US News
Supreme Court rejects city gun ban, upholds gun rights (Roundup)
By Chris Cermak Jun 26, 2008, 16:07 GMT
Dick Anthony Heller (L), 66, an armed security guard, is seen with one of his lawyers (R)outside the Supreme Court of the United States in Washington, D.C. USA on 26 June 2008. The court handed down a decision today upholding the right of individual American citizens to own firearms for self-defense and hunting. Heller sued the District of Columbia for the right to keep a gun in his home. EPA/STEFAN ZAKLIN
Washington - The Supreme Court struck down a 30-year-old ban on all hand guns in the US capital city and for the first time affirmed an individual's right to own firearms in the United States, in a landmark ruling on Thursday.
It had been nearly 70 years since the highest US court examined whether the US Constitution guarantees gun ownership in the country, and the divided court's 5-4 decision was its most sweeping decision on the matter to date.
The District of Columbia has effectively banned its residents from owning hand guns in the city since 1976, arguing it was necessary to keep down violent crime in the city.
It is one of the most restrictive gun laws anywhere in the country that has some of the most liberal firearms legislation in the world.
The Supreme Court in a narrow 5-4 decision said that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution protects an individual's right to own a gun - an issue which had never been fully resolved by the court.
The Washington gun ban was ruled unconstitutional because it banned an entire class of firearms that is typically used for self- defence in homes.
'We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country ... But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table,' Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the court's majority opinion.
But the court also acknowledged that a person's right to own firearms should not be 'unlimited,' and gun control advocates expressed some satisfaction that the ruling had not precluded other measures that would improve safety in the United States.
'This opinion still allows common sense gun control laws, restrictions to make us all safer,' Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, told reporters outside the court, adding that Thursday's decision had only 'limited the extremes' on both sides.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the government was 'pleased' with the decision. The Bush administration opposed the Washington gun ban, but does support lesser restrictions on gun ownership.
The long-disputed question of gun rights revolved around a single sentence that comprises the Second Amendment: 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.'
The 1791 amendment allowed states the right to form their own militias to defend themselves against possible tyranny by the federal government.
In a sign of the deep divisions on the court, Justice John Paul Stevens slammed the ruling as a 'dramatic upheaval' of previous court opinions and said the framers of the constitution never meant to convey an individual right to bear arms.
'The Court stakes its holding on a strained and unpersuasive reading of the Amendments text,' Stevens wrote for the dissenting justices.
Justice Scalia acknowledged the amendment may be 'outmoded' in a time of a standing national army, but said it was up to Congress - not judges - to repeal it.
'It is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct,' Scalia wrote.
COMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in US
- 1. Mitt Romney Addresses Tea Party Summit Pictures
- 2. Seven injured as US Navy plane crashes into apartments
- 3. At least three injured in US Navy plane crash
- 4. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, others to face death penalty trial
- 5. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, four others to face death penalty trial
Older Talkback
page: 1
There were about 42,000 gun deaths in the US in 2007. And about 84,000 gun caused injuries. That is just one year. The Korean war killed only 33,000. Nam killed 58,0000, And how many years did did that one last? You currently have a christian president in a country of christians killing and maiming other christians. What does that say to you? Screw your hatred for muslims, it is the christian americans who are the dangerous rats.
'Screw your hatred for muslims'
Gosh, normally I get screwed for my hatred for christians.
If you care to read, and understand, my post you shall find out that both comments can not be further from the truth. In reality, I hate no one and only reflect the hatred displayed around the world.
In regards to your gun comments: You have not commented accurately. You say 'gun deaths', but guns are not alive so they can not die. You say 'gun caused', however guns can not cause an action because they have no capability to effect an action. They are inanimate objects.
The U.S. society can certainly stand to be more civil, but don't blame guns for the lack of civility.
'The 1791 amendment allowed states the right to form their own militias to defend themselves against possible tyranny by the federal government.'
sp4 - perhaps but the bill of rights is supposed to apply to the PEOPLE, not governemtn, not militias, the baseball team, etc.
So, that is what is happening in Iraq! The U.S. Constitution does not apply to Iraq, but the same concept does.
sp4 - correct. This has nothing to do with Iraq.
'Justice Scalia acknowledged the amendment may be 'outmoded' in a time of a standing national army, but said it was up to Congress - not judges - to repeal it.'
sp4 - that would be correct. Fortuantely, we have five justices who know what the law is.
When hell freezes over. The militias are intended to counteract a standing national army commanded by a crazy man ... like Bush, who thinks jesus gives him the right to slaughter people and kill of societies he does not like.
sp4 - I've tudied Bush his whole carrier and nothing leads me to any reason that supports this fantasy.
