Supreme Court Strikes Down DC Gun Ban
By Nicole Belle Wednesday Jun 25, 2008 10:30am
The Supreme Court says 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 strikes down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.[..]
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.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, (.pdf) said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."
In dissent, 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."
Is this good or bad?
Wow. John Paul Stevens could not be more off base.
In dissent, 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.”
Yes. They did. It's called the second amendment and that's exactly what it was intended to do.
You may disagree with the notion now, but let's not try to pretend it wasn't what the framers intended.
great decision
this supreme court session has had many great decisions that are supported by the Constitution
whether you like it or not we all have the right to have a handgun
yay for pro second amendment democrats
I'm torn by this. On one hand I don't want them to take away my guns so that I can protect myself in case Bush tries Marshal Law to stay in office for another term and I have to shoot my way through the lines to get some food and on the other hand it can get pretty scary going out to dinner in some of these cities.
JCinDE @ 2:
Then why are the words "well regulated militia" in there at all?
"Well regulated". Explain that part.
The idea of that people have the right to firearms for defense is mainly believed to be for the people to protect themselves not only from criminals, but from an oppressive state.
They finally supported the constitution, but it was most likely for political purposes as every other decision. Only if they would remain consistent.
I left a message for Nancy Pelosi and Keith Ellison to begin pushing impeachment hearings vs Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thoms, and John Roberts. In addition to the message left with Keith Ellison, I again reiterated that he should begin pushing for the impeachment of Nancy Pelosi.
This, my friend, is good. This is an area where we lefties have dropped the ball in a most spectacular fashion. Gun bans such as the DC only affect those actually willing to obey the law. That's not a tagline, that's a fact. We need to crack down on the illegal gun trade, NOT on law abiding citizens.
background checks, waiting periods, proper enforcement.
I, for one, am a fervent advocate of IQ tests for matters such as this, and the ability to procreate.
If you don't have the brains, then you get no guns, and no kids. Period.
Dennis @ 9:
I agree. Lets settle neighborhood disputes the Baghdad way. And in many urban areas cover fire will be the new way to get the mail. EEEHHAAA!
Johnny2Bad @ 6:
Well regulated = well equipped, hence the need for people to keep and bear their own arms. And there is NO doubt that the framers were protecting a PERSONS right, not the right of a militia. Ever right in the bill of rights speaks directly to personal rights, why on earth anybody would try and argue that this one amendment didn't, even taking into consideration the first part of the amendment, is beyond me.
DC's gun ban obviously has done nothing since it still has the highest murder rate in the country. So I don't see how it can be supported.
I'm a liberal and a gun owner and frankly this is a good thing. The Democrats need to drop the whole gun control thing, it's a non-issue, and we have much bigger problems to deal with.
moondancer @ 11:
Yep, because that's EXACTLY what has happened in every state with concealed carry, right? Oh, wait........
Dennis @ 9:
i agree liberals have it wrong on this issue and it is because of this one issue that we loose a lot of votes - people want their goddamn guns and we gotta let go of this issue and start showing that we too support the rights of gun owners to protect themselves from criminals
i love three things in life - weed, women and my guns
moondancer @ 11:
Don't be ridiculous- here in NYC, the gun control laws are very strict and you won't be able to get one for years. But guess what? If you're in a bad neighborhood like a lot of people- everyone who's up to no good has a gun, and there's nothing you can do to protect yourself other than try to call other people with guns(Cops), who either don't show up or try to put charges on you for something stupid- meaning, I could get shot by someone but if during the struggle I scratched him and he bled a little I'd be thrown in jail for assault as well.
Well shoot...
Johnny2Bad @ 6:
The "militia" was the armed public, not a branch of the armed services we have today. In order for a free society to defend itself (from criminals, invaders, or from a corrupt government) its citizens must be allowed to keep and bear arms. The opening phrase is not setting conditions on the right to bear arms, it's explaining why the right is so vitally necessary.
