US News
ANALYSIS: US gun rights far from resolved after Supreme Court ruling
By Chris Cermak Jun 27, 2008, 0:15 GMT
Washington - The long-running and politically charged dispute over gun rights in the United States is unlikely to end any time soon, despite the US Supreme Court for the first time ever affirming the constitutional right of all Americans to own firearms.
In a country that has some of the most liberal gun ownership laws in the world, Thursday's decision has left all sides preparing for a flood of court cases that will challenge state and local gun control laws across the US.
The powerful US lobby of gun owners, known as the National Rifle Association, which has about 4 million members, hailed the 5-4 decision as a 'historic' day for the rights of individuals.
But it is not yet clear what impact the Supreme Court decision will have on the US debate. The court qualified that an individual's right to own a gun was not 'unlimited,' leaving the middle battleground wide open.
'They said that you can no longer have near-total prohibitions on guns, but they also said you can have reasonable restrictions on guns,' said Paul Hemke, president of the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence, a lobby pushing tighter gun controls.
Hemke suggested that the Supreme Court ruling could actually help gun-control advocates in their cause, by taking away the gun lobby's argument that 'any step in the common-sense direction is part of the slippery slope toward confiscation.'
Gun control has been a hot, if delicate, topic in the United States for decades, but the simple right to bear arms has generally been accepted by the public and politicians.
In the US Constitution, the second amendment, which was part of the original 1791 Bill of Rights, states: '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.' Long debated has been the meaning of the militia clause and whether the amendment guarantees individual gun rights or a collective militia right.
An estimated 250 million firearms are in private hands in the United States, and a CNN poll earlier this month showed that 70 per cent of Americans believe law-abiding US citizens should be allowed to own a gun - a right not recognized in other Western nations.
Presidential candidates tend to tread lightly on the issue out of fear of upsetting gun owners. Both 2008 nominees - Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain - issued statements broadly supporting the court's decision.
The Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling specifically struck down a 32-year- old ban on handguns in the US capital city of Washington, which had the most restrictive gun law in the country.
Opponents of the ban argued that law-abiding citizens should be able to possess a gun in their home for self-defence, as criminals can obtain guns illegally, regardless of the local law.
Supporters said the ban was necessary to fight violent crime in a city that already has one of the highest per capita murder rates in the country.
'More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence,' Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty said. 'I think I speak for the near-unanimous population in this city when we say we are disappointed.'
City officials said they would abide by the ruling but made clear they would take as narrow an interpretation as possible - including barring individuals from carrying guns outside of their homes - which could set the stage for further legal challenges.
Other early court battles are expected in Chicago and San Francisco, which have similar if less stringent restrictions on gun ownership, while gun-rights advocates made clear there were plenty of other existing controls they hoped to challenge.
Alan Gura, a lawyer who argued the Washington case earlier this year before the Supreme Court, told reporters that the battle would now move to a case-by-case basis.
'Certainly, the (Washington) ban on semiautomatic weapons is troubling,' Gura said.
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
The Supremes, in a moment of clarity, read the Constitution and decided to actually not undermine it, for a change. The other four traitors, who can tell you with a straight, but hubristic, face that up is down, back is front and left is right, whenever they decide failed to get a majority.
The Supreme Court is not there to grant rights. Your rights are inherent. The purpose of the Constitution is supposed to be to preserve them.
John McCain's ideas on preserving the constitution through appointing qualified supreme court justices:
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) this morning decried “the common and systematic abuse of our federal courts by the people we entrust with judicial power” and pledged to nominate only judges to the federal bench who will strictly interpret the Constitution. ..“For decades now, some federal judges have taken it upon themselves to pronounce and rule on matters that were never intended to be heard in courts or decided by judges.”
Barack Obamas ideas on preserving the constitution through appointing qualified supreme court justices:
We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom… [Chief] Justice Roberts said he saw himself just as an umpire,” Obama said. “But the issues that come before the court are not sports; they’re life and death. We need somebody who’s got the empathy to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom....you’ve got to look at what is in the justice’s heart, what’s their broader vision of what America should be,” Obama said, adding that justices should understand what it’s like to be gay, poor or black as well.
