Posted on 06/26/2008 10:48:22 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
(CNSNews.com) - In a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court Thursday made its first definitive pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history by ruling that Americans have the right to own guns for self-defense and hunting.
In the court's majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia said the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes.
But while a person has a constitutional right to own guns, that new right is not unlimited, Scalia wrote.
The Supreme Court's last review of the Second Amendment -- which states that "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" -- came in a five-page discussion in an opinion issued in 1939 that failed to definitively resolve the constitutional issue.
Thursday's decision struck down the nation's strictest gun control law, which was adopted in Washington, D.C., 32 years ago and banned private possession of handguns and required that any rifles or shotguns kept at home had to be unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock.
Joining Scalia in the majority were Chief Justice John Roberts and justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The dissenters were justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.
In dissent, 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." Such evidence "is nowhere to be found," he stated.
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."
"The decision threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States," Breyer said.
'Court rediscovered the Second Amendment'
Strong responses to the decision came from both sides of the gun-control issue.
The case was started by Dick Anthony Heller, an armed private security guard who lives and works in Washington, D.C., but is prohibited from bringing his weapon home at night. He was joined by six other D.C. residents with similar goals.
"Today's decision means that law-abiding citizens in Washington, D.C., finally have a right to defend themselves against violent criminals in their own homes," he said in a news release. After 30 years of ignoring the right of people to keep and bear arms, "the District will finally have to respect it."
"Because private gun ownership is enshrined in our Bill of Rights, politicians cannot ban or regulate guns out of existence," said Alan Gura, lead counsel for the plaintiffs. "The Supreme Court fulfilled its duty to protect individual liberty by striking down the city's unconstitutional laws."
"On Thursday, the Court rediscovered the Second Amendment," said co-counsel Robert Levy, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute. "Besides being blatantly unconstitutional, the District's gun ban has been totally ineffective."
Still, the ruling is "merely the opening salvo in a series of litigations that will ultimately resolve what weapons and persons can be regulated and what restrictions are permissible," Levy said. "But because of Thursday's decision, the prospects for reviving the original meaning of the Second Amendment are now substantially brighter."
"Today's ruling is a tremendous victory for freedom and the rule of law in America," stated Clark Neily, who also represented the plaintiffs. "It's a case about liberty and the government's obligation to respect constitutional rights that it might prefer to ignore."
But Paul Helmke, head of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, had a different view of the decision in a statement of his own. "It's clear that that what the court did today -- they limited the extremes," he said. "They said that you can no longer have total prohibitions on guns, but they also said you can have reasonable restrictions on guns."
Helmke noted that today's ruling does not erase the many existing limitations on guns -- who may carry them, where they may be carried and conditions of sale, for example.
'Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition'
Mathew Staver, founder of the conservative Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University School of Law, had a different interpretation of the ruling. "'Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition' is the best way to describe today's decision," Staver said in a news release.
"The right to self-defense is a liberty at the core of the American Revolution," he noted. "It was ordinary people who defended life and liberty against organized tyranny. The king of Great Britain sought to disarm the colonists because he, like any criminal, knew that a disarmed people are a weak people who can easily be overcome.
"The Second Amendment stands as an impenetrable wall between tyranny and freedom," Staver added.
"Today's ruling by the Supreme Court should forever put to rest any contention that the right to keep and bear arms is not a fundamental, individual civil right," said Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb.
"For six decades, anti-gun rights extremists have engaged in a monumental fraud that has been unfortunately perpetuated by activist judges who erroneously insisted that the right to keep and bear arms applies only to service in a militia," he noted in a news release.
However, Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, said that he was "gravely disappointed" with the Court decision.
"With today's ruling against the district's ban on handguns, the Supreme Court has increased the likelihood of violence and injury in the nation's capital," said Benjamin in a statement.
"While our organization supports the individual rights upon which this nation was founded, we believe that this ruling limits the ability of communities to protect its citizens from harm," he noted. "Gun violence is a major public health problem that needs to be addressed through a variety of actions, including legislation and regulation."
Firearms have a profound effect on public health in the United States, Benjamin stated. Each year, thousands die from firearm-related injuries and hundreds of thousands more are injured. The risk of suicide, homicide and fatal gun-related shootings is greater in homes with guns, and in communities with a higher prevalence of guns.
