Supreme Court considers 'right to bear arms'

[revwardoc]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23688073

Landmark case on D.C. ban expected to have major ramifications

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court considers a landmark legal battle over gun rights Tuesday, taking up for the first time in decades whether Americans have the right to keep and bear arms.

In a major case over the meaning of the Second Amendment, a Washington security guard who wants to keep handguns at home for protection is challenging the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban as a violation of his constitutional rights. A federal appeals court in Washington agreed that the city cannot ban handguns.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments Tuesday in perhaps the most closely watched case of the term. It drew 68 briefs from outside groups, most opposed to the ban, and people began lining up Sunday for a chance to watch the proceedings.

The court has not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment in the 216 years since its ratification. The basic issue for the justices is whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

'No legitimate use'
The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because "handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia."

But Dick Anthony Heller, 65, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for self-defense. His lawyers say the amendment plainly protects an individual's right.

The court's ruling, expected by the end of June, could have a far-reaching impact on gun-control laws in the United States and could become an issue in the November election.

The 27 words and three enigmatic commas of the Second Amendment have been analyzed again and again by legal scholars, but hardly at all by the Supreme Court.

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."

Last reviewed in 1939
The Supreme Court's last review of the Second Amendment came in a five-page discussion in an opinion issued in 1939 that failed to definitively resolve the constitutional issue.

The arguments follow a series of mass shootings in the past year -- multiple killings on at least three college campuses, two shopping centers and one Missouri town meeting. Gun deaths average 80 a day in the United States, 34 of them homicides, according to Centers for Disease Control data.

The case has split the Bush administration.

Solicitor General Paul Clement, the administration's chief advocate before the Supreme Court, has adopted the position that individuals have a right to own a gun, but it is subject to reasonable government regulation.

Clement, who is arguing before the justices, seeks to preserve all of the current federal restrictions, including a ban on new machine gun sales, a ban on felons owning guns and required background checks for new buyers of handguns.

But Vice President Dick Cheney joined a group of U.S. House of Representatives and Senate members in urging the court to adopt a stronger stand in favor of gun rights.

Walter Dellinger, the attorney defending the Washington law, argued the Second Amendment protected only militia-related firearms rights.

But even if an individual has the right to possess guns, the law should be upheld as a reasonable restriction, he said.

The third attorney scheduled to appear at the arguments, Alan Gura, said the law should be struck down. He represents Heller, who lives in a high-crime neighborhood.

[1CAVCCO15MED]

I know a way to figure out what the 2nd Amendment meant. Let's check the history books and see what the guys that wrote the bill of rights did after they passed it. Hmmm, did they take up all the guns of non militia?

[exlrrp]

"...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."


I think the framers of the Constitution knew what they were doing here. I think when they wrote this they were thinkning that an unscrupulous administration might come in, tear up all the laws and do what they want and the only thing keeping them from doing it is an armed populace.
And I think the Bush administration was exactly the kind of people what they were thinking of.

[Keith_Hixson]

In England only the Freemen were allowed to carry arms. The average person was not allowed to have a firearm or sword. So when the writers of the constitution put it together they had it placed in Declaration of Independance that all men are created equal so in the constitution to make sure that equality was emphasized they stated that all men had the right to bear arms. It is a sign that we are a nation of free men.
Now that is history of how it come it was written into the constitution.

Also at that time we were a rural nation with most people living in a rural environment. Guns are a tool for those in the wilderness. Yes the constitution meant that everyone had the right to bear arms. It was never questioned until recently exactly what that meant.

Now do we do a historical interpretation or do we believe that the constitution is a living breathing work that needs to vary its interpretation so as to meet the needs of the present generation.
That is the big difference between Liberals and Conservatives when it comes to Constitutional interpretation. (Funny the same is also true about Biblical interpretation also, literal interpretation or conceptual interpretation) Being that the make up of the Supreme court is more conservative, we'll see.

Keith

[revwardoc]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080318/D8VG2PR00.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - Americans have a right to own guns, Supreme Court justices declared Tuesday in a historic and lively debate that could lead to the most significant interpretation of the Second Amendment since its ratification two centuries ago.

Governments have a right to regulate those firearms, a majority of justices seemed to agree. But there was less apparent agreement on the case they were arguing: whether Washington's ban on handguns goes too far.

The justices dug deeply into arguments on one of the Constitution's most hotly debated provisions as demonstrators shouted slogans outside. Guns are an American right, argued one side. "Guns kill," responded the other.

Inside the court, at the end of a session extended long past the normal one hour, a majority of justices appeared ready to say that Americans have a "right to keep and bear arms" that goes beyond the amendment's reference to service in a militia.

Several justices were openly skeptical that the District of Columbia's 32-year-old handgun ban, perhaps the strictest in the nation, could survive under that reading of the Constitution.

"What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked.

Walter Dellinger, representing the district, replied that Washington residents could own rifles and shotguns and could use them for protection at home.

"What is reasonable about a total ban on possession is that it's a ban only on the possession of one kind of weapon, of handguns, that's considered especially dangerous," Dellinger said.

Justice Stephen Breyer appeared reluctant to second-guess local officials.

Is it "unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate ... to say no handguns here?" Breyer asked.

Alan Gura, representing a Washington resident who challenged ban, said, "It's unreasonable and it fails any standard of review."

