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 ...
With the very notable exception of the East End of London in 1888, of course......
One of those rare times he wasn't reluctant to second guess other officials.
LOL!
I’ve always liked that song. It was an odd one, but the theme would have been a good one for a lot of movies or TV shows, especially SCI FI.
Point taken about Jack the Ripper. The same source cited a humorous account about a bank in London that was held up, and the robbers didn’t even make it out the door because many customers had firearms.
NEWS RELEASE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS WON IN TODAY’S SUPREME COURT HEARING, SAYS SAF
BELLEVUE, WA – Today’s oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of District of Columbia v Heller produced a clear victory for the individual citizen’s right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment Foundation said.
“We are confident,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, “that the high court will hand down an opinion that affirms the Second Amendment means what it says. Based on the questions that the justices asked, it is clear that they read the amicus briefs submitted by our side in support of District resident Dick Anthony Heller. We were impressed with the depth of questions asked by all of the justices, and we have no doubt that the court has a clear understanding of Second Amendment history, and that ‘the people’ are all citizens.
“We believe the District presented a very weak defense of its handgun ban that is not supported by court precedent or historical fact,” he continued. “Attorney Alan Gura, and Solicitor General Paul Clement, however, both provided a clear and proper perspective on the meaning of the Second Amendment. Mr. Gura’s remarks left the justices with a clear understanding why the District’s handgun ban is unconstitutional.”
Gottlieb believes that Gura, one of three attorneys representing District resident Dick Anthony Heller, who is challenging the 32-year-old handgun ban, “won the oral argument.”
“While we do not expect the Supreme Court to strike down every gun law and regulation on the books,” Gottlieb said, “we anticipate that the court will rule once and for all that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental individual civil right, and that gun bans, even on specific types of commonly-owned firearms, do not stand up under even modest scrutiny.
“An affirmative ruling, which we anticipate sometime in late June,” he concluded, “will provide a foundation upon which other Draconian firearms laws can be challenged, and more importantly, it will destroy a fantasy that has become a cornerstone argument for restrictive gun control laws. This should put an end to the lie that the Second Amendment only protects some mythical right of the states to organize a militia. That was not true when the amendment was written, it is not true today, and it will not be true tomorrow, regardless how hard extremist gun banners try to make it so.”
I always thought that Nifong looked an awful lot like Bill Clinton.
I chose a 5 button safe to keep my loaded firearms arms secured and still quickly accessible.
If SCOTUS confirms the “original” intent of the “original” Bill of Rights as per the 2nd Amendment,President Hillary will outlaw by executive order all privately owned non-muzzle-loading flintlocks while claiming to be a constitutional “originalist”.
Clintonspeak is as clever as it is evil—as all have witnessed.
With Hillary as C in C of the most powerfull military in World History, it will not only be dificult to dissent but damn well deadly (she will be Caligula in a pantsuit).At least BJ had a poon-tang-brain that side-tracked their agendas somewhat.Miss H.Diane Rodham,however,is as sexual as a snow phallus in July—it already served it’s purpose,now on to Goddess Queen of the Universe.
I liked it also,and if the powers that be , throw our Constitution out the window, then it could become fact.
Is it "unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate ... to say no handguns here?" Breyer asked.
A Juan McCain type of appointee!!!
Reminds me of the scene in the movie Predator 2.... a gang of toughs pull guns on a subway train, to hold up all the passengers. Turns out that all the "passengers" are undercover cops on a mission -- the gang members suddenly see 100 guns pointed at them....
The Left and SCOTUS be damned.
I wonder when we will see a ruling. Any FReepers that follow the court have an answer? Will it be weeks, months?
I wonder how the DUmmies are taking this?
Yes it is unreasonable, you clown! Pull your head out of your third point of contact and join the real world! These are the kinds of deep thoughts we get from the Supreme Court?
My H&K USP Tactical has a factory locking system where you can use a specially made key that comes with the pistol that you can use to turn a lock inside the grip that prevents the trigger and hammer from moving AT ALL. Just a turn of the key literally locks the weapon. Grant it, in a self defense scenario having to remove the magazine, find the key, turn the lock, and replace the mag/chamber a round would take far too much time to protect yourself from an intruder.
Conventional wisdom says June.
Here is the way it will go: The justices will listen and ask questions and seem all broad-minded and curious and then they will rule that the people may indeed own guns but that the state may indeed regulate them . The state will then regulate them into uslessness.
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.