In a five to four ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken to the issue of whether the Second Amendment to the Constitution confers a personal right to own firearms. The answer, in the majority opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, is a resounding YES.
Adjudicating a case in which a citizen of the District of Columbia challenged the district's ban on possession of handguns--even for the purpose of self-defense in the home--the court found such all-encompassing prohibitions to be an unreasonable infringement on the individual's right to gun ownership. This seemingly resolves the often perplexing question raised by the wording of the amendment, which prefaces the guarantee to "the people to keep and bear arms" with the phrase, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...."
The matter of exactly what kinds of limitations or restrictions on gun ownership ARE reasonable remains somewhat unclear, and will, undoubtedly be the subject of a great deal of additional debate, and litigation, in the future. Stay tuned.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 56
Thanks for the update Paul.
Having said that, I am not a big fan of the Scalia/Roberts/Alito/Thomas block in the supreme court. In my view these guys are considerably right of center on most any topic. they are far more indulgent to big business and presidential prerogatives than they need to be. Anthony kennedy is their swing vote, and let's face it he is not much of a swing vote since he is right of center himself.
It is a reason, in my book, to vote for Obama over McCain. Some will tell you that McCain would not be one to nominate highly conservative judges, but I can only chuckle at that. You gotta dance with those that brung you, and the right wing is funding mcCain's campaign.
I am not a big fan of child rape, but in my view the only crime punishable by execution needs to be murder. If you start adding to the list, pretty soon we will end up like China, who execute people for just about anything.
In rural America, the idea of the right to bear arms is much stronger than in large cities. Why? Because rural Americans do not have the large police force to protect them. Yes, there are Sherrif's and Deputies....but face it, if you live in a town without police presence, like I do, it will be too late to have the police protect me and my family by the time the Sherrif or Deputies arrive at my location. The Sherrif's office is located over 25 miles from my home. How do I know it would take that long? Because I had to call them to come to my town when I was the Mayor and someone was shooting an automatic weapon on the bike trail less than 200 feet from my backyard in the middle of the night. I think a lot of rural Americans are more moderate and less extreme on the gun rights issue.
I am glad that someone wrote about this because I was going to write an article. Thank you, Paul.
This country needs to come together on the Constitution before it is taken from us forever. And don't think there aren't some people who are in favor of eliminating it.
As for a gun, I own one. And I bought it to protect myself and my family as well as to hunt should my family ever be in need of food.
Paul, this would be a great article to submit to criminaljustice.gather.com - please consider it.
I had to go back and look at the title of the post to figure out your humor, evil woman!!
you know.... (wait for it...), the dyslexics have been trying to arm bears for years.
Those days are over.
While it is true that guns don't kill people, people kill people, it does not make any sense to make the killing easier.
I always thought it was disingenuous of Charlton Hesston to wave a Flintlock and utter his defiant words "…Cold dead hands" I think the cops would love it if all they had to worry about was flintlocks. Yes. I am a responsible gun owner but I realize what WMD's we have here.
Poliwonk USA
whether this is good decision after a strain of bad decisions depends of which side of the fence u r on.
But like Col. George W. said "That's three times now they have made a decision in favor of the Constitution lately."
I have never even been a big proponent of all the NRA hoopla and I think the government at all levels should be more stringent on this issue. However, I am a big fan of the US Constitution.
Everyone - when convienent to them will spout off about their rights. My mother told me that with every right there is a responsibility. That is pretty heavy when you think about it. She said the right to swing your fist ends at my nose.
What I find interesting is that many people will partially quote the second ammendment as just "the right to bare arms" they forget the part about a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" Why is this not talked about as much? We have a well regulated militia it is called the Military. But still that does not distract from yes we (those who qualify and pass background checks for mental and criminal records) have the right to bare arms. But the term well regulated should allow the government to decide how many weapons a person should be able to have, what types of guns should be allowed to be owned or possessed by civilians, and what type of ammo is acceptable. How they are required to store it, transport it and such. I dont believe that is unreasonable in the least. But every time a new massive sure kill bullet or cop killer bullet comes out on the civilian market, or some gun that can fire rapid bursts of bullets (I am talking LOTS) with one squeeze, that the government should not allow the NRA which is a pot stirred by the manufacturers to have sway over their passing or not of a bill. I'm not even fond of the one that was on the news quiet some time ago that was marketed as being finger print resistant. And I do find that reasonable.