“The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”
.....I kid you not.... He really said that.
The Supreme Court upheld the right to bear arms for citizens of the US. They said it can be regulated, but tossed out the Liberal's laws mandating gun locks on guns held by citzens making them useless in a case of emergency of self defense through this decision. DC has one of the highest gun murder rates in the US. Only criminals had guns; law abiding citizens were easy pickings with no way to defend themselves.
In Europe this is confusing and shocking. A person defending himself and killing a criminal on his property or when he is being attacked is not a right in the UK; whereas in most US states, a criminal who invades the house of a person or attacks them on the street is dead meat and there will be no questions asked of the person using a legal weapon while defending himself.
After hurricane Katrina - the hurricane that wiped out New Orleans - Houston, Texas invited the masses of poor people who refused to evacuate and offered them temporary housing, food and employment assistance on a massive and generous scale. At the same time, the guests were warned that unlike New Orleans, Texans are intolerant of criminals and crime. They were warned that Texans would kill home invaders, rapists and robbers as they were permitted to carry fire arms and were permitted to use them in self defense. Many of the New Orleans criminals who came to Houston, found out the hard way that crime victims are dangerous in Texas. Texas cleaned up New Orleans' deep seated, terrible violent crime problem quickly.
But most of the people from New Orleans thrived in the opportunity offered to them by the massive government and volunteer assistance to obtain education and jobs. People who had never had anything in New Orleans have become independent and successful in Texas. They don't want to return to the criminal hell pit known as New Orleans.
There is nothing that deters crime better, whether motivated by insanity, hate or greed, than arming it's law abiding citizens and legally protecting them to defend themselves. For trained and prepared women, guns are the great equalizers when it comes to defending themselves from violent men. Europeans should have the same rights to self defense and European Nations would see a sudden drop in crime on the streets. Currently Leftist Europeans have set up law abiding citizens as pitiful and weak victims of legally pampered criminals and mobs. We can agree to disagree; but no way would I chose to live in a free Nation without the right to defend myself and my family.
'Europeans should have the same rights to self defense and European Nations would see a sudden drop in crime' ???
And yet America has something like 100 times (per capita) murders committed with legally held guns !!!
Can't you do arithmetic - or do you just want to own a gun anyway - to make you feel big.
High School Massacres and workplace massacres by non-criminals with legally held guns are practically an every day occurence in the USA - though rare in other countries. 'Self-defence' is just a smokescreen.
is the most ignorant, stupidity I've ever read.
Massacre's every DAY????
What planet are you from???
He didn't say everyday you idiot. I bet if he said ''....is a common occurrence'', which it is, you would still bitch. You are living lies daily.
There should be a list available of all non-gun owners, then the criminals will bug them and leave the rest of us alone!
Check out the murder and suicide stats of countries other than the US. We are by no means at the top of the list.
High School Massacres and workplace massacres by non-criminals with legally held guns are
--------practically an every day occurence---------
in the USA - though rare in other countries. 'Self-defence' is just a smokescreen.
sp4 - read, dickhead...
over 100 people are killed each and every day of the year by guns in the US. If that isn't a massacre, I don't know what is. I'm waiting to hear about your turn at the Russian Roulette wheel that is everyday amerika. You are stupid enough to do it with an automatic full of dum-dums and one up the spout. Click, bang, what a hang, EssPee just shot himself in the head. Too bad it wasn't his arse, the only vital area on his body.
A 100 people out of how many millions in the U.S. is not good, but certainly not staggering. I agree for a ban on handguns - why does anyone, other than law enforcement, need one? Guns used only for hunting is another ballgame altogether. Granted, they can and are used to kill people, but at least they can't be concealed.
page: 1
NoharnessJun 27th, 2008 - 00:21:56
This Columbia v. Heller is to conservatives and the champions of individual rights that Roe v. Wade was to liberals and the champions of individual rights. This is not and never has been a 'right' versus 'left' issue. Those not from the United States can be forgiven for not realizing this. American news media, on the other hand, cannot be excused for its behavior or its miserably incomplete and inaccurate coverage of the issue.
Report this comment