Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns

[estranged4life]

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25390404/

Court says individuals have right to own guns
Decision is justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history

The Associated Press

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.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

In dissent, 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."

Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

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

Dick 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 Dick 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."

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.

Please check back for details on this breaking story.


© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[strandinthewind]

Ther decision is not really anything earth shattering. I think most people already knew that an total ban on all handgun ownership was not going to pass muster. Also, the law was somewhat silly because you could keep your gun if you owned it before the law was passed and you could have shotguns and rifles. Also, the law did not work because crime went up after it was passed.

In the end, guns do not kill people, people kill people. So, if they would do something radical like actually enforce the gun control laws already on the books, it would go a long way to preventing people killing people with guns.

Personally, I think you ought to have to re register your handgun every year and simultaneously let the police do a balistics test every year.

[David]

I support the right to (responsibly) own & use weaponry!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by David

I support the right to (responsibly) own & use weaponry!

Me too.

However, the NRA, like the abortionists, wants to have the ability to own machine guns, etc. They eschew any type of background checks, etc. Similarly, the abortionist in the extreme want to have the ability to abort the pregnancy up until the time the chord is cut.

IMO - if both of these groups would just realize that they have the right to guns and to choose - but the state can place limits on that right. Sadly, the war on both fronts will continue.

[SortaSavageLike]

Well, duh.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Me too.

However, the NRA, like the abortionists, wants to have the ability to own machine guns, etc. They eschew any type of background checks, etc. Similarly, the abortionist in the extreme want to have the ability to abort the pregnancy up until the time the chord is cut.

IMO - if both of these groups would just realize that they have the right to guns and to choose - but the state can place limits on that right. Sadly, the war on both fronts will continue.

I'd say some abortionists go further, such as Obama. In the Illinois Legislature, he voted for abortions AFTER birth if the baby was deformed or needed life support, or in cases of botched abortions when the baby came to term anyway.

[strandinthewind]

I am pretty sure it cannot be called an abortion after it leavbes the birth canal In any event, Obama was not talking about a baby carried to term, delivered and then killed. I am pretty sure he was talking about induced labor (partial birth) abortions - remember Roe spoke only about the viability of the fetus outside of the mother. But, if you want to compare the two major parties, the D's clearly have the upper hand because they openly advocate birth control other than the R's abstinence only farce. If people fukced with more birth control as well as not at all, there would be way fewer abortions, a goal I laud

In case you are wondering, though I support the right of a woman to choose, I personally think abortion is wrong. But, I do not have to carry the fetus or take care of it. Moreover, I think that if we taught sex ed and more women got on the pill or took other means to prevent pregnancy (which the govt. should give to the poor IMO) - they would not have to use abortion as birth control after consenual sex. I get that rapes are a different matter. I am not taking about those.

As for which is worse, the NRA wants machine guns to be available to everyone on demand, like they were in the early parts of the last century. That's just sick given that Aerica's children are dying

[JWS]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Me too.

However, the NRA, like the abortionists, wants to have the ability to own machine guns, etc. They eschew any type of background checks, etc. Similarly, the abortionist in the extreme want to have the ability to abort the pregnancy up until the time the chord is cut.

IMO - if both of these groups would just realize that they have the right to guns and to choose - but the state can place limits on that right. Sadly, the war on both fronts will continue.

The right to own guns doesn't mean any and all guns. Imo, clearly assault rifles, tanks, grenades, basookas, nuclear weapons, should be prohibited.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by JWS

The right to own guns doesn't mean any and all guns. Imo, clearly assault rifles, tanks, grenades, basookas, nuclear weapons, should be prohibited.

I totally agree. And, I think the Second Amendment refers to gun ownership in the context of a state militia. Therefore, there is no Constitutional right to own a gun, though I think that right exists elsewhere, e.g. the right to defend yourself. But, just as the Court found the right to privacy out of thin air, the very same people who bitched about that, just IMO found another right also not explicitly stated in the Constitution.

Again, I think if you own a gun, you ought to have to have background check, a license, and yearly registration. I think those limitations on whatever right are slight compared to fukcing lunatics gunning down innocent children. Sadly, the far right cannot abide that idea and they stupidly cling to their guns out of ignorant pride IMO.

Owning a gun is a privilege IMO - not a right.