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 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.

You're wrong. Statistics say that children from smokers more commonly start smoking themselves. People don't generally see weapons as a thing that kill you like cigarettes, but you'll still see it more as an object that's accepted. Yes, many don't copy their parents directly or don't do it on purpose, but they have a big influence on you (or for the very majority). I don't believe you have the guts to send socialization back as a dead argument. Gangs and such things have to be dealt with yes, but the first thing to do is to get rid of the legal weapons. If a weapon kills, it doesn't matter if it's legal or illegal.

[Ixith]

You're wrong. Statistics say that children from smokers more commonly start smoking themselves. People don't generally see weapons as a thing that kill you like cigarettes, but you'll still see it more as an object that's accepted.

First off, I would like to point out that it is usually not a good idea to tell someone whom you are debating against that they are wrong. Especially doing so in such a blunt right out of the get go way. In many cases this just makes people pissed off and if it were a face to face debate and you said that to the other person then you might get hurt. Anyways....

Which statistics are you talking about? Where is the data and when was said data published? Also remember statistics can be shaped to whatever the person giving said statistics wants. Yes I can see logic in parents smoke then their children will be more likely to but that idea isn't ALWAYS right.

Also concerning the part I underlined. There is a reason for that you know and perhaps that reason is because guns have been used for protection for ages, they have been used for getting us food for ages, they have been used as a hobby for ages...hmmm did I get the point across yet? Guns have been in our culture for a long time and things in our culture just don't go away easily and especially not just because the government says it should be gone. What would you say if your government just got up and took away something that you have always had available to you for a long time and so have your parents and your grandparents and so on just because a very small percentage of the population has died because another small percentage of people misused whatever it is? (don't know of a good example for this as I don't live in Norway nor have I studied anything about it.) (**note that yes I do know that smoking has also been in our culture for a very long time. However, keep in mind that weapons have helped us with hunting and people have a strong attachment to food.**)

Now since you have chosen to compare the smoking situation to the gun situation then don't you think that the same thing will occur with propaganda against guns as it has with cigarettes? I don't think you will see a commercial on TV that will say something along the lines of "Come on out to Big Guns R Us! and buy a nice rifle to go shoot!" (bad example I know) If a commercial shows up about guns it will be something like "Stand up against guns!"

Then what would animal farming businesses do? Companies that raise livestock to just murder for food use weapons to kill their animals. Will they need some special license that makes food prices increase ever so much further?`

Yes, many don't copy their parents directly or don't do it on purpose, but they have a big influence on you (or for the very majority). I don't believe you have the guts to send socialization back as a dead argument.

I agree that parents, relatives, siblings, and friends all have a large impact on a child. But like I said all ideas based on society can go the other way as society goes through changes frequently. One might find their place in society or what they feel is socially acceptable if they go against the habits or hobbies of their parents or whomever be their influence in that case.

Gangs and such things have to be dealt with yes, but the first thing to do is to get rid of the legal weapons. If a weapon kills, it doesn't matter if it's legal or illegal.

I believe you just added to my point there because weapons, even if they are all proclaimed illegal by the government, will still be managed to be found in the hands of gangs across the nation and the world for that matter. Thus, the main area of gun violence is still not able to be controlled. So why ban guns especially if the targets of gangs can use them to protect themselves and fight against the gangs. I feel the best way to get rid of the gangs would be to let the citizens be able to more easily fight back. Honestly if you were in a gang that robbed places and saw two stores. Store A has an owner who you know doesn't have any weapons and Store B you know the owner owns a weapon of some sort. Which store would you go to rob? I would have to guess Store A as it would be a less likely chance that you and your fellow gang members would get hurt. So you can either have a large amounts of places bending over for the gangs to anally rape them or you can have all those people and places fighting back against the gangs and discouraging the gangs from being in that area. Sure there would be a lot more violence and deaths at first but after awhile I bet it would simmer down as the gangs would just stop trying.

Finally concerning the part in bold. What makes something a weapon in the first place? If I took a carrot and stabbed you in the eye....wouldn't that make that carrot a weapon? It is the person's intent not the item that is malevolent.` So it is rather stupid to make all weapons illegal as if you look at it, anything can be turned into a weapon. Seriously....a guy could kill someone with his penis if he wanted to do so. So if enough guys did that then would you be on the side that think they should make the bearing of a penis illegal? (this part was added more for humor than anything)


*Notes:
1) Areas with ` at the end are marked like that for a reason and so that I can look back to see what i marked to see if the thing I wanted to comes up.
2)I am very exhausted right now and somethings may have came out not as I was thinking or wanting. So I may need to go back and clarify some things later. Which is ok because you will probably rebuttal (lol that word has butt in it.) many parts of this response. *