Handguns, in particular, are responsible for the majority of all firearm homicides and suicides, he added.
Nevertheless, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) called the ruling "the most significant victory for the Second Amendment in recent memory," which "should send a clear message to opponents of gun rights."
"The Constitution plainly guarantees the solemn right to keep and bear arms, and the whims of politically correct bureaucrats cannot take it away," Boehner said.
As Cybercast News Service previously reported, the high court agreed last November to hear the case after an appeals court decision overturned the ban six months earlier.
Second Amendment supporters said they felt "optimistic" after presenting oral arguments in the case last March, but visitors and residents of the District of Columbia expressed mixed feelings to Cybercast News Service during man-on-the-street interviews conducted earlier this week.
You've GOT to read the whole decision:
Scalia as much as said Stevens' dissent was "silly" in more than one place!
I'm thinking there's no love lost between those two!
AMEN!! We're only just now getting out from under over 30 years of liberal judicial activism. I'd sure hate to be back under it for another 30 years, and if Obama is elected President, at least two of the liberal Justices would resign immediately. Ginsburg and Stevens have held off resigning, because they didn't want President Bush to be the one to name their replacements. Obama would appoint replacements for them who are just as liberal, or more so, and change the balance of the court in one fell swoop.
John McCain may not be the most conservative person, but he's already said he'd appoint justices who would not be judicial activists, and he'd be encouraged to do so to assuage the conservative base.
yeah the decision of the majority does not surprise me. what does surprise me, however, is just how severely wrong the minority is in the dissent. scary that justices worthy of respect could wish to infringe our rights so egregiously.
I wonder if the mayor of DC will now organize a hit squad to go around, increasing the numbers of fire arms kills to support his position?
This is the way the leftist judges look at their decisions.
What will be the effect of deciding one way or another?
Will that effect be desirable (to me)?
If so, rule for, if not, rule against. Then find justification through whatever tortured logic you can.
Conservative judges:
What did the Constitution mean (to the public) on this point when it was ratified?
Rule based on that, regardless of personal opinion.
That author took some liberties didn’t he.
Yeah, no one needs to protect themselves in crime-ridden areas. Stevie should crawl out of his ivory tower once in a while and visit one of these areas.
Well, one would hope so.
Something that is clearly evident to a con-law student has evaded this great legal mind.
"...the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes." I would expect that "traditionally lawful purposes" includes taking whatever steps are necessary to maintain proficiency with weapons. The bottom line is that the battles about gun use are going to have to be fought at the local and state level. There will always be voting with your feet.
Hopefully this will seriously demoralize the gun control morons.
My guess is that the adjective “new” was not found in Justice Scalia’s opinion in reference to the right of citizens with regard to gun ownership, that it was inserted by the author of this article.
Absolutely priceless! This guy has no business sitting in a position of authority.
Ditto.
Now all he needs to do is fabricate the data to go along with this ridiculous assertion.
At least no one was killed in DC when guns were banned. /sarcasm
Another point that keeps getting lost in the left-wing media, is that the Bill of Rights in the Constitution doesn't document rights granted to us by the government, it documents rights granted to us by God, that the government can't infringe on.
To the 5 Supremes who brought us this ruling,
YAAAAAYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!
Didn’t he refer to modern guns in that sense?
There’s that selective reasoning the leftist are so good at.
But while a person has a constitutional right to own guns, that new right is not unlimited, Scalia wrote.”
What Scalia actually wrote is this:
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose...”
Oh I see, another leftist reporter putting words in someone’s mouth to suit his objectives?
Justice Scalia most emphatically did not call the 2d Amendment new, this is deliberately sloppy writing on the part of the "journalist"...
the infowarrior
Sorry, but if they are willing to do the latter, then they're most definitely *not* "worthy" of the former, QED...
the infowarrior
No doubt reactions are strong on both sides. However, the problem D.C. has faced is not getting a suspect when a homicide occurs. Why? law abiding citizens are afraid to speak because they can’t defend themselves. The SCOTUS ruling now changes the dynamics and I expect more citizens to speakout and get these punks off the street - for good!
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.