Supreme Court Strikes Down DC Gun Law!

Supreme Court Rules That Individuals Have Gun Rights
Supreme Court Rules That Individuals Have Gun Rights
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: June 26, 2008
Filed at 10:16 a.m. ET

Court Weighs Right to Guns, and Its Limits

(March 19) WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court says 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.

Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right
Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right
From the Associated Press
7:24 AM PDT, June 26, 2008

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court says 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."

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."

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Hey Chicago!! You're next!!!!!!!!

On to the next lawsuit, for Fourteenth Amendment incorporation!

Supreme Court Upholds Right To Own Guns For Self-Defense
Supreme Court Upholds Right To Own Guns For Self-Defense
MARK SHERMAN
June 26, 2008 11:09 AM EST

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.

It appears the court said you can't ban but licensing is still OK.

Not precisely. The court said that licensing is OK, but it needs to be a shall-issue license; it can't be subject to someone saying "no, I don't think you should get to have a gun." Restricting it from felons or people who've been declared mentally incompetent is okay; presumably the exam on the law that DC proposes to incorporate into a licensing process is okay. But the days of the California jurisdictions that have the authority to issue gun licenses, but don't actually DO it, are clearly numbered.

On the topic of numbers, it's not clear that restricting gun ownership to a single weapon will fly either. It does say "arms", after all. ;p More to the point, what's the real point of such a restriction? It's not like getting a second gun turns someone from a law-abiding citizen into a dangerous gang-banger; hell, the guys who can afford big gun collections tend to be serious people with high incomes.

But a jurisdiction can require that all guns be licensed and registered based on this ruling.

Don't register it and you may have committed a felony. Commit a felony and you can't own any guns based on this ruling.

I have yet to find anywhere in the ruling that says that. One could logically infer all of this from the ruling but that's quite a bit different from the court actually saying it.

I bet that death by gun shot will soar in DC over the next couple of years.

"plaintiffs include Chicago residents Otis McDonald, a retiree who has been working with police to rid his neighborhood of drug dealers, and who wants to have a handgun at his home; Adam Orlov, a former Evanston police officer; software engineer David Lawson and his wife, Colleen, a hypnotherapist, whose home has been targeted by burglars. Attorney Alan Gura, who argued the District of Columbia challenge before the high court, and Chicago area attorney David G. Sigale, represent the plaintiffs.

"Our goal," Gura said "is to require state and local officials to respect our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Chicago's handgun ban, and some of its gun registration requirements, are clearly unconstitutional.""

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/saf_files_lawsuit_challenging_chicago_s_handgun_ban


Link to complaint (PDF): http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/complaint.pdf

Time to drive the Freedom Haters into the sea!

I bet most of the guns in DC are not and will not be registered.

(just an observation, not joining a side)

Of course it will.

But I'd be very surprised if there was much change in the overall homicide or murder rates.

Check out page 59 of the ruling.

"Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does
not "have a problem with . . . licensing" and that the District's
law is permissible so long as it is "not enforced in an
arbitrary and capricious manner." Tr. of Oral Arg. 74-75.
We therefore assume that petitioners' issuance of a license
will satisfy respondent's prayer for relief and do not address
the licensing requirement."

Page 64:

"In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun
possession in the home violates the Second Amendment,
as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm
in the home operable for the purpose of immediate
self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified
from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District
must permit him to register his handgun and must
issue him a license to carry it in the home."

The latter, especially, is pretty blunt, no? "must permit to register" and "must issue him a license to carry it in the home" are clear instructions.

I find that careful reading of the decision is always the most important qualification in discussing it. ;p

Then you should read more carefully.

The 1st paragragh you quote refers to the District's law and the comment about "not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner." is a quote from Mr. Heller. You'll note that in that same paragraph the court decided not to make a determination as to whether DC's "may issue" law is "arbitrary and capricious" or not.

The 2nd quote requires only a "shall issue" to Mr. Heller. Not to anyone else.

Your earlier comment that I questioned asserts that these are to be applied nationally. Again, that might be inferred but the Court didn't state it.

More guns equal more crime. It's a fact. Most law abiding people who own guns never get the chance to use them when attacked by a criminal. Unlike those old western movies when the good guy and the bad guy faced each other before firing, most gun crimes are committed from behind. Someone grabs you by the throat and sticks a gun to your head while they tell you to drop your wallet. Most drug crime involves people being shot in the back or by an unseen assailant doing a drive by. Go talk to your local police if you don't believe me.

I asked my local police. They said they don't know because way to many people here have guns so there aren't many crimes to look at.

No it isn't.





Nonsense. That could happen sometimes, but it is hardly a guaranteed occurrence -- especially with people who are being careful of potential attackers.

Frankly, I wish the decision went the other way.

A trifecta of inane SC decisions might have stirred up the conservative base.

A duo, still might though.

Most Americans want child rapers to be eradicated.

Who doesn't?

The Kennedy opinion was utterly absurd.

The SOB is relishing his "Swing Vote" position.

All the more reason why we need a conservative president who will tip the scales towards reason.

I can dig it - I mean, more ice-cream means more crime, it's the textbook example for positive correlation without causality. I question anyone's ability to give a **** as such also, I mean 'OMFG, that causes crime!' - it's not jealousy, it's more primal and less constructive, fear of someone else getting a better deal. It's increased directly by socialism - one sees ones self locked into societal controls, it ain't that you could do better on your own or even think you could, but it stands to reason that someone, somewhere could make you look like a chump by your own hand and that of your precious government, so you've got to make sure no one gets to do their own thing.