Posted on 03/18/2008 2:36:58 PM PDT by SmithL
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."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
You mean when the Constitution says ‘people’ it means ‘people’. This is going to be real shocking discovery to many liberals.
WOW, the spin has already begun...
How shocking.
Whoda thunk it?
Gosh, that's been the understanding for, oh, 230 years or so.
Why didn't anybody mention that to us liberals?!
Yes it is unreasonable ... and unconstitutional Judge Stevens. But why do I have to tell you what you should already know Sir ?
http://www.handguncontrol.org/
The Brady bunch have a less than exuberant statement on their homepage. If this goes the way we want, there will be much nashing of theeth over there.
Those that demand survival, will defend themselves regardless of court opinions. The people will ignore an inappropriate decision....
That's retarded if he is truly reluctant to second-guess local officials. The Supremes have been "second guessing" Federal, State, and local officials for decades. And they do this on the grounds of what the founders put in the Constitution. Ptuh! Instead of worrying about second guessing the petty local dopes, just stick to what the founders wrote and everything will turn out just fine.
Kinda like good ol' prohibition, eh?
Great news.
I will check.
"More guns anywhere in the District of Columbia is going to lead to more crime."
What a clueless dolt.
Oddly he has no problem with Roe...
“Is it “unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate ... to say no handguns here?” Breyer asked.”
What Constitutional principle is that question base on?
Am I the only one who thinks that Dellinger looks like Nifong’s twin brother?
“Dellinger said he opened the [trigger] lock in three seconds, although he conceded that was in daylight.”
What BS. You can’t put a trigger lock on a loaded gun without greatly increasing the likelihood of an unintended discharge. So use of a trigger lock means you then have to load the gun after the lock is removed. Meanwhile the intruder has gotten bored from waiting for you to load and has already killed you and your family.
“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.”
Now he says:
“Guns are an American right, argued one side. “Guns kill,” responded the other.”
Thus he keeps the opposing argument free of the issue of self defense.
The tactic of the anti-freedom left has always been to define self defense out of the question.
When self defense is included, *they lose*.
Silent Running
Mike + The Mechanics
Take the children and yourself And hide out in the cellar
By now the fighting will be close at hand
Don’t believe the church and state
And everything they tell you
Believe in me, I’m with the high command
Can you hear me, can you hear me running?
Can you hear me running, can you hear me calling you?
Can you hear me, can you hear me running?
Can you hear me running, can you hear me calling you?
There’s a gun and ammunition
Just inside the doorway
Use it only in emergency
Better you should pray to God
The Father and the Spirit
Will guide you and protect from up here
Can you hear me, can you hear me running?
Can you hear me running, can you hear me calling you?
Can you hear me, can you hear me running?
Can you hear me running, can you hear me calling you?
Swear allegiance to the flag
Whatever flag they offer
Never hint at what you really feel
Teach the children quietly
For some day sons and daughters
Will rise up and fight while we stood still
Can you hear me, can you hear me running?
Can you hear me running, can you hear me calling you?
Can you hear me, can you hear me running?
Can you hear me running, can you hear me calling you?
Can you hear me running (can you hear me calling you?)
(Can you hear me) hear me calling you?
(Can you hear me running) hear me running babe?
(Can you hear me running) hear me running?
Calling you, calling you
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.