless you were a farmer: and then only a shotgun (to kill foxes and scare crows). We then had a shooting where a lunatic (who belonged to a gun club) killed several school children, and our politicians decided, in the interests of the people's safety, to make it even harder to own or even possess guns. The majority of the population gladly endorsed this

But, there were still illegal guns and gun murders, too. However, our police, even today, walk around unarmed. And many - I dare say, the majority - of our people have never held or seen a gun close up, and likely, they never will. True, we have armed response units, and cetain police are armed now - at airports, for example - but that has little to do with domestic gun crime, more to do with international terrorism.

Even with the growth of gun crime in UK, due mainly to Jamaican drug dealers, our police do not need to carry firearms. "Home grown" felons do not normally use guns - they don't need to - and they regard other miscreants who might use guns as among the lowest of the low lifes they mingle with.

And murders by firearms in UK are confined mainly to the criminal fraternity killing each other in drug wars. Sadly, there have been instances of one or two innocent children being killed by those illegal guns, but there is absolutely no way that the legal possession of firearms by the parents (or anyone else) would have prevented those killings. We, as a nation, think that the accidental killing of children through the misuse of guns is outrageously irresponsible, not a simple hazard of life.

It's not my vision that the bullshit is obscuring.

As for people wanting their guns back, why would they? I bet you got that information from the NRA or the Ku Klux Klan or some othe similar organisation. Anyway, you're utterly wrong!

Apart from a hunting rifle (on which I'll suspend judgement), I can only asssume that, if you own a gun, you contemplate killing someone. Why else would you need one? With so many intending killers roaming free, exercising their right to bear arms, how does that make America a better society?

[Warbaby1943]

As for people wanting their guns back, why would they? I bet you got thoat information from the NRA or the Ku Klux Klan or some othe similar organisation. Anyway, you're utterly wrong on that.

I got it from a video by an Englishman and I wish I could put my hands on it now. Not all over there agree with your point of view form what this video says and points out. Actually he was urging Americans to not allow it to happen to them and thank God so far it hasn't.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html 5th paragraph says it well.

http://rkba.org/comment/brown/England.html

[MMI]

I agree, not all Britons think guns should be restricted so severely. Likewise, not all Britons think that Bin Laden is an evil man. But most of us do.

Your Englsihman is representative only of himself. But he has the freedom to say whatever he did say, and, here, that freedom doesn't have to be protected by the threat of an armed insurgency by the "people".

[MMI]

So who are Reason and Mr Brown?

You and I face the problem of an ever expanding and intrusive state. Big Government sticks its hands in our pockets, its eyes in our bedrooms, and nose in our checked-baggage.

We have to do more than grit our teeth. We have to fight back.

...

Thank you for helping us hold the torch of liberty aloft.

I think that just about says it all ... if not NRA, then something like it. (Pardon me if my contempt shows.)

Didn't even bother to google Brown: I'm sure the result will be similar.

It would take a long time to rebut the highly selective, prejudiced and out-of-date cant you have referred me to: do you really want me to? Would it make a difference? I know your mind is as closed on the subject as mine is.

But I live in a society that is largely free of guns and relatively free of gun crime (even Reason has to admit that our murder rate was lower than yours, although it then went on to suggest, somewhat unreasonably, in my view, that our guns laws were therefore a failure and USA would be unwise to follow them). You live in a society where guns are seen as virtuous somehow, and in some places it is mandatory to possess them! Who stands the greater chance of being shot? Who is the more likely to shoot someone? What are the chances that the shooting is over something less than a life-or-death situation?

[Thorne]

I got it from a video by an Englishman and I wish I could put my hands on it now. Not all over there agree with your point of view form what this video says and points out. Actually he was urging Americans to not allow it to happen to them and thank God so far it hasn't.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html 5th paragraph says it well.

http://rkba.org/comment/brown/England.html

Very interesting links, WB. Sorry to say I'm not surprised, but it is certainly telling.

It only stands to reason that, when you take away peoples ability to defend themselves, you make them targets for the wolves in their midst. And then you disarm those who are supposed to help protect them? As the article stated, the police now have to fear that the kid on the bicycle might have an automatic weapon. And he would use it, too. Knowing that there's damned little the police could do to stop him!

No, gun control, and turning over our safety to a government committee, are not the way to go. Licensing weapons, restricting certain weapons, mandatory training and testing, these are all doable and things which no reasonable person can protest against. When criminals know that any person they might confront could be armed, and trained to use the weapon, they must think twice about attacking people. Those who don't think, such as drug addicts, deserve whatever fate overtakes them. Better they should be wounded, or even killed, than those law-abiding citizens who are their prey.

