SCotUS Rules: 2nd Amendment Secures An Individual Right

[ChamberedRound]

The Supreme Court announced its decision today in Heller v District of Columbia, stating by a vote of 5-4 that the 2nd Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms. See the decision here:

For a summary of quotes from the majority, see here:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/heller-...-the-majority/

For the complete opinion of the Court, see here:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont.../06/07-290.pdf

This thread will be used to keep track of news and links to information regarding the decision. Any extraneous discussion will be removed.

[ChamberedRound]

From scotusblog:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-a...ight-to-a-gun/

Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Thursday, June 26th, 2008 10:52 am | Lyle Denniston |

UPDATE 10:52: The opinion can be downloaded here. Relevant quotes from the majority opinion can be found here, and a replay of our LiveBlog can be found here. Tom’s commentary is here.

Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession. Although times have changed since 1791, Justice Antonin Scalia said for the majority, “it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”

Justice Scalia’s opinion stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on carrying a concealed gun or on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, on laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, and laws putting conditions on gun sales.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), the Court nullified two provisions of the city of Washington’s strict 1976 gun control law: a flat ban on possessing a gun in one’s home, and a requirement that any gun — except one kept at a business — must be unloaded and disassembled or have a trigger lock in place. The Court said it was not passing on a part of the law requiring that guns be licensed. It said that issuing a license to a handgun owner, so the weapon can be used at home, would be a sufficient remedy for the Second Amendment violation of denying any access to a handgun.

Justice Scalia’s recitation from the bench of the majority’s reasoning continued for 16 minutes. Justice John Paul Stevens followed, for seven minutes, summarizing the reasons for two dissenting opinions — his and one written by Justice Stephen G. Breyer.

The decision was the final one of the Term and, after issuing it, the Court recessed for the summer, to return on Monday, Oct. 6. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., said that concluding orders on pending cases will be released by the Court Clerk at 10 a.m. Friday.

[normanvin]

Here is the story from cnn

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Washington D.C.'s sweeping ban on handguns is unconstitutional.

The justices voted 5-4 against the ban with Justice Antonin Scalia writing the opinion for the majority.

At issue in District of Columbia v. Heller was whether the city's ban violated the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" by preventing individuals -- as opposed to state militias -- from having guns in their homes.

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.

In March, two women went before the justices with starkly different opinions on the handgun ban.

Shelly Parker told the court she is a single woman who has been threatened by drug dealers in her Washington neighborhood.

"In the event that someone does get in my home, I would have no defense, except maybe throw my paper towels at them," she said, explaining she told police she had an alarm, bars on her windows and a dog.

"What more am I supposed to do?" Parker recalled asking authorities. "The police turned to me and said, 'Get a gun.' " See how proponents, opponents argued »

Elilta "Lily" Habtu, however, told the high court that she supports the handgun ban, and tighter gun control in general. Habtu was in a Virginia Tech classroom in April 2007 when fellow student Seung-Hui Cho burst in and began shooting. She survived bullets to the head and arm.

"There has to be tighter gun control; we can't let another Virginia Tech to happen," she told the court. "And we're just not doing it; we're sitting around; we're doing nothing. We let the opportunity arise for more massacres."

In March 2007, a federal appeals court overturned the 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.

The Supreme Court has 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.

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 National Rifle Association, 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.

In February, a majority of U.S. congressmen -- 55 senators and 250 representatives -- filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to strike down Washington's ordinance.

"Our founders didn't intend for the laws to be applied to some folks and not to others," Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana, said at the time.

Washington's ban applies only to handguns. The city allows possession of rifles and shotguns, although it requires that they be kept in the home, unloaded and fitted with locks or dissembled.

All AboutGun Control • U.S. Supreme Court • Washington, DC

[ChamberedRound]

WTH is going on. I saw a lot of posts now I dont see many..

Read my first post in this thread. This thread is only to post news and information about the decision, so that the thread stays small and is easy to read through. All discussion should continue here, as it was already started before the decision:

http://www.pafoa.org/forum/national-...-26-10-am.html

Sorry for the confusion, Pa. Patriot and I weren't on the same page regarding how to organize this information so it doesn't turn in to a mess.

[SteveD]

Audio http://media.libsyn.com/media/guntalk/HellerComp.mp3

[Johannes_Paulsen]

If this is a place to post reactions to the decision, here is the Brady Campaign's press release on the decision:

hxxp://www.bradycampaign.org/media/r...hp?release=992


(If not, apologies....feel free to re-locate.)

