Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Supreme Court Strikes down DC handgun ban..

Jinn · 06-26-2008, 08:09 AM

Quote:

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court tossed out a handgun ban in the nation's capital on Thursday, holding for the first time that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to self-defense and gun ownership.

But in its first hard look at gun rights in nearly 70 years, the court also held – in a narrow, 5-4 ruling – that the right is subject to some reasonable limitations.

"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," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, who decided to issue the ruling on the final day of the court's annual term – a dramatic gesture that reflected the intensity of the nation's gun debate, and the potentially sweeping implications of a case that pitted public safety concerns against the right to bear arms.

At issue was whether the District of Columbia – and by extension, any city or state – could invoke public safety to ban the ownership of handguns within its jurisdiction. The case hinged on the interpretation of the Second Amendment: ''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.''

Gun-control advocates argued the idea of common defense, not merely protecting oneself or one's own property, is at the heart of that text.

The case was filed by Dick Heller, a security guard at the Federal Judicial Center who was refused permission to keep his handgun at his home in the nation's capital, reviving a decades-old debate that quickly became a cause celebre for both sides of the gun control issue.

In March 2007, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Mr. Heller, ruling that the ban was both unreasonable and unconstitutional. The city appealed.

Mr. Heller's lead attorney, Alan Gura, called it a blockbuster ruling. "Because private gun ownership is enshrined in our Bill of Rights, politicians cannot ban or regulate guns out of existence," he said.

Washington has long had some of the nation's toughest gun-control laws, a response to a nation-leading murder rate and rampant inner city violence. The case decided Thursday involved three ordinances, one that generally bars the registration of handguns, another than prohibits carrying a handgun without a license, and a third that requires any firearm in the home to be unloaded and kept either disassembled or with a trigger lock.

Even if the court found that the constitution provides for an individual right to self-protection, justices still confronted more gnarly questions regarding the limits of governmental regulation, depending on how they decided the case: Would a ban on firearms in schools or on public transportation still pass muster, or bans on assault weapons never envisioned by 18th Century lawgivers?

Texas was one of 31 states urging the court to embrace the right to keep and bear arms. State Attorney General Greg Abbott filed a brief, joined by 30 other states, calling on the court to strike down the D.C. handgun ban.

The U.S. Solicitor General, representing the Bush administration, weighed in urging the court not to tamper with federal restrictions on machine guns – angering some gun rights groups.

In a friend-of-the-court brief filed in February, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, argued that the term "militia" wasn't meant to reflect merely a collective right. Rather, she argued, the Framers meant to recognize an individual right to possess firearms. Fifty-four other senators joined her brief, along with Vice President Cheney – in an apparent break with the administration's own policy. Some 250 U.S. House members, including all the Texans except for seven of the 13 Texas Democrats, also signed onto the brief.

Ms. Hutchison called the ruling "a major victory for the rights of all Americans to protect themselves and their families. The Supreme Court sent a clear message to local, state, and federal governments that this individual right cannot be unreasonably infringed."

Advocates of gun control and of gun rights have long argued over the precise meaning of the Second Amendment: "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 case could have implications in presidential politics, as well – by underscoring the president's power to shape the courts through nominations, and by emphasizing the wide gap between the contenders on gun control policy.

The GOP's pick for president, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, was one of 55 senators who signed the Hutchison brief. While some gun rights advocates distrust him – he supports background checks for buyers at gun shows, and championed campaign rules that crimped some political efforts by the NRA and other groups – they find him much more palatable than Democratic Sen. Barack Obama.

At a May 16 speech to the NRA, Mr. McCain touted his support for the Second Amendment, noting that he had long opposed efforts to ban guns and ammunition or to "dismiss gun owners as some kind of fringe group." Mr. Obama, by contrast, says he favors ''common-sense gun laws so that we don't have kids being shot on the streets of cities like Chicago," and he did not sign the Hutchison brief.

The ruling will leave intact many of the restrictions in place at the federal and state level – bans on felons' right to keep guns, for instance, and on M-16 military weapons or sawed-off shotguns, and laws that make it illegal to rob a bank while armed.

But Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the four dissenters, argued that the ruling leaves to future courts the task of defining the actual contours of the right to bear arms. Clearly, law abiding citizens will be allowed to keep guns at home for self-protection, or for hunting, but that doesn't begin to address the myriad ways in which state legislatures might wish to regulate or restrict gun ownership.

He noted that in the last major gun case, settled in 1939, the Supreme Court held unanimously that the Second Amendment only applied in cases with some "easonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." And he criticized the majority for arguing, in essence, that gun rights were frozen in time. Handguns were in use in the 18th Century, so they cannot be denied now to law abiding citizens. Military-assault rifles had not been invented, so they can be restricted.

"The court 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," Justice Stevens wrote.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont....3eef7ac3.html

I think this is absolutely awesome, and I'm glad that the Supreme Court finally ruled on such a contentious issue. I think there will be predictably a liberal outrage at the "Supreme Court writing the laws", but it's only fair in that the conservatives were outraged in the same way by the Supreme Court's ruling about habeas corpus for Gitmo detainees.

I wonder if LA, etc, will have to follow suit. I also wonder if there is any liability lawsuits in the works for all of the people who had their weapons seized, paid fines, and even spent time in jail for their "illegal" possession of a firearm.

I imagine the state has some sort of immunity, but frankly I think they should (at the very least) return the fees accessed and pay people who spent in time on weapons possession charges alone an "apology" sum for time spent.

Also, you can read the Justice's opinion here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf