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]

As I already said: I understand that someone wants a gun to protect himself, especially when living in a unsafe neighbourhood. Gangs are dangerous, and you MIGHT be safer with a gun in that case. But legalizing guns at the same time creates other danger. I wouldn't feel safe when a emotionally unstable guy (which are everywhere, not only in 'gang-neighbourhoods') owns a gun and for some reason hates me or gets into a fight with me. A person doesn't even have to hate me to be dangerous to me, what about depressed or twisted kids who can reach out for their parents gun and blow the hell out of a dozen of innocent people. That also happens, and I personally know someone of who I wouldn't be surprised if he did the same when he gets his hands on a gun. And not to mention the dangers of bad handling with guns, I've already heard a couple of stories of kids finding a rifle in their parents closet and killing someone by accident.

What I'm trying to say is that it might be safer to have a gun a self defence, but legal firearms also create a lot of danger itself. So in the USA I would at least make it a lot harder for normal people to get a rifle (with psychological tests, background checks, etc.) and have this carefully monitored by the goverment.

And by resocialising programs I don't extensive programs with torture and imprisonment, but with education and help to get someone out of a gang, especially children. (I've seen a documentary about this, it can work and has huge potential). And you can't tell me education is against the constitution.

[ORCACommander]

And by resocialising programs I don't extensive programs with torture and imprisonment, but with education and help to get someone out of a gang, especially children. (I've seen a documentary about this, it can work and has huge potential). And you can't tell me education is against the constitution.

not what I meant. I was referring to work programs and commissions In the New Deal and the 2nd New deal. I forget what it was called but dumping money into impoverished areas was found to be against the constitution. I would agree to psychological tests as being part of a limited gun control but as to background checks I disagree ,with the exception to foreigners, because they could use the excuse of a traffic ticket to deny you your right to own a firearm and once it isa right you can not on those grounds.