I believe it's good for bad reasons. I agree with Stevens wholeheartedly - the Framers did not (in my opinion) foresee AK-47's and if they were writing the Constitution now they'd probably write the Second Amendment differently, but at the same time the dissenting opinion is giving up individuality for community. It's all well and good until the justices come to a pet issue that they champion that is floating the other way (see every other Amendment other than the Second).
However, the schizophrenic way Scalia frames his argument is mind boggling. It just shows you no matter who you are, a justice or an immigrant, they will shape their argument wherever their ideology lies. Strict Constitutionalist my butt.
I'm not particularly happy about this ruling. On the bright side, politically speaking, it means the NRA won't be able to as easily whip up a gun-owner's frenzy against the Dems this year.
Astro @ 21:
Sure they will. All it takes is one of the pro justices to step down and the next president appoints the next justice. Does the NRA want a Republican or a Democrat to fill that role?
This is simple.
The Milita was/is made up of comon citizens being called to duty to defend the country (the constitution). The framers considered these citizen soliders a necessity to maintaining a free stete against tyranny.
Since there was a distrust of maintaining a standing army (and rightfully so) Militas needed citizen who had their own weapons, hence...
The wording, context, and intent of the 2nd amendment is very clear and simple. Especially if people take the time to study other documents, speeches, customs, and definitions of the time period.
The only recourse to the clear meaning the the amendment is to CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION.
But, of course, no one would allow that sort of radical change to our heritage so people are either grossly misinformed or purposely creating confusion concerning the 2nd amendment.
tribute @ 20:
Honestly, I DON'T think they would of wrote the Second Amendment differently, and you know why? Canons. Private citizens could own canons back then. Slow to fire yes, but capable of destruction on a large scale.
Do some research on how often so-called "assault weapons" are actually used in crimes. I think you'll be shocked on how low the number is.
Simply, VICTORY.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin
budda @ 16:
Sad, that you would elevate guns above Rock And Roll, Food and the pleasure of a good sunset and a pristine beach.
Guns protect you from criminals? Everyone who can read knows that in most cases gun owners who are confronted by a violent criminal lose their guns to the criminals.
And when I feel my finger on your trigger
I know nobody can do me no harm
Because happiness is a warm gun, momma
(Bang Bang Shoot Shoot)
(Lennon/McCartney)
This bears repeating over and over again.
This is simple...pay attention now folks.
Dire Lobo @ 26:
Actually, everyone who can read knows that "fact" is more of an urban legend than anything else. Try doing a little of that reading yourself.
Dennis @ 9:
Dennis, as usual you don't know what the hell you are taking about. I come from a law enforcement family, my father, uncle, and two brothers are policemen. Do you know who represent the majority of runners in the illegal gun trade, Dennis....cops and former cops, not "law abiding citizens". Police take weapons(and often keep them) during the many times they make arrests. During their long careers they can gather quiet an arsenal...you would be surprised....especially you.
budda @ 4:
(now...if only BushCo's appointed cronies gave a damn about the REST of the Bill of Rights!)
This is a great decision. It's one more step to being truly free. Get the government off our backs!
Great news!
eag @ 10:
I'm ready to start a new country with this as part of the Constitution.
More deaths as a result of accidental and intentional use of firearms in the industrial world. Way to go. Anyone that believes in these "rights" is playing with semantics and applying arcane laws to modern society.
It's amazing to me that countries such as the Ireland (Republic) and GB banned handguns and rifles during the '69 to ' 98 "Troubles" , yet there was no spike in innocents that did not have guns anymore being killed. In fact, the number of deaths attributable to violence by firearm fell.
When you read stories like the one that occurred on Monday in Kentucky one feels that this country has an archaic and irrational obsession with guns. That is sad.
Left&Left @ 30:
Say it ain't so L&L!!!! Cops!? Crooked?! Un-frickin-possible!
Dennis @ 24:
That's just the problem. Everything these day's allow for fast killing. Normal hand guns included. Back then you had to waste time loading any weapon. They'd have to weigh people being able to kill or maim quickly. I'm not saying it'd be easy, but they might re-think it.
Left&Left @ 30:
First of all, I believe this is the first time I've commented on this site in a long time. Second, if you read my statement, I never claimed "law abiding citizens" represented the majority of runners in the illegal gun trade. In fact, i think I stated the opposite. So I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at.
But Justice Scalia, I thought the court wasn't supposed to be activist! Or is it only when right wingnut issues come up that it is okay?
But I bet under the Patriot Act, and unchecked executive implied powers, they can take our guns away.
If you get what I'm implying.
Johnny2Bad @ 6:
It's my understanding that the Second Amendment was an amalgam of New Englanders remembering their experiences of the Minute Men Militias warring with the British and the Southern Colonies fearing a revolt from the large population of slaves now that the British weren't in charge anymore. Also, all the framers of the constitution were concerned with the possibility of the President turning into an dictator. The amendment was sold to the general population for their general concern of Native American attacks whose land was in dispute.
Reading history this way, you can see that nobody fully trusted anybody in those early days of American History.
As far a the Supremes go, these boys don't get out much. Nobody takes gun control seriously until they're shot at or someone they know gets shot with a gun. Some sort of gun control is one of many attempts to address violence in the good old peace loving USA. The only violence these clowns have ever experienced is when they step in the each others way during a turkey shoot.
Hey, look out! Motherf*?*#$$##!!!!!
fastfeat @ 34:
Yeah, you two have fun with that, because draconian practices like that have ALWAYS worked well in the past....
So would Scalia be for or against allowing hard line muslim citizens of the US owning AK47's? Just curious.
LMFAO!
It doesn't matter if guns are banned or not. People will still find them and shoot each other.
Dennis @ 12:
Oh come on, man. That dog don't hunt.
Regulated equals "equipped" Here's the word regulated in the dictionary.
reg·u·late (rgy-lt)
tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.
Where do you see the word "equipped" anywhere? At least admit it means that while in can't "ban" firearms....the govt can "control or direct" them.
Required @ 14:
Same here! If the Dems and liberals just walked away from gun control issues...they lose SO MANY votes for that reason alone!
From my understanding, the "well-regulated militia" is in there because of a debate among the Founding Fathers about the necessity of a standing army. Jefferson (again, to my understanding) regarded the existence of a standing federal army as a threat to liberty. We were supposed to be like the Greeks, where every citizen was a soldier in time of need.
A "well-regulated militia" is NOT synonymous with the Army. Look up the meaning of "militia" - it refers to a body of citizen-soldiers, as distinct from a professional military class. The National Guard is closer to the conception of what we're supposed to have. But not really, as the Guard has slowly become merely an extension of the kind of big, centralized standing army that is exactly what Jefferson & Madison, etc., were worried about.
"Ani is holding the M-16, she really enjoys shooting it. This is a pretty good investment. Purchased it for $2600US. I see them for sale now for over 4 times that amount. Better than putting the money in the bank and drawing 1% interest on it."
http://tinyurl.com/6o57e4
Barry @ 35:
Actually, the number of deaths attributable to violence by firearm did NOT fall. Another one of those urban legends that some people like to carry about. In fact, there's much evidence to the contrary.
LOCK AND LOAD BITCHES!!....
C'mon now.....we still let Cheney carry a gun and he shot a guy in the face for cryin' out loud.
Gonna have to go out and get me a gun now.......and then I'll tell EVERYONE the same thing I told the draft board in 1971 - "put a gun in MY hand and as a free thinking American citizen I will be the one to decide which way to point it!" (btw....that got me an quick 4-f).
Can someone explain to me then how we will keep guns out of criminals hands?...how about the mentally ill?...how about those guys that shoot folks up and the neighbors say "never woulda thought he would be that kinda guy"?