[DaveM55]

Yes we have won this one, but he fight is not over.

This news release by the opposition is crap.

hxxp://www.bradycampaign.org/media/r...hp?release=992

Statement Of Brady President Paul Helmke On Supreme Court Second Amendment Ruling

Washington, D.C. - Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, issued the following statement:

“Our fight to enact sensible gun laws will be undiminished by the Supreme Court’s decision in the Heller case. While we disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling, which strips the citizens of the District of Columbia of a law they strongly support, the decision clearly suggests that other gun laws are entirely consistent with the Constitution.

“For years, the gun lobby has used fear of government gun confiscation to thwart efforts to pass sensible gun laws, arguing that even modest gun laws will lead down the path to a complete ban on gun ownership. Now that the Court has struck down the District’s ban on handguns, while making it clear that the Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions on access to dangerous weapons, this ‘slippery slope’ argument is gone.

“The Court also rejected the absolutist misreading of the Second Amendment that some use to argue ‘any gun, any time for anyone,’ which many politicians have used as an excuse to do nothing about the scourge of gun violence in our country and to block passage of common sense gun laws. Lifesaving proposals such as requiring Brady background checks on all gun sales, limiting bulk sales of handguns, and strengthening the power of federal authorities to shut down corrupt gun dealers can now be debated on their merits without distractions of fear or ideology.

“The Heller decision, however, will most likely embolden criminal defendants, and ideological extremists, to file new legal attacks on existing gun laws. With the help of the Brady Center’s legal team, those attacks can, and must, be successfully resisted in the interest of public safety.

“After the Heller ruling, as before, approximately 80 Americans will continue to die from guns every day. Our weak or non-existent gun laws contribute to the thousands of senseless gun deaths and injuries in this country that occur each year. We must continue to fight for sensible gun laws to help protect our families and our communities.”

[WhiteFeather]

Second Amendment Foundation NEWS RELEASE

SECOND AMENDMENT TRIUMPH: JUSTICES UPHOLD INDIVIDUAL RIGHT!
BELLEVUE, WA – With this morning’s ruling on the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, America has begun “its long march back toward liberty under a Second Amendment that means what it says,” the Second Amendment Foundation said.

“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 SAF founder Alan M. 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.

“Wisdom and truth have triumphed over hysteria and falsehood,” he continued. “This decision makes it clear that a right ‘of the people’ is a right enjoyed by, and affirmed for, all citizens. It destroys a cornerstone of anti-gun rights elitism, which has fostered – through years of deceit and political demagoguery – the erosion of this important civil right.

“This ruling also makes it abundantly clear that laws which ban the possession of firearms, or make it simply impossible through regulation for citizens to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, are unconstitutional and cannot stand,” Gottlieb stated. “Today, America has taken a small but significant step toward restoring the Second Amendment to its proper place in our Bill of Rights.

“For too many years,” he observed, “Americans have seen this fundamental civil right under constant and unrelenting attack. We are hopeful that today’s decision will halt an insidious campaign for citizen disarmament through legislation and regulations that have made our neighborhoods less safe, our cities less secure and our people less self-reliant, which is the trait that has made America unique among nations.

“But this fight is hardly over,” Gottlieb concluded. “Today’s ruling is a stepping stone, the foundation upon which we can rebuild this important individual right. Our work has only just begun.”

-END-

[WhiteFeather]

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

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.

Gun control advocates were disappointed but took more than a little solace in the court's embrace of "reasonable" restrictions. That, said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, means it might even be easier now to find political consensus on such ideas as background checks for buyers at gun shows.

"You can't have gun bans, but you can’t any gun, anywhere any time," he said. "By getting rid of the extremes we can deal with this issue in the common-sense middle."

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 wrot

[normanvin]

From the wilkes barre times leader.


11:52 AM
Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right

WASHINGTON (AP) _ The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment 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 was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul 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."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Justice Stephen 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."

Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

Gun rights supporters hailed the decision. "I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.

The NRA will file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several of its suburbs challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a leading gun control advocate in Congress, criticized the ruling. "I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it," she said.

The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.

Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.

The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.

Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

In a concluding paragraph to the his 64-page opinion, Scalia said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."

The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.

Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.

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.

Forty-four state constitutions contain some form of gun rights, which are not affected by the court's consideration of Washington's restrictions.