[denuseri]

Yes but the rate of violent crimes in brittian committed with knives is getting attention now, you think the anti-gun establishment revisionist government of england will ban all knives soon to stop that???? What about cars,, traffic fatalities still make up more deaths per capita in both nations compared to murders guns or not. Shall we ban cars too? it would save more lives, and before yu call these spurious corelations yu should examin your own.

criminals will use whatever means they have available

its not our fault your government took away your right to own firearms

and if you complacently gave it up on your own well what does that say ......complacency was the downfall of the romans in times past

as for your murder rate,, well lets see are we talking % per population,, cuz if yu mean total murders the U.S. population is substantially larger than that of jolly ole englands

lets see what kind of near police state yu get when brittan reaches 300+million people if yu start banning everything george orwell wont have been that far off the mark is my guess

the vast majority of countries in the world have many issues, governments throughout history have a tendency to try and restrict the freedom of individual citizens in every single government that has ever existed brittian and the usa are no exception

the big difference here is our system of government is one created and chosen by our people for the express purpose of keeping as many of our individual freedoms as possible

We have the right to arm ourselves,

unlike so many unfortunate countries that have allowed thier governments to surpress their natural right to defend themselves

[Thorne]

I know your mind is as closed on the subject as mine is.

Approaching any discussion with a closed mind is counterproductive.

But I live in a society that is largely free of guns and relatively free of gun crime (even Reason has to admit that our murder rate was lower than yours, although it then went on to suggest, somewhat unreasonably, in my view, that our guns laws were therefore a failure and USA would be unwise to follow them). You live in a society where guns are seen as virtuous somehow, and in some places it is mandatory to possess them! Who stands the greater chance of being shot? Who is the more likely to shoot someone? What are the chances that the shooting is over something less than a life-or-death situation?

One point made in, I think, both of those articles was that the crime rates were reported differently in the two nations. Here in the US, apparently, they try to consider every homicide as a murder, regardless of the circumstances, while in the UK, they are much more selective. My understanding of what the articles stated is that, if a person kills another person and then, through legal manipulation, plea-bargains down to a lesser offense, the police apparently reclassify the crime as something other than murder.

Both of these stands make sense to me! In the US the more liberal sections of the government wish to inflate the statistics, trying to terrorize civilians into giving up their freedoms in lieu of some nebulous safety (see everything which has happened here since 9-11). While in the UK they are trying to pacify their citizens into believing that the crime statistics are much lower than they are, in an effort to justify their loss of freedoms.

I am particularly disturbed by the concept of people who do defend themselves being treated more harshly than the criminals who attacked them. At least in this country, supposedly, the criminals are responsible for any outcome resulting from the commission of a crime. That means that, if two thugs invade my home and I kill one of them, the other criminal gets charged with murder, since the death of his partner was a direct result of their felonious assault.

But let's face it, folks. It's much easier to rationalize the loss of your ability to defend yourself by decrying anyone who has the temerity to want to defend him or herself. It's much more difficult to admit, to yourself and the public, that, "Yes, if attacked I will protect myself and my family and even my property, with deadly force if necessary. I won't like it, and won't provoke it, but if it comes down to it, I will shoot to kill. And I will accept the sleepless nights and soul-searching that will come from taking another life. But I will also accept the thanks and love of my intact family."

[Thorne]

criminals will use whatever means they have available

Excellent point! I just saw, within the last day or two, video of a street riot (which started out as a Mardi Gras celebration in, I think, Seattle). The video clearly showed one cowardly hoodlum smashing his skateboard over the head of an unsuspecting victim. And apparently that hoodlum, later that same night, killed someone with the skateboard.

So should we ban skateboards?

[rora]

Well we didn't get to practice shooting today. We got a call from our youngest...can you and dad please come and help? *laffs* Of course we were off to help. Afterwards we went to the store for some groceries. I live in a small Oregon town. I noticed as we were walking around there were several young men dressed in that washed out cammo pants. The light olive green T shirts..nothing on them. All the young men had their heads shaved and last but not least ..everyone of them had a tactical holster strapped to their mid thigh. The holsters were not empty. I looked.

We got up to the check out and I commented. Those young guys were all gone. Where but here could all those guys be walking around the store packing a weapon. Nothing to tell what they were. No writing on the t shirts..nothing, and nobody was the least bit concerned. We walked by them and smiled..they smiled back and we both went on our way. The clerk commented...just think if that was California or New York! *laffs*

We guessed them to be DEA or something like that.

I could also pack openly, but I don't.

Just sharing....

MMI did Britian get knives banned too? I know at one time they were thinking about it.
I had a Dom that was a Brit. He was also totally against guns, so I am not wasting my breath arguing with You. *laffs* I wish You well.