Posted on 03/19/2008 12:15:12 AM PDT by BellStar
WASHINGTON (AP) - Americans have a right to own guns, U.S. Supreme Court justices declared in a historic and lively debate that could lead to the most significant interpretation of whether the U.S. Constitution guarantees that right since the document's ratification two centuries ago.
On the other hand, a majority of justices seemed to agree, governments have a right to regulate those firearms.
There was less apparent agreement on the case they were arguing: whether the national capital's ban on handguns goes too far.
The justices dug deeply Tuesday into arguments about one of the Constitution's most hotly debated provisions as demonstrators shouted slogans outside the stately Supreme Court building. 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 Second Amendment's reference to service in a militia as a condition.
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. The District of Columbia and Washington share joint administration, with more federal oversight than other U.S. cities.
"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 the ban, said, "It's unreasonable, and it fails any standard of review."
The court has not interpreted the Second Amendment conclusively 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 is whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is tied somehow to service in a state militia.
A crucial justice, Anthony Kennedy, often the swing vote on the nine-justice court, seemed to settle that question early on when he said the Second Amendment gives "a general right to bear arms." He is likely to be joined by Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in a majority.
Gun rights proponents were encouraged.
"What I heard from the court was the view that the D.C. law, which prohibits good people from having a firearm ... to defend themselves against bad people is not reasonable and (is) unconstitutional," National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre said after leaving the court. The NRA is a powerful Washington advocacy group.
Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty said he hoped the court would leave the ban in place and not vote for a compromise that would, for example, allow handguns in homes but not in public places. "More guns anywhere in the District of Columbia is going to lead to more crime. And that is why we stand so steadfastly against any repeal of our handgun ban," the mayor said after attending the arguments.
A decision that defines the amendment's meaning would be significant by itself, but the court also has to decide whether Washington's ban can stand and how to evaluate other gun control laws.
The justices have many options, including upholding a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban.
Solicitor General Paul Clement, the Bush administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, supported the individual right but urged the justices not to decide the other question. Instead, Clement said the court should say that governments may impose reasonable restrictions, including federal laws that ban certain types of weapons.
Clement wants the justices to order the appeals court to re-evaluate the Washington law. He did not take a position on it.
This issue has caused division within the administration, with Vice President Dick Cheney taking a harder line than the official position at the court.
While the arguments raged inside, dozens of protesters mingled with tourists and waved signs saying "Ban the Washington elitists, not our guns" or "The NRA helps criminals and terrorists buy guns."
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."
The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because "handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia."
Dick Anthony Heller, 65, an armed security guard, sued the district after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same neighborhood, near the Capitol, as the court.
The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights.
Roberts said at his confirmation hearing that the correct reading of the Second Amendment was "still very much an open issue."
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. Active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL. 03/18/08 20:11 EDT
"The people", the whole people" "the people at large", "freemen" and "freeholders" all referred to something else.
You can't make up your own definitions to suit your argument. Well, not with me you can't.
Evidence for this claim?
Methinks he's a contortionist.
I wonder who he thinks is allowed to peaceably assemble.
You are so very correct. I have heard the author Tom Clancy comment on this subject; and to paraphrase him, he stated that the military is pathological in it's loyalty to their command structure. And, he is correct as our military has a long history of complete obedience to it's civilian leadership with a few exceptions such as during the Civil War and of course there is The Emperor aka General MacArthur. But, back to the subject at hand, oher examples are the Branch Dividian Massacre and Ruby Ridge which was orchestrated by the FBI and ATF. Btw and just as a side note; if the Dem's should win the White House, the pro-gun contol bunch will be emboldened again and we can expect to see these sorts of incidents to occur again for sure...
It was the language they used at the time.
Well, let's see. The first amendment says "the people". So it would be the same group. As the U.S. Supreme Court said in United States v. Verdugo- Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990):
"While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that “the people” protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."
In other words, the enfranchised body politic. A class of persons. Not everyone.
Amendment 4:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, ..."
Obviously, this means that only males between the ages of 17 and 45 are protected.
Only adult, white, male citizens were protected by the fourth amendment back then.
Then it should be pretty easy for you to prove. Such proof should also include a citation of the case which reversed the exclusion of women such that they are now protected.
The DC Circuit Court in US v Parker stated:
"This proposition is true even though “the people” at the time of the founding was not as inclusive a concept as “the people” today. To the extent that non-whites, women, and the propertyless were excluded from the protections afforded to “the people” ...
That's all I need to prove my point.
The quote you supplied refers to the "extent" but does not describe the extent, nor does it prove that the Fourth Amendment was ever held to not apply to woman living alone.
It's no wonder you say so many ridiculous things if that is typical of your reasoning skills.
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.