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

[Aurora196]

I just needed to comment, since I'm against the possesion of weapons, with which I mean firearms, by citizens. The only people, in my opinion, allowed to carry a firearm are policemen, the army (obviously) etc. For hunting of course people could get guns, but this should be controlled by the government in a very precise manner. I don't believe in guns for your own protection. And what is being said about the protection against gangs I can understand, however the main problem with gangs isn't solved by carrying a gun (it might even be partly caused by legal guns). And the USA is a wealthy and powerful country, with enough ability to solve problems with gangs and violence. Most European countries don't have legalised firearms, have lower crime/murder rates and have little problems with illegal weapons, compared to the USA. Because of what reason exactly can't the USA also be like that?

And no, carrying a gun doesn't make you invincible against other bullets, despite what many may think. You still can be killed in a robbery or anything like that. I even think someone with a gun (for example in a shop) has a higher chance of being wounded or killed. The feeling of power you might have with a gun can make someone do stupid things, and trying to shoot a robber when he is pointing a gun at you is quite stupid. I don't think the robber will run away seeing a gun, but instead will do anything to escape, and if that means killing you, so be it. People are jumpy from nature and tend to act fast in (possible) danger. And that's the reason I would never feel safe in a country with legalised firearms.

And also, why are people so obsessed with crime and safety in that area. There are many other dangers, which cost more lifes, than crime. Think about traffic, accidents at home or deceases. I rarely see people worrying as much about those things, than about crime. I still see many people who think it's ok to drink alcohol before driving a car and I still see people eating too much, eating too unhealthy, smoking, without any exercising and at the same time are afraid to go out at night because of possible crime and violence.

[Ixith]

I don't believe in guns for your own protection. And what is being said about the protection against gangs I can understand, however the main problem with gangs isn't solved by carrying a gun (it might even be partly caused by legal guns). And the USA is a wealthy and powerful country, with enough ability to solve problems with gangs and violence. Most European countries don't have legalised firearms, have lower crime/murder rates and have little problems with illegal weapons, compared to the USA. Because of what reason exactly can't the USA also be like that?

ok concerning first the area I underlined. Yes with some weapons legalized it may make it easier for gangs to get said guns. However, like said before, gangs get guns that are illegal all the time still.

Now for the bold stuff. The U.S. has by no means the ability to keep the gangs down. The following are the amount of members inside of certain large well known gangs that I am looking up to provide an example to show just how large of an operation would be needed to get rid of gangs.

Cripps= 30,000-40,000
Blood= 30,000-35,000
18th street gang= around 30,000
Aryan Brotherhood= 15,000+
Mara Salvatrucha Membership in the United States = 10,000 as of 2005

those are just 5 of the bigger gangs. Most of these gang members are most likely armed with some kind of weapon and to have a large scale operation to completely or at least come close to eradicating most of the members would cost way too much money, damage to the cities, and probably cause some large protest from the people as it would most likely require the use of a large military like squad and I would take a guess and say that the people wouldn't really like seeing the government deploy troops inside of one of their own cities.
Also there is no way in hell all those members could be imprisoned. Not only is there probably not enough prison room but the cost to do so would be so much great. Not to mention the fact that many of those gangs have many ties into the prisons around their areas to begin with and some actually operate while in the prison and kill many other prisoners.

to the italicized stuff. This would be because not all ideas and actions work the same for different countries. That is like saying why can't everyone just be Jewish. It's because not everyone can follow that same belief due to how they where brought up or how they have witnessed things. People have been brought up differently, some to respect others and also to respect weapons and to never misuse them. While others have not.

And no, carrying a gun doesn't make you invincible against other bullets, despite what many may think. You still can be killed in a robbery or anything like that. I even think someone with a gun (for example in a shop) has a higher chance of being wounded or killed. The feeling of power you might have with a gun can make someone do stupid things, and trying to shoot a robber when he is pointing a gun at you is quite stupid. I don't think the robber will run away seeing a gun, but instead will do anything to escape, and if that means killing you, so be it. People are jumpy from nature and tend to act fast in (possible) danger. And that's the reason I would never feel safe in a country with legalized firearms.

to the underlined part...well duh.
bold part. your statement is true. However, if the gang knows that the person has a gun they could very likely decide "hey i don't want to risk that". I wouldn't suggest trying to shoot a robber when he has a gun to your head either but if you have a chance to stop that from even happening before that wouldn't you take it?
to the underlined part. I agree people tend to act fast in danger. We have that feature because it has kept us alive for such a long time. However, danger in today's world is all around us anywhere we go and people just don't even think to begin with now to begin with.

And also, why are people so obsessed with crime and safety in that area. There are many other dangers, which cost more lifes, than crime. Think about traffic, accidents at home or deceases. I rarely see people worrying as much about those things, than about crime. I still see many people who think it's ok to drink alcohol before driving a car and I still see people eating too much, eating too unhealthy, smoking, without any exercising and at the same time are afraid to go out at night because of possible crime and violence.

this is my biggest point right here. weapon related crimes do not added up to the amount of injuries and deaths that car accidents and food related things cause. So why worry about the weapons when there are more things that the money could be going towards such as better education on how to drive properly and what is a good diet and how to actually stay in shape and prevention of diseases. Right now the education is the simple biggest problem in the United States in my opinion. They need to make driving classes more in depth and longer instead of just a few classes and a few in car driving tests.(though this changes with each state I believe) If they made the driving classes an actual semester long class that you can take in school and made it worth while instead of "hey you took the class and showed up almost everyday so you passed!" then driving accidents would probably be greatly reduced. Same with health related issues. If they actually taught what good health is and how it can be achieved in the Health classes instead of Health class being more focused on STDs and drugs then maybe people would be in better health.
I think that there should be a good education on the proper use and care of guns, or any weapon for that matter, much like that of what the Boy Scouts of America have to go through and learn. That in it self if given out to everyone would probably do more than trying to ban weapons.