Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns

Bill's forum was the first! All subjects are welcome. Participation by all encouraged.

Moderator: Available

User avatar
Glenn
Posts: 2199
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska

Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns

Post by Glenn »

The Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling on this today.
Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns
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.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, 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."

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

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

Gun rights supporters hailed the decision. "I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.

The NRA will file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several of its suburbs challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.

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."

In a concluding paragraph to the his 64-page opinion, Scalia said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."

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.
Glenn
User avatar
Sochin
Posts: 393
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Victoria BC
Contact:

Post by Sochin »

User avatar
Van Canna
Posts: 57244
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Post by Van Canna »

What a kick in the head :lol:
Van
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

I want Mr. Rich Castanet to post a video of him dancing. I think such a celebration is in order, Rich, no? ;)

A 5-4 decision. Wow!!!

The original Second Amendment was IMO intentionally ambiguous so they could get it passed.
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'm fascinated by the approach The Court used to interpret it as a right to own a handgun independent of the requirement that its use was associated with some state militia.
Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.
And so there was the solution to the Constitutional koan. The founders created the groundwork for history to determine the amendment's specific meaning.

Wow!

- Bill
cxt
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 5:29 pm

Post by cxt »

And I'm honestly "facsinated" by the logic expressed by the dissenters in their dissent (or at least some of it)

They somehow manage to "find" all sorts of rights when its some wacky theory or pet idea...but other than that, there needs to be explict instructions to render an opinion?

To use Judge Stevens phrase there is "no evidence to be found" that cities could take properity from one taxpaying citizen and give it to another "more favored" taxpaying citizen....twisting the history and accepted meaning of "public use" seems to require "no evidence" either...or remarkably little.

Glad it worked out this time.

Besides, for all Stevens knows that is exactly what the Framers were thinking......that a couple of 100 years will go by and some guy that thinks he is smarter than the rest of us will attempt to do something questionable and we need to make sure that its really hard for them to accomplish it.

I also find Bayers statement amuseing "there simply is no untouchable constituional right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

Speaks the man whom works in highly secure buliding, with armed guards specifically placed there to protect his person.
So speaks the man whom lives far from "crime ridden urban areas", behind walls and expensive security.

The Chief of Police in DC spends most of his time in a secure buldiing with metal detectors and packed with heavily armed Police and SWAT units---and he carries a handgun. ;)

But some poor citizen---in legitimate fear of his or his families life--living in just such a "crime ridden area" can't?

Like that makes sense.
Last edited by cxt on Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.

HH
User avatar
Van Canna
Posts: 57244
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Post by Van Canna »

"the historical narrative"

What exactly is the meaning of this :?:
Van
Norm Abrahamson
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Mansfield, MA USA
Contact:

Can we consolidate threads?

Post by Norm Abrahamson »

Dear Moderators:

This thread is currently going on in "Martial Arts and the Law" as well as "Dojo Roundtable" and "Self Defense Realities." Is there a way to consolidate them on one place?

Sincerely,
Norm Abrahamson
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Re: Can we consolidate threads?

Post by Bill Glasheen »

Norm Abrahamson wrote:Dear Moderators:

This thread is currently going on in "Martial Arts and the Law" as well as "Dojo Roundtable" and "Self Defense Realities." Is there a way to consolidate them on one place?

Sincerely,
Norm Abrahamson
It might be interesting to pass the baton to another forum. However we've got a related thread going on here which I started back in March 2006. It now has 211 posts. Rich has been keeping it going for the last 27 months.

See Self Defense Laws on the Rise

So it would be a little difficult to consolidate that AND this one on another forum.

Whataryagonna do, eh? It's a hot topic! ;)

- Bill
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

Van Canna wrote:
"the historical narrative"

What exactly is the meaning of this :?:
Good question, Van.

When I see that phrase in this context, I interpret it to mean that there's ample precedence in local law and subsequent Court rulings for a right to bear arms independent of the direct connection to a state militia. Again... The original second amendment is clearly ambiguous. IMO it is the product of a compromise. Consequently a ruling absent any precedence really could go either way. But with the cat out of the bag on gun ownership and the citizens' desire to retain it, there's enough on the ownership side of the scale to weigh in that favor.

