Supreme Court justices seem favorable to Second Amendment gun right
Published Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!Related Multimedia
Related Multimedia
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court appeared ready Tuesday to endorse the view that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own guns, but was less clear about whether to retain the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns.
The justices were aware of the historic nature of their undertaking, engaging in an extended 98-minute session of questions and answers that could yield the first definition of the meaning of the Second Amendment in its 216 years.
A key justice, Anthony Kennedy, left little doubt about his view when he said early in the proceedings that the Second Amendment gives “a general right to bear arms.”
Several justices were skeptical that the Constitution, if it gives individuals’ gun rights, could allow a complete ban on handguns when, as Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out, those weapons are most suited for protection at home.
“What is reasonable about a ban on possession” of handguns?” Roberts asked at one point.
But Justice Stephen Breyer suggested that the District’s public safety concerns could be relevant in evaluating its 32-year-old ban on handguns, perhaps the strictest gun control law in the nation.
“Does that make it unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate...to say no handguns here?” Breyer said.
Solicitor General Paul Clement, the Bush administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer, supported the individual right, but urged the justices not to decide the other question. Instead, Clement said the court should allow for reasonable restrictions that allow banning certain types of weapons, including existing federal laws.
He did not take a position on the District law.
The court has not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The basic issue for the justices is whether the amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
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.”
While the arguments raged inside, advocates of gun rights and opponents of gun violence demonstrated outside court Tuesday.
Dozens of protesters mingled with tourists and waved signs saying “Ban the Washington elitists, not our guns” or “The NRA helps criminals and terrorist buy guns.”
Members of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence chanted “guns kill” as followers of the Second Amendment Sisters and Maryland Shall Issue.Org shouted “more guns, less crime.”
A line to get into the court for the historic arguments began forming two days earlier and extended more than a block by early Tuesday.
The high court’s first extensive examination of the Second Amendment since 1939 grew out of challenge to the District’s ban.
Anise Jenkins, president of a coalition called Stand Up for Democracy in D.C., defended the district’s prohibition on handguns.
“We feel our local council knows what we need for a good standard of life and to keep us safe,” Jenkins said.
Genie Jennings, a resident of South Perwick, Maine, and national spokeswoman for Second Amendment Sisters, said the law banning handguns in Washington “is denying individuals the right to defend themselves.”
Even if the court determines there is an individual right, the justices still will have to decide whether the District’s ban can stand and how to evaluate other gun control laws. This issue has caused division within the Bush administration, with Vice President Dick Cheney taking a harder line than the administration’s official position at the court.
The local Washington government argues that its law should be allowed to remain in force whether or not the amendment applies to individuals, although it reads the amendment as intended to allow states to have armed forces.
The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because “handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia.”
Dick Anthony Heller, 65, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection. His lawyers say the amendment plainly protects an individual’s right.
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.
Roberts said at his confirmation hearing that the correct reading of the Second Amendment was “still very much an open issue.”
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
The idea that there is no individual Constitutional right to bear arms has always been delusional. A better argument is for the regulation side. Recognize the individual right, but reasonably regulate it, keeping in mind that its purpose is to act as a check to the government's police power, not hunting or recreation.
MEL1776,
Sorry, the reason that 2nd Amendment Proponents are (and have been) so adamently opposed to any and all forms of "regulation" is because "regulation" has historically been the first step in the process toward gun "confiscation".
If proponents of "regulation" could find some way to guarantee "regulation" without opening the door to "confiscation" then perhaps some would join in with that effort. I'm not one of them; I don't trust the Republican Moderates (ala, the Gang of 14 who decided to Compromise on several issues a few years ago when we had a clear majority).
I simply don't trust the Proponents of Gun Control - be they Democrats or Republican Moderates (AKA RINOs).
Oh, one more thing - Gun Ownership is not just about hunting and sporting activities; it is first and foremost about a Citizen's Right to Self Preservation (and Self Determination)!
Get those people some guns!
Gun regulation doesn't keep guns from criminals, gun bans do not keep guns from criminaals. These just keeps guns from law abiding people. I know several people who wasnt supposed to have guns but are able to. I know bans dont work either, people can always get them from other sources. Look at all the uzis and mac-10s and M-16s and Full Auto AK-47s that gang members get. Supposedly there is a ban on full auto weapons, however people still get them.
