Supreme Court Strikes Down D.C. Gun Ban

[82Rigger]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a sweeping ban on handguns in the nation's capital violated the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

The justices voted 5-4 against the ban, with Justice Antonin Scalia writing the opinion for the majority.

At issue in District of Columbia v. Heller was whether Washington's ban violated the right to "keep and bear arms" by preventing individuals -- as opposed to state militias -- from having guns in their homes.

"Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security and where gun violence is a serious problem," Scalia wrote. "That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."

Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, who are all considered conservative voices on the court. Justice Anthony Kennedy, often seen as a swing vote, also joined the majority.

District of Columbia officials argued they had the responsibility to impose "reasonable" weapons restrictions to reduce violent crime, but several Washingtonians challenged the 32-year-old law. Some said they had been constant victims of crimes and needed guns for protection.

In March 2007, a federal appeals court overturned the ban, which keeps most private citizens from owning handguns and keeping them in their homes.


City attorneys urged the high court to intervene, warning, "The District of Columbia -- a densely populated urban locality where the violence caused by handguns is well-documented -- will be unable to enforce a law that its elected officials have sensibly concluded saves lives."

There were 143 gun-related murders in Washington last year, compared with 135 in 1976, when the handgun ban was enacted.

The Second Amendment says, "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 wording repeatedly has raised the question of whether gun ownership is an individual right, or a collective one pertaining to state militias and therefore subject to regulation.

In an Opinion Research Corp. poll of 1,035 adult Americans this month, 67 percent of those surveyed said they felt the Second Amendment gave individuals the right to own guns. Thirty percent said it provided citizens the right to form a militia.

The Supreme Court has avoided the question since the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. The high court last examined the issue in 1939 but stayed away from the broad constitutional question.

Only Chicago, Illinois, has a handgun ban as sweeping as Washington's, though Maryland, Massachusetts and San Francisco, California, joined the Windy City in issuing briefs supporting the district's ban.

The National Rifle Association and Disabled Veterans for Self-Defense along with 31 states -- filed briefs supporting the District of Columbia's gun owners.

In February, a majority of U.S. congressmen -- 55 senators and 250 representatives -- filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to strike down Washington's ordinance.


"Our founders didn't intend for the laws to be applied to some folks and not to others," Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana, said at the time.

[SuperScout]

Seems if as the Supremes finally joined the majority of us in the 21st century, at least on the 2nd amendment decision.

[82Rigger]

Brice,

Here in Florida (possibly other states too) in recent years we've had businesses trying to tell their employees that they were not allowed to have firearms in their cars when the car is on business property or parking lot.

Florida legislature has (God bless 'em) dispensed with THAT crap.

Florida law has long maintained that the INSIDE of a vehicle is PRIVATE DOMAIN, just like the inside of your house.

New law affirms that policy. An employer does not control the inside of an employee's car any more than he controls the inside of an employees house.

If a firearm is being legally carried inside a vehicle, there's nothing an employer can do about it.

[reconeil]

You got that right.
Given their last & truly strange 5-4 cockamamie decision,...
I never figured Supremes for being so differently sane about The 2nd Amendment.

But, and since judges usually pack more heat than anyone else anyway, they probably
thought it would be hypocritical not letting others protect themselves just as well?

Whatever, I'm sure that most sane & law-abiding Americans rightfully applaud their decision.
Whereas all fools believing in 911 protection instead, & all criminals are cringing over same.

Neil

[Seascamp]

No doubt that the Foreign national-interloper Hispanic gang thugs are pleased to know their 2nd amendment rights are protected. They are really shooting up the west and getting impressive body count. WTF, shoot em up in Phoenix just came down. They had full battle gear, body armor, and automatic weapons, all of it. The three caught stated that they were going to ambush the Phoenix cops but had run out of ammo, three others got away. This bunch appears to have come right straight from Mexico to do some Phoenix killing, most likely border Cartel thugs.

Then in Reno last week, the Hispanic gang thug had a mere Glock 9mm so could only kill two, and blow the guts out of a third, courtesy local Suranos thugs.
More of same just came down is SF. Father and son killed, second son in real tough shape, courtesy MS13.

Seems as how the ‘sanctuary’ mindset attracts lots and lots of migratory and armed pistolaros, eh. Kind of pulling a magnet through beach sand and collecting iron filings.

Scamp

[darrels joy]

UPDATE: (See-Dubya) This goes much farther than the minimum. Not only is their an explicit right to own guns for self-defense (not just hunting or military exercises, and not just for the purposes of the militia) it explicitly mentions that this right extends to handguns.
Check out this rhapsody to the pistol on pp. 57-58. I want the bolded section chiseled in granite and ensconced someplace liberals will see it every day:

It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; It cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upperbody strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.

And it’s not just that self-defense is a subsidiary right to the common defense, it’s (page 26) “the central component of the right itself.”
And not just self-defense in the sense of immediate threat to life: it’s for the defense of life, family, and property (p.54):

The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute.

Out-freaking-standing. I think there’s enough juicy red meat in there to keep the NRA’s lawyers winning victories for centuries.
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/26...e-heller-time/

[bluesclues]

for the first time in a long time the so called wise men in black got it right from my cold dead hand .


razz

[darrels joy]

Earlier this year, the courts slapped down San Francisco's voter-approved initiative to ban the sale and possession of firearms, calling the proposition unlawful. Gun-owning residents, the National Rifle Association and other pro-gun groups, cheered.

Now, it looks like those plaintiffs - well, technically their attorneys - are getting paid by city taxpayers.

The city has tentatively agreed to a $380,000 settlement for lawyers' fees and other costs the plaintiffs incurred in fighting the ban. The Board of

Supervisors still must approve the agreement, but it's likely they will.

And who knows? Perhaps the NRA won't cash the check but instead frame it and put it on display at headquarters like a mounted animal.

- Wyatt Buchanan
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...ed=rss.bayarea

[revwardoc]

A simple solution: anyone caught using a gun in a crime is given an on-the-spot death penalty; no "Drop the weapon!", "Hands in the air!" warnings; just shoot 'em down. In my opinion, they gave up their civil rights when they armed themselves and committed a crime.