Background checks???....gimme a break - you KNOW those only work part of the time.
Here's my (humble) solution - give EVERYONE a gun....then outlaw bullets - guns don't kill people, BULLETS kill people!....or like Chris Rock proposed, make bullets cost $5000 each - that oughta cut down on random shootings.
Dennis @ 42:
Looks like we'll be able to exclude Dennis! Now who's with me?
If only the right-wing cared for the other 9 amendments, as much as they do the 2nd.
Six Dead in Kentucky Factory Shooting
Indiana Grand Jury to Hear Road Rage Shooting case
Kentucky High School on Lock Down on report of person with a gun
These are just reports from around where I live. How about you?
Johnny2Bad @ 45:
Unless you have a dictionary from over 200 years ago, you can go spit. Anybody who's stupid enough to think that only the "modern" definition of a word can count needs to be locked into a small room where they can't hurt anybody else.
eag @ 51:
Will there be beer?
....then again, I remember the bumpersticker that stated "When Guns are Outlawed Only Cops will Have Guns"
hmmmm......
John @ 53:
Yep, and not one of those crimes would have been prevented by gun legislation. Next please.
You can ban whatever you want, it doesn't mean that thing will suddenly disappear.
Alcohol was banned once, sure made people sober up!
Keep it legal, keep it regulated, and maintain proper enforcement.
Those who can, will.
Dennis @ 54:
So you're saying that in the 1770's the word "Regulate" meant "Equip"?
Steve D @ 47:
You have, IMHO, hit the nail right on the ol' head.
An armed society is a polite society.
- Robert Heinlein
Good. The country is finished when they come for American's guns. Choosing not to bear Arms is also one's right. Don't tread on me.
Beelzebud @ 52:
Dude...you are SOOOO right!!....my favorite has always been the 4th Ammendment and look how the current administration has pissed all over THAT one - with the same 4 Supreme Justices supporting them!
liberalDAPofJUSTICEmoderation @ 55:
At LEAST 500 different kinds. And there will be a fresh made bed for you, wherever you are, if you happen to drink too much.
"Well Unregulated Nation of Armed Unhinged Lunatics"
JCinDE @ 2:
Oh please... are you trying to tell us that the framers predicted automatic weapons and bullets designed to shatter inside the body? Those were the days of innacurrate muskets that took 2 minutes to load one round and fire.
The only winners here are criminals, paranoids and gun nuts.
Dennis @ 49:
The only reason there is evidence to the contrary is because criminals get their guns from other states with relaxed gun laws and then take them to states with the gun laws - this was seen in Virginia Tech.
Guns neither start nor stop crime. They only delay crime until the criminal can possess a greater advantage.
The Spaniard @ 33:
So let me get this straight. Does this ruling include ownership for retards? If not, why not? It should mean blanket protection for gun rights for ALL. Including mentals, retarded, muslims, gang members and anti-US militias. I'm all for it!
Dennis @ 54:
Typical wingnut response... when cornered by fact and logic... attack.
The absolute ignorance of the American people on the history of Constitutional law and common law never ceases to depress me. But for Supreme Court Justices to be just as ignorant is downright criminal. This is just as an egregious rendering of precedent as the Dred Scott case.
As for common law, anyone who believes that any citizen had the right to own their own weapon does not know their British history. The only ones allowed firearms, and forming their militias, were landed gentry and aristocrats. The peasantry, when called upon to serve as cannon fodder, were relegated to carrying pikes or issued bows. So when the phrase, "well-regulated" was written into the second amendment, it not only meant well-armed, it meant the state could determine which people could have firearms.