If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the
Iraq theater of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2,112
deaths, when this was written) that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000
soldiers.
The firearm death rate in Washington, D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000 for the same
period. (...and that was while handguns were outlawed!!)
That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in the
U. S. Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the
nation, than you are in Iraq.
Conclusion: Just maybe the U.S. should pull out of Washington, D.C. !!!!
ak_geo -
That's in interesting analysis. However, you fail to include how many people those 160,000 troops have killed in Iraq. I'm sure that is FAR more than the casualties that we have received. Just pointing that out.
Still, your post was quite amusing!
if all the law abideing citizens in DC had hand guns the crime rate would go down. it has been proven accross the USA when concealment permits are givin out crime goes down. no one wants to rob or rape when your victim may be packing. it dont matter where you live NYC or alaska you need a gun. i never leave home with out one.
John - you scare me... (but have fun - to each his own I guess)
The intent of the second amendment is to guard against tyranny. The provision allowing the people to bear arms is perhaps the most effective way of assuring political freedom. The second amendment is, was, a brilliant strategy to provide a check/balance on the government by those who are governed. The second amendment, therefore, is, was, incredibly important to our political freedom. But considering the technological advances made since the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, I'd argue that mere guns are no longer sufficient to prevent a government as powerful as ours from tyrannizing its citizens. Our founding fathers wanted us, the People, to have weapons to protect our political freedom. Guns are no longer the appropriate weapon to provide such protection; our continued diligence and oversight of the government is.
In places where there's an obvious need for people to own guns for hunting or protection from wildlife, good, let people own guns. Otherwise, ban them outright. Yep, the criminals will own guns whether they're legal or not, but banning guns will make it harder for them to own more or get ammunition, plain and simple.
What a terrifying thought, that all law-abiding citizens anywhere should own guns. Law-abiding citizens are humans. Humans are subject to occasional bad moods, bursts of anger, desire to seek revenge, etc. More guns means more people getting killed, plain and simple. It's just way too easy to pull a trigger, and the consequences are immediate and potentially lethal.
Frankly, I'd rather take my chances at being robbed or raped in a gun-controlled community. Better that than to live somewhere where everyone is "packing" and to constantly worry about what could happen if even just one person's having a really bad day.
ladynyc,
you are more likly to need a gun in defense from humans than wild life. it dont matter to me what you think of me or my beliefs. all i got to say is come take my guns. you will have to kill me my wife and kids to do it.
Sounds like John is ready for the Fairbanks version of Waco?
John McGarry,
Don't you get it? I don't want your guns. Guns scare me.
You scare me.
"The Supreme Court appeared ready Tuesday to endorse the view that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own guns..."
This is the problem with many citizens: they don't understand the basic principle that the Bill of Rights doesn't "give" any rights. It simply protects rights our founders though we had by virtue of being born here. The second amendment "gives" us the right to keep and bear arms no more than the first "gives" us the right to free speech. Let me say this loud and clear for those who don't yet understand - the federal government does not "give" us rights, we give them power. Understand the relationship?
The writer of this article, and dare I say, the populace at large ought to pick up and read the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Maybe then they'd understand just how important our rights are - especially those reduced to writing in our Bill of Rights. Maybe then they'd also understand that the federal government is, legally speaking, powerless to ban guns. They did not "give" us the right and, hence, have no authority to take it. Comments like those made by LadyNYC prove my point - that many Americans don't understand basic civic principles, nor have they versed themselves in world history. A quick glance at the 20th century shows that unarmed populaces are the first to be taken advantage of.
Phew.
I've walked alone in Alaska's wilderness and never carried a gun. Making lots of noise and being aware was my best protection against bears and such. No harm has ever come to me.
I've walked alone in urban wildernesses - ghettos - and never carried a gun. Keeping my wits about me and my eyes open was my best protection against other human beings that might try to harm me. No one ever has.
There are other ways of being protected, other ways of fighting back besides holding a gun. You'll never convince me otherwise, like I'll never convince you that you can get by just fine without your own, personal arsenal.
John and gopking - the more posts like yours I read, the more ardently I support gun control.
LadyNYC -
I suppose you could ask John how many times his personal arsenal has actually protected his life. But, I think that you've already reached the correct conclusion - you are not going to convince Alaskans to give up their guns or agree to gun control. Its just not gonna happen... [And, yes, I'm Alaskan, and I do NOT want gun control - even though I have not and will not ever own one or allow one in my home - to each his own]
I wonder what all of these gun fanatics think about the rest of our constitutional rights that have been violated. Like illegal wire-tapping and all of the other BS that came out of the "Patriot Act" (which is about as unpatriotic as you can get). Not to mention the violation of right to privacy guaranteed me by the Alaska constitution and the Raven Act.
The above digression on the relationship of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is both correct and amusing. The problem is that, among the inherent laws of nature (right to equality, life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness) recognized by those documents, there is no inherent right to own a handgun. And, indeed, prior to the Constitution, in England and in the colonies, there were laws regulating the ownership of weapons. It simply has never been perceived as some inherent right, law of nature, or whatever.
The AP News article's language focuses on an important debate concerning the meaning of the Second Amendment. That Amendment states:
"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 view, that espoused by Justice Scalia, is that the Amendment essentially means: Because we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
However you read the clause, the question arises whether it is the right of the people to collectively bear arms and form a militia if necessary, or whether it is the right of the individual to bear arms and form a militia if necessary? It appears the Supreme Court is leaning towards the latter, which is the reason for the sentence in the article you quoted.
In any event, wherever our High Court goes with this case, guns will still be regulated throughout the U.S. and more heavily in some states than others, though perhaps not as tightly as D.C. attempted. But don't worry, you'll still be able to tote your gun around Alaska.
As for the argument that we all should arm ourselves, there is no evidence that that will reduce crime. The evidence is to the contrary, that it will lead to an increase in crime. Imagine two drunks in bar fighting over the stupid stuff they fight over. If armed, do you really think they'd have the wherewithal to exercise restrained. But, we likely get our news from different sources and I won't be able to convince you that you're wrong on that statistic. In support, I suggest you look at other developed countries . . . Sweden, Iceland, Netherlands, and even England. They have far fewer guns and far less crime. The relationship is more complex, but to say arming ourselves is the solution to crime is plain wrong (and dumb).
you just keep on playing russian roulette with your life ladynyc. ill keep on packing my guns. if the predators do come after us. i know i will be ok. you on the other hand can call 911 or yell at a grizzly while it kills you. lol. again i dont care what you think of me. i dont care if you do support gun control. no goverment will ever get my guns.
LadyNYC - "Don't you get it? I don't want your guns." Herein is the absolute beauty of our way of life: You DON'T have to have guns. But goshdarnitall, I wish all of the people that think like this would stop advocating taking away MY right to own and bare arms. "Ban them everywhere." Why? Because they scare you? There are all sorts of things that scare me (women that wear too much perfume, sixteen year olds driving, people with poor hygiene), but I don't try to take away perfume, drivers' licenses or force deodorant. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. We were killing each other just fine before the invention of the firearm; taking guns away isn't going to stop that. Sorry, but true. This is just one more way to take away someone's rights. Frankly, it's tiresome.
"Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self-defense."
- John Adams
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?"
- Patrick Henry
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so"
- Adolph Hitler
LacyNYC---
Why, in the wide world of sports, would you live up here? Is it your goal to change the mindset of honest Alaskans? I can only beseech you to leave, and go home to your paradise of New York. They have plenty of gun control there, and I'm sure that you've noticed how well it has worked. About as well as it has worked in D.C. Not at all.
The vast majority of Alaskans cherish 2nd Ammendment rights. I dont care if you wrestled , or danced with, polar bears, in your sweet, short experience up here. I, like most Alaskans, am comfortible with guns. I dont abuse their use, that would be illegal, and I am a law abiding citizen. I will use a gun against a violent bear, and I will use a gun against a violent criminal, if need be.
glacierles,
you read my mind. i wish all in favor of gun control would move to NYC , DC , LA or any other libral anti gun place on earth. leave us gun owners alone. we will take care of our self. i will protect myself against man or beast with my guns. ladynyc can call 911 or any other stupid way of protecting herself. i will not ever depend on 911. nor should i have too.
Humans have been killing humans well before there were firearms. Take them away; we're just going to find something else.... maybe like a flat head screwdriver. Planning on taking those away too, that’s going to make putting that pesky swing set together an even more of a pain than you ever could have realized!
Okay, well next possibly a yo-yo.... it after all was originally designed as a weapon. When we take them back to their roots, and those are being blamed for countless deaths, you’re going to upset many children when you take those away.
Then we'll use something like a spoon, it could work quite effectively as a deadly weapon, and when those are confiscated, enjoying your favorite soup just got a little more difficult.
My point is anything can be used as a deadly weapon, even a banana.
If the excuse is to "protecting human lives against human actions" then please, sign me up for that ever-illusive "bubble" that makes the world perfect. Back to that ever popular phrase “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” I can definitely come up with hundreds more examples of everyday items that could be used as a deadly weapon, guns are just an easy target. Lets face it, the gun rights issue is regarding nothing more than taking our personal freedoms from us...and just one more Hitler-ism for the books.
If you don’t like guns, that’s fine and dandy…but you have no right to speak for everyone when you say that they are dangerous, and serve no point in the lives of Americans in today’s world. You’ve obviously never come face to face with a bear and the pucker factor is at a 10.0!
“Street smarts” will only get you so far, if you can’t trust yourself with a firearm, then don’t touch it!
I have read the comments by both the Pros and Cons. gopking actually has the most realistic grasp. (along with others).
Who? actually knows that the "District of Columbia" is not even an actuall state. Its, its own independent Country... within the U.S. "Federal" 20 Square miles. not governed by any state.
When the founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they made every individual a "Sovereign Person" with inalienable rights guarenteed. The only Sovereign in England is the Queen!!! If you ask Government for a privelage, then your asking for them to make rules for you and regulate you, with licenses and implied consents. Gosh I learned these simple facts when I was young and dumb. And, I do know that this is not the way the world works. I can't afford do be Don Quihoty and battle all of these windmills that all of the Sheeple have relinquished, over the generations. I still have to make a living and raise a family.
At issue is one of the most important Question's "At Law" that has come before our highest court in over 200 Years. The implications are mindboggling. Maybe we should look to some of the states "Texas" and others, that have given a reasonable amount of legislative leeway to the free Americans for self preservation from the "Criminal Elements" who have the saturday night specials that harrass our civilized society. I am not advocating vigilantiasm, or anything of the sourt, but maybe we should be allowed to protect ourselves, our families and our property... I know this wont work. Because of the rural, urban, suburban and other burbians will all have issues.
One simple rule: If your life is on the line, your "At Law" If you are dealing with sheeple your "At Equity" The Rules of Court have specifically defined that there shall be no such distinction. "Victims Rights". "Cucumstances". Are you a Sovereign or a sheeple. Damn.
I think there's a lot of undue paranoia out there about the Democrats who favor reasonable gun control. The only Dems who want to take away your guns are a handful of fringe kooks like Dennis Kucinich who get laughed off the stage by their own party. The mainstream of the party, the Obama Democrats, are firmly in favor of sportsmens' rights to hunt and a man's right to defend his home.
At the same time, people have to realize that the inner city is nothing like Alaska where there's some measure of sanity in how people use guns. Make it easy for just anyone to get just any gun, and gang bangers will be turning neighborhoods into even worse war zones. Yeah, the worst of them still get guns anyway, but there are a lot of other dumb kids and petty criminals in the inner city who the law keeps away from guns, but who're likely to buy one and do something stupid if it's really easy. Sometimes it makes sense to have a different set of rules for that, than for a place like Alaska where people grow up learning how to use guns responsibly.
I hunt. I own 4 guns. None of them has ever been endangered by a gun control law. I don't buy this "slippery slope" argument that if you ban a felon from buying an AK-47 pretty soon you can't walk through the woods with a .22. This country is perfectly capable of enacting a modest level of regulation and not going overboard with it.
I don't know how to feel about the court decision, frankly. I'm glad the court is interpreting the 2nd amendment properly as an individual right rather than something about militias. But on the D.C. law it's trickier. There's a case to be made for striking it down for sure, but it's also reasonable to say this is a states' rights issue and D.C. is within its rights to make this law. Whatever they decide, I hope they lay down a really strong and clear decision to put some of the perceived ambiguity about the 2nd amendment to rest.
