|
US supreme court rules on 2nd amendment case
|
View this Thread in Original format
| jerZ07002 |
unsurprisingly the conservative court gave its disappointing opinion today that the DC gun law violates the 2nd amendment.
| quote: |
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a sweeping ban on handguns in the nation's capital violated the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
The justices voted 5-4 against the ban, with Justice Antonin Scalia writing the opinion for the majority.
The case's lead plaintiff, Dick Heller, applauded the decision, saying, "I'm very happy that I am now able to defend myself and my household in my own home."
Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said his group had a mixed reaction to the decision.
Helmke said the group disagrees with the court's interpretation of the Second Amendment but that the ruling "still allows common-sense gun control laws, restrictions to make us all safer." Watch a gun shop owner's reaction »
"It's clear what the court did today is, they limited the extremes," Helmke told reporters after the ruling.
The National Rifle Association said the high court had given it the ammunition to challenge other cities' gun-control measures.
At issue in District of Columbia v. Heller was whether Washington's ban violated the right to "keep and bear arms" by preventing individuals -- as opposed to state militias -- from having guns in their homes.
"Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security and where gun violence is a serious problem," Scalia wrote. "That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct." More on American's relationship with the firearm
Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, all of whom are considered conservative voices on the court. Justice Anthony Kennedy, often seen as a swing vote, also joined the majority.
Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer delivered dissenting opinions, and were joined by their liberal counterparts Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.
District of Columbia officials argued they had the responsibility to impose "reasonable" weapons restrictions to reduce violent crime, but several Washingtonians challenged the 32-year-old law. Some said they had been constant victims of crimes and needed guns for protection. Hear the arguments presented to the high court »
Scalia wrote that the majority was sympathetic to Washington's problems with guns and crime but that banning handguns was not a solution.
"The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns," Scalia wrote. "But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."
Breyer, however, argued in his dissent that the framers of the Constitution did not present self-defense as their main reason for the Second Amendment.
"The self-defense interest in maintaining loaded handguns in the home to shoot intruders is not the primary interest, but at most a subsidiary interest," he wrote. "The Second Amendment's language, while speaking of a 'militia,' says nothing of 'self-defense.' "
Washington residents can protect themselves from crime though other means, Breyer wrote: "The law concerns one class of weapons, handguns, leaving residents free to possess shotguns and rifles, along with ammunition." iReport.com: What's your reaction to the ruling?
In March 2007, a federal appeals court overturned the city's ban, which keeps most private citizens from owning handguns and keeping them in their homes.
It was the first time a federal appeals court ruled a gun law unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds.
City attorneys urged the high court to intervene, warning, "The District of Columbia -- a densely populated urban locality where the violence caused by handguns is well-documented -- will be unable to enforce a law that its elected officials have sensibly concluded saves lives."
There were 143 gun-related murders in Washington last year, compared with 135 in 1976, when the handgun ban was enacted.
The Second Amendment says, "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 wording repeatedly has raised the question of whether gun ownership is an individual right, or a collective one pertaining to state militias and therefore subject to regulation.
In an Opinion Research Corp. poll of 1,035 adult Americans this month, 67 percent of those surveyed said they felt the Second Amendment gave individuals the right to own guns. Thirty percent said it provided citizens the right to form a militia. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. See poll results »
The Supreme Court had avoided the question since the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. The high court last examined the issue in 1939 but stayed away from the broad constitutional question.
Breyer expressed concern in his dissent that the majority's ruling could jeopardize the "constitutionality of gun laws throughout the nation."
He added, "I can find no sound legal basis for launching the courts on so formidable and potentially dangerous a mission."
Only Chicago, Illinois, has a handgun ban as sweeping as Washington's, though Maryland, Massachusetts and San Francisco, California, joined the Windy City in issuing briefs supporting the district's ban.
The NRA, Disabled Veterans for Self-Defense and the transgender group Pink Pistols -- along with 31 states -- filed briefs supporting the District of Columbia's gun owners.
After the ruling, Wayne LaPierre of the NRA said his organization would immediately file court challenges to the bans in Chicago and San Francisco.
|
I can't wait to read the opinion to see if they said anything about state's rights to restrict gun ownership.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html
Court's opinion:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
Had to be done...
 |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| the pic above... :stongue: |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| So much for states having the ability to regulate arms on their own... I'm dying to see how Scalia supposedly walked the tight-rope between saying all restrictions should go and just the DC ban. |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
So much for states having the ability to regulate arms on their own... |
It's just like their inability to regulate freedom of speech, religion, press, etc. and those other federal amendments.
It's too bad that Kennedy's the only one whose position isn't completely predictable before even reading the facts of the case. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
I quickly read scalia's opinion, but the opinion leaves many questions unanswered. First, the SC didn't even hold the law unconstitutional. The most important paragraph from the opinion:
| quote: |
In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. |
Unfortunately, the court did hold that the 2nd amendment right is an individual right. I summarized some interesting points below.
Perhaps the most important unanswered question the court didn't address is whether a state can infringe gun ownership. Since the case involved a DC law, this is only precedent for restrictions by congress and other instrumentalities of the federal government.
Next, Scalia reaffirmed the right to place restrictions on gun ownership, but he did not indicate how far that restrictions could go. Interestingly, it seems the court did not rule the DC law unconstitutional because there was a complimentary licensing provision. The court did state, however, that the licensing procedure can not be arbitrary and capricious (whatever that means). I suppose DC could make it extremely difficult to actually get a gun license, as long as it applies equally to all.
Lastly, the court said only that DC could not restrict gun ownership in the home. I'm not exactly sure of the impact of this because seemingly DC could restrict gun ownership everywhere else. That, however, effectively prevents DC from imposing an all out ban on gun ownership as this law did. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
So much for states having the ability to regulate arms on their own... I'm dying to see how Scalia supposedly walked the tight-rope between saying all restrictions should go and just the DC ban. |
quite the opposite. Scalia reaffirm the right for gun restrictions, although giving no indication to what extent. As i noted above, there was no indication how this applies to states - although scalia didn't even address state's rights, so i guess states can still put up severe restrictions, and perhaps even ban guns altogether. |
|
|
| Krypton |
 |
|
|
| Q5echo |
Obama's 1996 Illinois State Senate questionaire
 |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
|
and here i was hoping you were going to render an opinion that didnt relate to obama, bush or foreign policy :( |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
So much for states having the ability to regulate arms on their own... I'm dying to see how Scalia supposedly walked the tight-rope between saying all restrictions should go and just the DC ban. |
the conservative court ruled conservatively. in the interpretation of the law and it's application. JerZ has a pretty good handle on it IMO.
EDIT> even though i do not agree with JerZ's interpretation |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
and here i was hoping you were going to render an opinion that didnt relate to obama, bush or foreign policy :( |
it's information. thats all it is. use it however you want, or not use it. i've provided no context (although it certainly is implied;) )
i just didn't feel like it warranted it's own thread. |
|
|
|
|
