Victory, A victory today for the 2nd Amendment Options

[ORCACommander]

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.

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 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.

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.

Original Article:

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

well its about time they saw the light. even though it was a dicey 5-4 decision it is a landmark victory. For those of you who do not know I have always been a firearms enthusiast and a rabid supporter of the right to bare arms. So please discuss your views on this I will respect any contrary opinion to mine as long as its well written and as long as it isn't flaming.

This post has been edited by The DvD: Jun 28 2008, 02:36 PM

[Crash]

I restate what I said on PPM:

"If nobody around you has weapons, you don't need weapons."

Weapons are for hunters, soldiers and policemen. If you really have a hobby about weapons, you should still be able to go to a range and shoot on targets. You need to have a certificate to get weapons, and a reason to own one. Ammo should be stored in a range for those who want to go there.

On a side note I think some of the laws in the US are just plain stupid. They are inded more proper for a life more than hundred years ago, and I don't like that kind of conservatism and liberalism. It's time to let go of that liberalism and conservatism IMO.

[The Raven]

I restate what I said on PPM:

"If nobody around you has weapons, you don't need weapons."

Weapons are for hunters, soldiers and policemen. If you really have a hobby about weapons, you should still be able to go to a range and shoot on targets. You need to have a certificate to get weapons, and a reason to own one. Ammo should be stored in a range for those who want to go there.

On a side note I think some of the laws in the US are just plain stupid. They are inded more proper for a life more than hundred years ago, and I don't like that kind of conservatism and liberalism. It's time to let go of that liberalism and conservatism IMO.

Which would be great if there wasn't a black market.
Right now I could frive 20 miles to New Orleans and buy an illegal fully automatic AK-47 smuggled from Egypt or Lybia or womewhere like that for about $200, no questions asked. At that point, what happens to the law abiding citizens who don't have guns? They get owned in the face. At least someone trained to use an M4 or a AR-15 would have a chance against an illegal AK

[Crash]

Which would be great if there wasn't a black market.
Right now I could frive 20 miles to New Orleans and buy an illegal fully automatic AK-47 smuggled from Egypt or Lybia or womewhere like that for about $200, no questions asked. At that point, what happens to the law abiding citizens who don't have guns? They get owned in the face. At least someone trained to use an M4 or a AR-15 would have a chance against an illegal AK

True, but illegal import of weapons can and needs to be dealt with. I can see it from your perspective too. It's dangerous to live in the US, there are criminals everywhere, and you need something to defend yourself.

With weapons legal I do believe you make weapons more 'ok', just like how smoking becomes more 'ok' if your parents smoke. The more you make weapons 'ok', the more people are encourouged to use them. Having the right to shoot someone innocent on your property if they don't have the permission is ridiculous. You don't kill someone because of that.

This post has been edited by CrashKing: Jun 30 2008, 06:05 AM

[Ixith]

True, but illegal import of weapons can and needs to be dealt with. I can see it from your perspective too. It's dangerous to live in the US, there are criminals everywhere, and you need something to defend yourself.

that is much harder than you think especially in a country so large as the United States that has many other things to think about and has such a large boarder line area. Yes it needs to be dealt with but in some cases there is too much to stop it all.

With weapons legal I do believe you make weapons more 'ok', just like how smoking becomes more 'ok' if your parents smoke. The more you make weapons 'ok', the more people are encourouged to use them.

I actually disagree. In some cases if a lot of people see that it is 'ok' to do something if their parents do it. But in a lot of cases kids will go AGAINST what their parents do. My parents smoke and all of my grandparents smoked yet I have always been highly against it. My mom was an alcoholic and I am VERY against excessive drinking. That theory is reversed in such a way on MANY occasions especially in cases in which the child has not had a good experience with their parents using said things. Though again not all cases are like that but many are. Plus it isn't like kids are encouraged to use them. They might be encouraged to go hunting if they live in more of area outside of a city but usually the kids that learn how to fire and care for a gun from their parents are the kids that are good.

Having the right to shoot someone innocent on your property if they don't have the permission is ridiculous. You don't kill someone because of that.

and for

If so many people got hurt in that, then why couldn't they just pull out their pistols and fire back?

Isn't that what the Amendment is there for anyway?

well not so many people get hurt this way. The most common case would be if someone comes over onto Private Property and in this case it is not like they don't know that they shouldn't be in that property because there are usually signs everywhere around that property that say "Private property! No Trespassing!" or something along those lines. But seriously this happens a lot less than you think.
Most gun related incidents are with people who are not right in the head or are in gangs. Now gangs are a serious problem, take the cripps and the bloods in LA for example. They fight for 'their territory' in which to sell drugs and black market weapons. Those areas are highly dangerous and very hard for police to handle if they even can handle it. But seeing as there are thousands of gang members in some gangs like that then it becomes very hard. You would need a strong army of sorts but if the people saw an army go through our own city firing away then you can be assured that there would be riots against it even if it was in good intentions. Also if an army did that to clear away the gangs then it would only be temporary removal of the gangs as more would form with even more hatred and not only that but I'm sure many innocent civilians would die in the process.

Then the incidents of gun abuse with those not right in the head is probably the only incident that could be stopped. However, most of these incidents are suicide and a few occasions are homicide or mass murder such as a school shooting. Sure if they banned guns then you would think this one wouldn't exist however, many cases like this the people use guns that they shouldn't even have access to as they are illegal to begin with.

@Nod Strike's... again like Corsair said

Just because the amendment is there it doesn't mean Americans are always carrying around a pistol or something to defend themselves.

plus sometimes in the case of someone crossing into private property and being killed it could be completely unexpected so they may not even have the time to use said weapon to defend themselves if they even did have it on them. Plus like I said that kind of incident is much rarer then made to believe.

[sarcasm rant that shows a point]You know what...I think cars should be banned. It seems I see and hear about car crashes with injuries and deaths almost every day. They are dangerous they should be banned. Oh and good Food should be banned too because it gives you bad health conditions and can clog the arteries of your heart and kill you. [/sarcasm rant that shows a point]
Seriously though there are more deaths in the US related to car crashes and bad health conditions (often caused from food) than there are from deaths related to guns.

Now I hope there are some oh so good arguments to debate about when I get back from working 3 hours away on Wednesday