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

[Ixith]

It indeed is, but it is the weapon that makes the power to kill someone. I never denied hunting with weapons. Weapons are to be allowed for specific reasons. Hunting is one, among of others. No, it's not always like children do what their parents do. It's still important to base views on the general public. [u]MOST children follow their parents. [/u

-A weapon may make the job of killing easier but the mind is what controls the person.

-If you say no guns but then say oh you can have a gun for this or this, then wouldn't that cause debate or people perhaps stealing the gun? or cause people to want a gun if you give them temporary access to something that is 'forbidden'? It would be like tempting a toddler with a cookie by giving them one from time to time but every time the toddler really wants one and goes to get one itself you pull away the cookie jar causing frustration and other emotions to arise against you.

-To underlined area. Yes most may in Norway but how do you know about the US? I would agree that a majority does. But I would say that more and more are basing their actions on what IS going on in society than following in their parents footsteps. Reason being is that to follow in their parents footsteps is becoming very hard to do in many cases.

If you blame social differences you have to do something with that.

I agree here, however getting into a position in which you can do something or at least effectively is fairly hard.

You need to increase taxes of the richer and decrease for the poorer. This again will be used to fund those that live in poverty.

Again, I agree we need to do something along those lines. But the problem is in a country where everyone is suppose to be equal then there would be opposition to such a thing. So it isn't so easy to do. Plus it would take MUCH time to find out the right percentages to tax people.

In my honest opinion you need to refresh your views, and forget the consitution written in 1787. A gun may have been needed when it was cowboy land in the US, but not anymore. If gangs are dealt with, illegal guns and legal guns for everyone are removed, you simply don't need guns.

well now. this actually kinda offended me here.
Asking us to forget perhaps the biggest part of our history as citizens of the US is just preposterous. Perhaps I should ask everyone to just forget about the Ten Commandments that were made from such a longer time period away. Or perhaps I should just ask people to forget about their own ancestors. Or maybe I would go as far as to saying that all the Christians should just forget about the Bible as it was written such a long time ago and doesn't hold up to today's society. That is essentially what you are trying to tell us to do. Sure the Constitution was written a long time ago but...if you think about it 221 years isn't THAT long of a time. Sure a lot has changed since then but many of the ideals stated in the Constitution still hold true today and still hold importance in today's society just as the lessons in the Bible still remain good lessons.

As for the cowboy reference there...I'm not even gonna waste my time.

If firearms would be forbidden and their distribution carefully monitored, there simply would be less firearms around for these people to use.

to forbid and carefully monitor the distribution of all guns would be extremely hard, cost more money than we have (as despite what everyone thinks about the US being extremely rich we are indeed in major debt), and would probably be something that would be more successful as an international attempt at doing something. as like in your point that I quoted next.

Besides, I'd bet that the illegal firearms these gangs in London use were produced in certain countries where they're not illegal

Well then why doesn't England and other countries tighten up their laws of illegal imports of guns? It should be REAL easy to do. I mean you guys suggested to do that for the US if we ban guns.
Plus you can't blame all the illegal weapons in England on us as just about everything sold in the US is made in some other country now. Which is perhaps one of the biggest problems in the US I might add. But we can address that problem some other time if the debate comes up.
Simple fact is guns are made everywhere and they aren't really all that hard to make. Not only that but it is very hard to stop such a gun trade from happening and even gangs in the US have guns that aren't made in the US. Even if every country in the world were to ban the production of guns they would still be made from behind the laws backs.


Finally, I would also like to point out that Utopias have never worked like they were meant. They always collapse after short periods of time. A place without guns or violence...I'm sure that is many people's vision of their perfect society...their utopia. The only way a Utopia would ever work is with a single person...but then it is no longer a society.