Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns

Thai

Elite Member
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.

The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.

**** 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 **** 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.
 
Last edited:
Register to hide this ad

Props to the Supreme Court for a rational, logic-based decision!
:bigok:

That being said, I am still somewhat upset that it was only a 5-4 decision. Just how could anyone "dissent" with the Second Amendment or the clear, unambiguous intent of our nation's Founding Fathers? Remember that these justices are supposed to be among the best & brightest in the legal system.

Keep your hackles up, though, as this fight for our freedom is far from over. The anti-freedom gun-haters are not going to admit (publicly) any defeat and will continue to find more and more ways to attack our rights to self-defense.



"Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!"
 
Yes, the fact that it was such a close decision is scary. It appears the four do not believe in "We The People."

It should be interesting to see what effect this has on firearm regulations at the state and local level, since the US Supreme Court has already ruled that states may not limit or license activity recognized as a right under the Constitution.
 
I think they're hammerheads who got lucky and did the right thing.

Just a week ago this same court decided repeated child rapist can't get the death penalty.

This crap is the real reason elections matter. And not just the Pres but the congress too!
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by CJ3Flyr

This crap is the real reason elections matter. And not just the Pres but the congress too!


Roger that! I definitely have issues with President Bush and his decisions of late.......but am thankful that he was bright enough to appoint Justices Roberts and Alito (sp?) to the SCOTUS.

Can you imagine the outcome of the decision had there been two Gore & Kerry appointees on the bench? Yikes!
:bash:

Well, I suppose even a blind squirrel can find a nut once in awhile.


:girl:
 
Jeff Kleb said:

Roger that! I definitely have issues with President Bush and his decisions of late.......but am thankful that he was bright enough to appoint Justices Roberts and Alito (sp?) to the SCOTUS.

Can you imagine the outcome of the decision had there been two Gore & Kerry appointees on the bench? Yikes!
:bash:

Well, I suppose even a blind squirrel can find a nut once in awhile.


:girl:

:iagree:!!!!
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
278,317
Messages
3,554,129
Members
248,016
Latest member
Advally Service

Trending content

Back
Top