Laws making firearms harder for citizens to get does make it marginally harder for criminals as well (and even more for suicidal homicidal losers). But those laws also make the benefits of getting a firearm illegally by a much greater amount, again especially for crazy losers who want to feel all powerful in their last moments (they are best discouraged by putting pressure on the media to stop making such losers into celebrities).
So far I have never heard of a decent citizen with a firearm shooting at random people just because they were having a bad day. Humans are not that stupid despite LadyNYC's hateful view towards humanity. I would feel safer in a world in which everyone except me had a firearm than in a world in which only me and a few others had them.
I support reasonable regulation which prohibits those with recent histories of violent crime or mental illness from possessing a firearm, enforced with harsh penalties, while leaving the vast majority of citizens alone in order to act as a check to the police power of the government.
mel1776 you should check the facts closely. But we are always glad to hear from the sheeple.
LadyNYC:
I am a single mother. I have 2 kids to raise and protect. They expect to wake every morning. I intend to allow them to. This is why I do not believe in gun control. When a predator enters my home uninvited and he out-weighs me and is bigger than me shall I launch a frying pan at him? What if I'm not in the kitchen. What if they break in at night? Should I keep an arsenal of those ninja movie throwing stars in my nightstand? Think that'll scare 'em off? I know, maybe I'll shoot him a dirty look and surround myself with a protective bubble, if I wish really hard maybe it'll be a forcefield for my kids, too. A polite request?
The Brady Bill is in place to protect you from criminals. It works. Read it. Take my guns away and you simply put them in the hands of the law breakers instead of the law abiders.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
Your claim that an otherwise reasonable individual is going to go mad and start shooting folks up makes me question your mental stability. The average, law abiding (no criminal record and capable of getting a gun) individual doesn't behave that way. Random acts of gun violence are usually perpetrated by minors with access to guns. Parenting problem, not gun problem. Crimes of passion are the only instance I can think of that may occur, but in that case should we remove the left hand of every American man: he may strangle you later with it? How about my kitchen counter, would you like to confiscate my knife set? My boyfriend gave it to me, I didn't kill him with it when he dumped me, even though I was "having a really bad day."
I will not settle for myself or my children being "raped and robbed," maimed, murdered, or orphaned because things that go boom "scare" you.
FYI: Guns are legal in Alaska. No one's ever harmed you. Do the math.
candikane - Thanks........great post!
"I wonder what all of these gun fanatics think about the rest of our constitutional rights that have been violated."
I, for one, stand just as strong against those violations of our rights as well. I hate the mentality that some of our rights only liberals care about and some only conservatives care about. I, for one, oppose any violation of our rights by the government, Patriot Act included. Instead of taking extremist positions, like those espoused by LadyNYC, we should be supporting each other in free exerce of ALL of our rights. This is the backbone of a freedom-loving society. Supporting causes that weakens one of our rights because you happen to not believe in that right weakens all of our freedoms by making them all susceptible to interpretation and regulation.
I disagree with the Patriot Act as much as I disagree with a ban on handguns. Not because I'm a conservative or liberal, but because I have a basic respect for ALL our freedoms and feel the Patriot Act violates the Fourth Amendment. I wish those calling for more gun control would take a fair look at ALL our freedoms and grant them ALL the respect they deserve.
gopking, you should have seen the letter that I actually wrote RE: Privelages and Rights: This is not the forem or the issue, but I do agree with you!!!
candikane,
right on girl.
id say the same realdeal, and a lot more, the patriot act is a outright slap in the face to all that have given theyer lives for ower freedoms,and as i see it ,we could have done other things then give up ower rights, but as you all know it wasnt us that would sell out ower freedoms, or step on the graves of all the persons that died for us all, to keep them, but as to 911 id nuked the area the trash came from,and tell the rest theres more were that came from, we owe it to ower kids to give them safe life, not one in hell, thank you ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Realdeal's definition of "sheeple" seems to be a moderate. If I was a sheeple wouldn’t I at least want to own a TV?
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.