So my stance on this is that anyone who chooses to exercise their right to bare arms, must accept all responsibility in doing so. Keeping the weapon secure and out of the hands of others, lock it up especially when not home. And no a gun cabinet isn't sufficient. A gun safe is better. I.e. - A teenager who is over while the parents are away and sees a gun in a locked cabinet and wants to get to it, WILL! I know someone who lost their son to this very incident. But a safe where it is not visible is a much better deterent. When home if the owner wishes to then sure unlock it and keep it in a place that is easily accessed if the need occurs but not where children can get it. And teach (and I believe many do so) the children of your household about gun safety. Including, always assume it is loaded, never touch it, dont tell your friends, and then go from there.
I recall a couple of years ago there was talk of a hand gun that could be made that would only fire in the hands of the rightful (registered) owner. But the NRA screamed, the Big Gun Makers screamed, but in the process they both lost out as well as we did in luring in people who are severely concerned that if they had a gun it would end up in the wrong hands with deadly consequences. So both the NRA and the manufacturers could have done this and brought in a whole new segment of the population. unfortunately their loss is also our loss!
But yes on this issue, even though I do not and will not own one, and I am for stricter regulation on this individual case I happen to agree. Go figure.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html#cnnSTCOther1 where you can hear the actual sound-recording of the arguments presented the Supreme Court, with an artist's rendition due to the prohibition of visually recording the proceeding.
I'm not sure what to think here... A totalitarian government is not what we want, but I also believe that one ought to interpret this paragraph in the Constitution to imply that it is to give to the individual states the right to create a militia, like the National Guard. A state's right vs. federal government issue.
If you are on the supreme court, they pay you to enforce the constitution, rather than re-explain the thinking behind the statement. The problem is that it may no longer make sense, and that there is no way to get a political majority in favor of changing it.
Defending one's self and property from another person or a tyranical government is the reason why our other rights have held up so well.
Look at post Katrina, the New Orleans police confisgated weapons from law abiding citizens. Yes, it can happen here.
I ask all the "Bush Haters" that have called him a NAZI or HITLER in the last eight years, "if Bush is Hitler, which you say he is, don't you want the right to personally defend yourselves from his tyranny?"
In my opinion, the wording in The Constitution is quite clear; it's about time we did away with the foolish notion that puts guns ONLY in the hands of criminals, and cops.
On the contrary, regarding "statistics," crime has DROPPED precipitously in area's that put guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens.
Show me those statistics!!! The last reliable stats on guns was made in 1997. Since the bush admin, there are really no reliable statistics on anything that relates to issues that may differ from their own poicies (i.e global warming, deaths in Iraq etc...)
We have become a paranoid nation, ruled by fear, fear of "evil doers" out to "get us", fear of our neighbor, fear of some criminals ready to attack us in our homes. Most gun deaths happen in homes that have guns easily available, Most deaths by guns are by family members against each other - husbands kill wives and children, children kill others in accidents, or teenagers infected by our violent culture get their fathers or mothers or grandfathers guns and kill their teachers and school mates.
According to the Violence Policy Center, (1997 was the last year reliable stas were available):
Since 1962, more than one million Americans have died in firearm homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings. Handguns were used in more than 650,000 of these fatal shootings.7
In 1997the most recent year availablethere were 89 firearm deaths per day, or a firearm death every 16 minutes.8
In homes with guns, a member of the household is almost three times as likely to be the victim of a homicide compared to gun-free homes.9
For every firearm death, there are nearly three gun injuries requiring emergency medical treatment.25
By conservative estimates, gunshot injuries cost about $4 billion a year in medical expenses.
CASE CLOSED!
Sorry.
Go figure.
SHOW ME THE NUMBERS Mark-
You probably can't because they don't exist. It is part of the gun myths that most of these comments seem to refer to.
The bush administration is rampant with "myths" "Weapons of Mass Destruction" - "Mission Accomplished" - "No Child Left Behind" - "The Clear Skys Act" - on and on and on, doublespeak.