If a muslim became president of the U.S. and started killing christians then I think Scalia (a devout Catholic) would be more understanding.
sp4 - If a muslim became President, he'd be under the same laws as a Christian president.
Lance, go inform yourself.
One other thing: The Constitution does NOT grant you your rights, they are INHERENT to you. The Constitution is there to PRESERVE your inherent rights. Fortunately, we have five Justices who understand THAT!
...Chicago...s--k my d--k!
'sp4 - If a muslim became President, he'd be under the same laws as a Christian president.'
You mean a muslim president would be able to command a vast military machine to overthrow any government he pleases in the name of allah and kill christians with billions of dollars of advanced weaponry?
just as:
A christian president has commanded a vast military machine to overthrow any government he pleases in the name of jesus and kill muslims with billions of dollars of advanced weaponry.
Then I think the laws need to be changed, or at least reinterpreted.
The right of American citizens to bear arms and shoot each other in droves with them.
Where in the world did you get 42,000 gun deaths in the US, in 2007?
What a ridiculous number. 42,000?
What is it with you domesticated types? How can you just pull numbers like that out of your butt?
The upside about America is that folks like you will always have the option to embrace victimhood and rely on civil servants for your immediate safety.
According to the FBI, in 2006 there were 14,990 total murders in the U.S., of which 10,177 where by firearms. Meaning 68% of all murders were effected with the use of guns, i.e: the majority of murders are accomplished with the aid of a gun.
However, I think the FBI figures are low in total number of murders.
The Wikipedia has done a decent job of describing this case:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
Here is an interesting snippet from the Wikipedia article:
'Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in June of 2008, several politicians from the state of Montana, including the Montana Secretary of State, had signed a joint resolution [46] asserting that, if the Supreme Court ruled against an individual-rights interpretation of the second amendment, the compact between the United States and Montana would be violated, and that the state 'reserves all usual rights and remedies under historic contract law' should that occur.'
The rest of the world is entirely welcome to snigger as much as it bloody well pleases. Most Americans could give a rat's ass.
Several important aspects of law and the context in which this case was reviewed are discussed by Lawrence Tribe in this piece:
online.wsj.com/article/SB120459428907209205.html?mod=opinion_main_comme ntaries
Many people, especially people who have never lived in the United States do not realize that the District of Columbia is ruled by Congress and Congress alone. None of the States have any jurisdiction over the District of Columbia and the Mayor of Washington, though elected by citizens living in the District of Columbia, serves solely at the discretion of Congress.
Congress could, if it chose to do so, could remove the whole of the city government of Washington and replace it with congressional appointees.
Please do not write in all CAPS or use expletives (including f*** etc), such posts will be deleted. Spammers will have IP's blocked. Comments should be succinct and not include personal attacks on other readers. We also request that posters refrain from pasting in entire articles from other sites. Thank you.
No lie, GI. Fact. Look it up yourself you lazy sack of yankee crap. Lance later states some figure from the Fricking Big Idiots about murders. That 42,000 includes suicides and accidents. Including hunting 'accidents.' Cheney hinself almost added to the death statistics. But being as lousy a shot as he is a politician, he missed a vital point. So, moron, before you call somebody a liar, get your facts straight. Shooting from the mouth does no good. You, shooting from the arse, do even less.
'Noharness Jun 26th, 2008 - 23:36:14
The rest of the world is entirely welcome to snigger as much as it bloody well pleases. Most Americans could give a rat's ass.'
That would be giving away the best part of an american.
RE:'That would be giving away the best part of an american.'
Oh, I see, you only want to vent your spleen. Be my guest. Neither of us is paying for the bandwidth. But you know, I should have thought a brilliant Brit or European or whatever you are, could come up with far better insults. Where is all that vaunted wit we hear so much about?
CDC Says that in 2005 there were 12352 gun homicides in US.
webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html
To really understand guns and their impact on this number you need to consider this from several angles.
Were the guns involved obtained legally?
If perp didn't have gun, would he have not committed the crime?
If the victim had been armed, would they have survived?
If more 'victims' were armed, might that be disincentive for perps to initiate assaults?
page: 1
lanceJun 26th, 2008 - 16:45:52
'The 1791 amendment allowed states the right to form their own militias to defend themselves against possible tyranny by the federal government.'
So, that is what is happening in Iraq! The U.S. Constitution does not apply to Iraq, but the same concept does.
'Justice Scalia acknowledged the amendment may be 'outmoded' in a time of a standing national army, but said it was up to Congress - not judges - to repeal it.'
When hell freezes over. The militias are intended to counteract a standing national army commanded by a crazy man ... like Bush, who thinks jesus gives him the right to slaughter people and kill of societies he does not like.
If a muslim became president of the U.S. and started killing christians then I think Scalia (a devout Catholic) would be more understanding.
Report this comment