When in doubt, be ambiguous and let history determine which way you really meant it all to transpire. ;)

- Bill
User avatar
Van Canna
Posts: 57244
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Post by Van Canna »

Right on, Bill...I think life is one big ambiguous 'happenstance' :lol:
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
Posts: 57244
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Post by Van Canna »

The Chief of Police in DC spends most of his time in a secure buldiing with metal detectors and packed with heavily armed Police and SWAT units---and he carries a handgun.

But some poor citizen---in legitimate fear of his or his families life--living in just such a "crime ridden area" can't?
Good points.

The police chief would tell us that he needs that kind of security because of his position in the community that creates such a dangerous exposure for the police force charged with public 'protection'...

And that the police officers are screened and trained and _ responsible in gun handling and ownership....as opposed to the general populace...that would result in much criminal and suicidal behavior...and accidental discharges ...if allowed to own or carry deadly weapons.

In Mass...the State police has random check points to ensnare drunken drivers...and this year the number of drunk drivers on the road has increased tremendously.

One argument against too many guns on the street is the likely possibility of drunks carrying concealed weapons....and placing the public at risk.

What do we make of this argument?
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
Posts: 57244
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Post by Van Canna »

I personally believe that owning a gun means 'responsible ownership' = if the gun is not under your immediate control
then it must be unloaded and locked in the home...to protect minors and other family members in a variety of ways.

I have handled investigations of dozens of unfortunate incidents when a loaded gun was left unattended by its owner.

Hard to live with yourself if your child finds your loaded .38 revolver and pulls the trigger while looking into the barrel. :(
Van
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

Van Canna wrote:
One argument against too many guns on the street is the likely possibility of drunks carrying concealed weapons....and placing the public at risk.

What do we make of this argument?
It is an argument of convenience. It could happen... However it skirts the fundamental constitutional issues.

Is this an argument against letting citizens drive? I don't know the statistics off the top of my head, but I'm willing to bet that the number of citizens who kill with their car while drunk far exceeds the number of drunks that kill (inappropriately) with a handgun. When you consider the argument in that light, then the obsession with drunk gun toters as opposed to drunken driving seems kind of silly.

Furthermore, there's now plenty of data on concealed carry states. As far as I know, there's no evidence that those who have CCPs are putting the public at risk. So when you license it and control it, very often you make a positive impact on Public Health.
Van Canna wrote:
I personally believe that owning a gun means 'responsible ownership' = if the gun is not under your immediate control then it must be unloaded and locked in the home...to protect minors and other family members in a variety of ways.

I have handled investigations of dozens of unfortunate incidents when a loaded gun was left unattended by its owner.

Hard to live with yourself if your child finds your loaded .38 revolver and pulls the trigger while looking into the barrel. :(
No question about that, Van.

Actually from a self-defense standpoint... When teaching martial arts and expanding the concept to the force continuum, I make the argument that trained law officers are more likely to get killed with their own weapon. Ponder that for a bit.

Maintaining control of a firearm isn't just about protecting the innocent. It's also about achieving the goal that you set out to accomplish in the first place - protect yourself.

Responsible self-defense is about two very vital things:
  • Having the firearm locked when not in use
  • Having the locked firearm readily accessible while experiencing the Survival Stress Reflex.
So if you're going to be the martial artist "of doom", then you need scenario training on proper storage AND retrieval of a firearm under a variety of conditions. And yes... I've had the training. And I don't think I could practice enough.

Responsible owners do their homework. Responsible societies make sure gun owners get the training they need. And as I often tell my teenage son, it's OK to find selfish reasons to do the right thing.

- Bill
User avatar
Van Canna
Posts: 57244
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Post by Van Canna »

Furthermore, there's now plenty of data on concealed carry states. As far as I know, there's no evidence that those who have CCPs are putting the public at risk. So when you license it and control it, very often you make a positive impact on Public Health.
I agree 100%...
Actually from a self-defense standpoint... When teaching martial arts and expanding the concept to the force continuum, I make the argument that trained law officers are more likely to get killed with their own weapon. Ponder that for a bit.
Very true. We also hear arguments …as I did yesterday…that in many cases…the average licensed person cannot bring himself to using the gun…and it ends up used against him.

Wonder if we have any stats on this.
Van
cxt
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 5:29 pm

Post by cxt »

Van

Also a good point.....a person with a gun--but is unable or unwilling to actual use it or is not trained to do so is not in much better of a position that one without a gun.

(of course just being able to show that you have one, according to some folks, has stopped many attacks from taking place)
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.

HH
Post Reply

Return to “Bill Glasheen's Dojo Roundtable”