Nothing the gun toting crowd has said here on this post has gone beyond pure emotion grounded in irrational fear.
I see that regardless of the accolades I gave you for the article, you decided to be sarcastic towards me in regard to what I wrote.
First of all, if you really read my post you would see that I "was" the Mayor, and as such had a duty to report weapons fire.
No, I don't live in Baghdad. No there is not heavy-weaponry being used in town. Still, if you are free to own a gun, you should also use it responsibly. And you should have the right to own it.
That's all I have to say to your remarks.
I have always had an issue with the whole "gun owners die from guns more often" stat. It seems to me that people that visit beaches drown more and people that fly a lot die in crashes more often as well. Also the preponderance of mountain climbers that die do so because of exposure. I mean these things are tautologies. I can go on forever - Meat eating Republicans in Dallas do not die in the Minnesota woods as often as Vegetarian Democrats from Ely. Woopie! It actually proves nothing.
So lets look here http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764212.html Wow - it seems that overall gun deaths are going down - not up.
And here is a quote for you:
"Auto Accident Facts:
There were an estimated 6,420,000 cars involved in accidents in the US in 2005. The cost of these accidents exceeds 230+ Billion dollars. There were about 2.9 million injury cases and 42,636 car accident deaths. An average of 115 persons die each day in motor vehicle crashes in the United States -- one every 13 minutes. According to the World Health Organization about 3000 people die in crashes each day worldwide." from here - http://www.car-accidents.com/
Wow, seems we should be making cars, which the Constitution never mentions illegal. Plus it costs more money then what you posted - by an oder of magnitude.
Lastly, you get your stats from the Violence Policy Center let us take a look - ah yes, on the menu I see 5 items relating to guns - not violence - guns. One of them is .50 Caliber weapons. Why single them out - I mean they actually do make weapons that are larger.
Hate to tell you, they are anti-gun not anti-violence. If they were anti-violence they would have *something* other than guns on their website.
And yeah, I own guns, and I have owned one since I was 7, I have yet to shoot someone. You fear them, and by being scared you let idiots like W rule you because he is going to keep you "safe" so you dont have to have a gun. Me, I am going to celebrate by buying a hand gun this weekend.
You are correct, and it has always been quite obvious that Cynthia's beliefs come from an anti-gun agenda. It doesn't startle me that the only information she will accept is that of a skewed gun-grabbing website. Thanks, Charles.
Christina-
Thanks go to You as well, for Your fine comments. And, Thank You for Your service.
That said, I am in full agreement with the Supreme Court's decision. My distaste is MY distaste. I believe that every citizen has the right to protect themselves. Christina R. makes a valid point in that in rural areas, law enforcement is too far away to do much good in a crisis.
My Dad lived on a mountaintop in rural Ky until he passed away this past December at 84. Until a month before he died, there was always a 45 strapped to the coffee table leg in his living room, within arms reach.
It is a good sign that despite past horrors, which many of us have experienced, you are able to keep a clear mind, and understand the Right's afforded to ALL.
On the day of the ruling I was prepared for anything to happen had the vote gone the other way. I seriously think Americans would have literally been up in ARMS. I would have joined them too.
Reasonable and fair are subjectives. The terms have been used repeatedly to sanction tougher and more restrictive laws on firearms ownership. Look at Massachusetts with their incredible handgun restrictions, you can't drive through the state with a handgun. And all around them are states that allow liberal carry, constant culture clash.
Now that SCOTUS has confirmed the Second Amendment, hopefully they'll start on the other 8 that are in trouble-especially the 1st,5th, 9th and 10th. Of course the votes will all be 5-4 but I'll take what we can get.
Article II
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.
Now, I agree with others who say some reasonable control can and should be exercised. Perpetrators of violent crimes should not be allowed to buy guns. People with documented mental instability should not be allowed to buy guns. But this was a citywide ban, how is that NOT exactly what Article II forbids?
Draconian gun law in history," you will learn that is exactly what the
little demented cowboy did on Jan. 16th of this year. Among other
far reaching authoritarian and unconstitutional restraints, this
bill intends to deny gun ownership to anyone ever diagnosed
with ADHD. That would include millions of Americans whose
parents signed so that junior could have his "special needs"
met by the fuzzy feminist public school system.