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 justices have many options, including upholding a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban.
No media bias here. I think the libtards are scared sh*tless of this case.
He traded all of that away for an “individual right” interpretation by the court. Give me that, he was saying, and I’’ll give you anything you want.
Correct.
However, the Founders knew that simply arming the population (all the militia) was insufficient. Training was required. And training everyone to the proficiency required for battle was impossible.
So they settled on a select group of "well regulated" Militia -- trained, disciplined, organized, armed and accoutered, with officers appointed by each state. It was this "well regulated Militia" that was necessary to the security of a free state, not an armed populace.
Their RKBA was protected by the second amendment.
They can start with Wilkes-Barre...
The government doesn’t HAVE A RIGHT to regulate your guns.
“The government doesn’t HAVE A RIGHT to regulate your guns.”
That’s not what OUR SIDE was saying yesterday. We were sold down the river.
“So, with a wink and nudge, the fix is in. It will be declared an individual right that may be reasonably regulated or, as Justice Stevens opined, “It shall not be unreasonably infringed”.
I think that is what the final decision will say. It really wont change or settle anything.
Same applies to this sh**hole known as DC.
No, you are wrong.
The right to bear arms has NOTHING to do with the wilderness or wild animals. Thomas Jefferson told us very CLEARLY what the 2nd amendment means. Unfortunately social facists and a intentional dumbing down of our education system has created a very contitutionally stupid american citizen.
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” - Thomas Jefferson
Robert that is utter BS, they did not “settle on a select group” of well regulated militia. The second part of that amendment says that the right of the people shall not be infringed regardless of whom the “militia” happens to be.
So, let me make something perfectly clear to you, gun-grabber... I am a “well trained” militia person - I spent 26 years in the military to defend our country, and your rights to make idiotic statements, but I promise that people like you will NOT take the guns of the people of this country.
You’re what we call a “domestic enemy”.... you’re someone who lives in this country that wants to impose YOUR will on everyone else, because you don’t like that they have guns.
Tough, RobertPaulsen, you’re a TROLL now and that’s all you’ve been in all these threads.
Here, you’re an enemy of the people of the United States.
Prior to that SCOTUS completely stripped the 10th amendment of any real meaning.
What the hell makes anyone believe that SCOTUS will not strip us of our rights under the second amendment?
Rick,
You the MAN!! Well said and thanks for your service!!
I believe the U.S. Supreme Court took the case solely to strike down the declaration of a fundamental right.
Seems a contradiction. That which is of the State is not a militia, and that which is of the militia is not of the State. The meaning of the word ‘militia’ was clear at the time, it meant a levy of free citizens capable of bearing arms; not a state organization.
Hitler, Stalin, Amin, Pol Pot, and Mao.
Mass murderers agree: Gun control works.
So how many millions will Herr Hitlery and Brock O’Bomber murder if they weasel their way into the WH?
True, but I believe he was referring to the second amendment's "well regulated Militia" which was trained, disciplined, organized, armed, and accoutered, with officers appointed by the state and reporting to the Governor of the state. "State militia" is just kind of shorthand.
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” - Thomas Jefferson
That can’t be restated often enough.
Fregards.
Ginsburg tried.
Scalia shot it down.
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.