The court has 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 is 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.

A key justice, Anthony Kennedy, seemed to settle that question early on when he said the Second Amendment gives "a general right to bear arms." He is likely to be joined by Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas - a majority of the nine-member court.

Gun rights proponents were encouraged.

"What I heard from the court was the view that the D.C. law, which prohibits good people from having a firearm ... to defend themselves against bad people is not reasonable and unconstitutional," National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre said after leaving the court.

Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty said he hoped the court would leave the ban in place and not vote for a compromise that would, for example, allow handguns in homes but not in public places. "More guns anywhere in the District of Columbia is going to lead to more crime. And that is why we stand so steadfastly against any repeal of our handgun ban," the mayor said after attending the arguments.

A decision that defines the amendment's meaning would be significant by itself. But the court also has to decide whether Washington's ban can stand and how to evaluate other gun control laws.

The justices have many options, including upholding a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban.

Solicitor General Paul Clement, the Bush administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, supported the individual right but urged the justices not to decide the other question. Instead, Clement said the court should say that governments may impose reasonable restrictions, including federal laws that ban certain types of weapons.

Clement wants the justices to order the appeals court to re-evaluate the Washington law. He did not take a position on it.

This issue has caused division within the administration, with Vice President Dick Cheney taking a harder line than the official position at the court.

In addition to the handgun ban, Washington also has a trigger lock requirement for other guns that raised some concerns Tuesday.

"When you hear somebody crawling in your bedroom window, you can run to your gun, unlock it, load it and then fire?" Justice Antonin Scalia said.

Roberts, who has two young children, suggested at one point that trigger locks might be reasonable.

"There is always a risk that the children will get up and grab the firearm and use it for some purpose other than what the Second Amendment was designed to protect," he said.

On the other hand, he, too, wondered about the practical effect of removing a lock in an emergency. "So then you turn on the lamp, you pick up your reading glasses," Roberts said to laughter.

Dellinger said he opened the lock in three seconds, although he conceded that was in daylight.

While the arguments raged inside, dozens of protesters mingled with tourists and waved signs saying "Ban the Washington elitists, not our guns" or "The NRA helps criminals and terrorists buy guns."

Members of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence chanted "guns kill" as followers of the Second Amendment Sisters and Maryland Shall Issue.Org shouted "more guns, less crime."

The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because "handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia."

Dick Anthony Heller, 65, 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 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.

Roberts said at his confirmation hearing that the correct reading of the Second Amendment was "still very much an open issue."

[revwardoc]

http://www.nbc4.com/news/15688264/detail.html?taf=dc

D.C. Gun Crackdown Meets Community Resistance
Police Ask Residents To Submit To Voluntary Searches

WASHINGTON -- A crackdown on guns is meeting some resistance in the District.


Police are asking residents to submit to voluntary searches in exchange for amnesty under the District's gun ban. They passed out fliers requesting cooperation on Monday.

The program will begin in a couple of weeks in the Washington Highlands neighborhood of southeast Washington and will later expand to other neighborhoods. Officers will go door to door asking residents for permission to search their homes.

Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier said the "safe homes initiative" is aimed at residents who want to cooperate with police. She gave the example of parents or grandparents who know or suspect their children have guns in the home.

Community leaders went door to door in Ward 8 Monday to advise residents not to invite police into their homes to search for weapons.

"Bad idea," said D.C. School Board member William Lockridge. "I think the people should not open your doors under any circumstances, don't even crack your door, unless someone has a warrant for your arrest."

Ron Hampton, of the Black Police Officers Association, said he doesn't expect many in the community to comply.

"This is one of those communities where the police even have problems getting information about crimes that are going on in the community, so to suggest, now, that the police have enough community capital in their hand that the community is going to cooperate with them, I'm not so sure that's a good idea," Hampton said.

If weapons are recovered, they will be tested and destroyed if they are not found to be linked to any other crimes.

A police spokeswoman said that if evidence of other crimes is found during voluntary searches, amnesty will be granted for that crime as well.

"Chief Lanier has been clear," Traci Hughes said. "Amnesty means amnesty."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seems like the Gestapo is alive and well in DC.

[Packo]

The liberals want to get rid of all guns so we won't have anything to defend ourselves when the Republicans have a Coup and get rid of the Constitution? Doesn't make any sense to me but neither does much else these days. As Doc Fred says...and the only thing that really makes any sense, did they take all guns from private citizens after the constitution was radified leaving only milita armed???? Of course not. Game...set...match.
Why are Liberals so afraid of "evil guns"? Maybe if they would just have their Volvo's armoured they would'nt shiver and shake in their Birkenstocks so much.

Pack

[revwardoc]

I read somewhere that 1/10th of 1 percent of crimes involving handguns are committed by legal handgun owners; which means that 99.99% of handgun crimes are committed by criminals who don't have gun permits and are using illegal/stolen guns. So why the f*ck are are they going after legitimate gun owners?! It seems that when a little kid is accidentally killed by an improperly stored handgun or when some person goes off the deep end during a family dispute and uses a gun to end the dispute, the headlines shriek like a banshee, but when a store-owner is shot by some punk who bought an iron off some street shark, people just shake their collective heads and blame society in general. Go after illegal guns and their providers and leave the law-abiding citizens alone.