As for precedent, the Court had ruled only once in its history. In Miller v. United States (1939), the Court ruled that states could (not must) determine that only members of militias and peace forces (e.g. police officers, National Guardsmen, etc.) were allowed to own firearms in an unregulated manner. The state could also determine that all others must face certain restrictions on gun ownership. For the Court to overturn Miller on a whim is nothing but conservative judicial activism.
lemme get this right.....I can still go to jail for growing an herb (that God himself invented) in my backyard for my own personal consumption, and they can hover a helicopter 30 feet above my property in search of this herb....
but it's OK for me to purchase a semi-automatic handgun with armor piercing bullets?
JCinDE @ 2:
I don't think the Framers had any idea what the streets of DC would be like in the 21st century. There intention was to allow for a "well regulated militia" to protect the states in case the British or other group threatened the newly formed United States. This is after all how they were able to defeat the British during the Revolutionary War. For those of you that think that any yahoo should be able to own a gun, I suggest you spend a few hot summer days living in inner city DC (or any other major metropolitan area) - perhaps experience a drive by or two, witness the shooting of a child for no other reason than their being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or have someone put a bullet in your head just because they wanted the few bucks you have in your wallet. There needs to be regulations. If you want to own a gun for hunting that’s fine, but this ruling opens the door too far. Why don’t we all go back to the days of the Wild Wild West - strap on a sixgun and go around talking about law and order. If some one looks at you funny just have a shoot out with them in the street. Instead of giving everyone a gun maybe we could level the playing field in other ways - economic, education and social changes. Let’s create a world where people don’t need guns to survive - not one that depends on them. Sounds like a better goal to me.
Yeeeee-Ha!
Judical activism at its finest ... but, IOKIYAR.
Thank God, we here in the midwest like to shoot our co-workers, or the wife and kids, if things don't go our way. Hell, you wake up at 40 and find out your a f**king loser, it's just the right thing to do.
eag @ 10:
Dude,
This isn't the fifth grade OK? The Second Amendment is a serious issue in this Nation effecting Americans differently depending upon where they live. Here in Chicago we've had over thirty innocent teenagers killed in the last school year many caught up in gang cross fire. We also have a major problem with really bad people obtaining guns from gun runners(mainly ex-cops). All they need to have to get a gun is the money....or a gun. Stop with the "just say no bullshit" a lot of good law abiding citizens(and children) are dying out here.
WRG @ 72:
They will still have those guns, regardless of a ban. A ban just forces people to steal the guns, or get them out of state, and sell them like crack dealers. If they want guns, they'll get guns.
Zenrage @ 66:
Wasn't talking about other states, but rather other nations, where your counter stops working completely.
And as to the second part, on average, guns are used to prevent 2,500,000 crimes a year (verify the stat on your own if you're interested, as I don't have time to find the link). So that second part of your statement earns a massive *rolls eyes*.
Dennis @ 57:
I have to agree with Dennis here...criminals will get guns no matter how many laws and regulations are imposed...crazy people...if they can't get a gun, and they're just itchin to kill someone...they'll use something else...now about these school kids gettin guns...if these guns belong to the parents, THEY should be prosecuted for not keeping track of their weapons.
If someone is intent on killing another human, they will not be deterred by mere laws.
Humans are a nasty, warlike species people. On occasion, we do nice things, but generally, we destroy and kill...it's the nature of the species I'm afraid. OK...I'm feelin a bit pessimistic and cynical this morning...
Oopsie, in case I need to state the obvious, article I is the powers of the Congress, but my quote doesn't include that.
Damn short term memory loss!
I prefer Homer Simpson's NRA, Nachos, Rifles and Alcohol.
Dennis @ 54:
This, is without a doubt, the lamest wingnut response I've ever seen. Is it any wonder that the 29 percenters can look at a buffoon like bush and see a political genius?
Beelzebud @ 59:
Yes, he is.
And Hey, did the word "arms" mean 50 cal. sniper rifle with armor piercing rounds in 1770?
Just askin.
Kevin @ 70:
You are one of those people who's read JUST enough to support his/her own view, and has either ignored everything else or simply stopped reading after that point.
Left&Left @ 75: