GUN DEBATE

BOOOYA DC GUN BAN LIFTED BANG BANG

Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns - Yahoo! News

Spoiler:

WASHINGTON - Americans can keep guns at home for self-defense, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday in the justices' first-ever pronouncement on the meaning of gun rights under the Second Amendment.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most federal firearms restrictions intact.

District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty responded with a plan to require residents of the nation's capital to register their handguns. "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence," Fenty said.

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.

Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans' preferred weapon of self-defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."

Scalia's opinion dealt almost exclusively with self-defense in the home, acknowledging only briefly in his lengthy historical analysis that early Americans also valued gun rights because of hunting.

The brevity of Scalia's treatment of gun ownership for hunting and sports-shooting is explained by the case before the court. The Washington law at issue, like many gun control laws around the country, concerns heavily populated areas, not hunting grounds.

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.

Chicago mayor Richard Daley said he didn't know how the high court ruling would affect the city, but said that the ruling was "a very frightening decision." He predicted an end to Chicago's handgun ban would spark new violence and force the city to raise taxes to pay for new police.

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 Capitol Hill home a short distance from the Supreme Court.

"I'm thrilled I am now able to defend myself and my household in my home," Heller said shortly after the opinion was announced.

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.

Thursday's decision was embraced by the president, said White House press secretary Dana Perino. "This has been the administration's long-held view," Perino said. "The president is also pleased that the court concluded that the D.C. firearm laws violate that right."

White House reaction was restrained. "We're pleased that the Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment protects the right of Americans to keep and bear arms," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said.

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.

The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.

supreme SCOTUS 2nd Amendment armed populace don't you know guns are dangerous!?

Nehmi it's against the rules to have a dupe account to troll with

Originally Posted by Pangalin

Nehmi it's against the rules to have a dupe account to troll with

But I didn't even say anything about how activist judges undermine are freedoms.

No, that's what Nehmi would do because he is negativist and paranoid

You are clearly Bizarro Nehmi, since you posted a massive article that will go unread about what you think is GOOD news that is TRUE before you babbled out something incomprehensible and overenthused.

Won't it be interesting to study the homicide rate in D.C. over the next few years now? Granted there's all sorts of considerations, but it'll still be interesting! I mean people on one side say it'll definitely go down, and people on the other say it'll definitely go up. I'd love to see who was the more accurate predictor.

The problem is that the pro-gun ethos views gun crime as not a reason to eliminate guns but a reason to add even more guns because otherwise how will you shoot all the gun-havers

But it's self defense Pang, that means the gun-crime perpetrators die, and the number of deaths goes up, but the number of criminal deaths goes down!

Then D.C. can finally throw that block party it always wanted but could never have because its buddies were too afraid to visit. =(

Ah, but they don't mostly

because as criminals

they can reasonably be assumed to be better at murderin' than non-criminals are

this is my assessment of matters after several viewings of High Noon

Originally Posted by Pangalin

The problem is that the pro-gun ethos views gun crime as not a reason to eliminate guns but a reason to add even more guns because otherwise how will you shoot all the gun-havers

yea you're right, those damn cops should get off their fat lazy ASSES and find and destroy every single gun in dc right fucking now! self-defense is for stupid dumb faggot pussy bitches

I should warn you before you get too indignant: you are arguing with a drunk cartoon who is deliberately engaging in farce

also I am pretty sure turtle power is more than adequate to assure that criminals are not cut any slack

There's always the people kill people argument, which is what I like to stand by.

The problem isn't who has a gun and who doesn't, because the gun ban won't keep the baddies from having guns.
The nation as a whole is angry, discontent, and bitter. Not to mention full of ignorant, uneducated fucks from a million different ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Everybody here has at least one person they'd like to shoot.

So basically, too many assholes will translate to too many criminals, which would translate to too many illegally owned firearms, which leads to more criminal deaths.

A ban on guns would probably stop those silly national newsbreaks such school shootings, and that nasty factory shooting from this week, but it probably wouldn't slow down the real demographic of criminals.

Don't take away people's guns. Find a way to make people happier and less full of piss, salt, and vinegar.

Gun debates are one of the few issues where both sides fear the same thing.

I also think it's interesting that the places in the country where people really could use a handgun for self-defense have (had) bans.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Gun debates are one of the few issues where both sides fear the same thing.

The capacity of everyone around them to be a potentially dangerous violent douchebag?

I heard the number of crimes was significantly (like 500% or so) lower after Washington decided to ban firearms in the middle of the 70s. While I agree that you should be allowed to own a weapon in order to defend yourself, I am not sure whether that is necessary in areas where the crime rate is significantly low.

The arguement that criminals will have guns whether they're banned or not is a retarded one. Yes, hardcore criminals will have guns whether or not they're banned but hardcore criminals don't commit petty housebreaks and burglary, they stick to more profitable stuff like smuggling and bank robberies and generally in those lines of criminality you tend to come up against armed guards or the Navy, who generally have much bigger guns than you.

If guns are illegal than your average burglar isn't going to have one. Sure, if you disturb them you might still get a kicking but you'll probably survive that. If he's packing heat and you come down waving a shooter around, the chances of someone ending up dead are exponentially higher. Also, I'd love to see some statistic on just how often someone breaks into someone else's house while they're in in America. Do you guys have fucking shit burgalrs or what? The one thing English housebreakers avoid all else is going into a house when somebody's at home. How many crimes have actually ever been averted because a homeowner had a gun? I'd suggest that the figure is pretty damn close to zero. Also, if someone is in your house with a gun, isn't getting out your own gun just gonna make them more likely to shoot you? Correct me if I'm wrong but most criminals would rather face a burglary conviction than a murder charge, they're breaking in to your house to steal shit, not kill people. Do you guys not have insurance over there? Are your possesions really so important that you want to risk a shoot out in your own home to defend them?

The whole "self-defense" thing is basically bullshit and I think that deep down you all know it. Americans want to own guns out of some machismo, penis substitute need. I AM MAN, I HAVE BIG GUN TO SHOOT BAD GUYZ IN MY HOUSE. It's the same sort of thing that drives blokes to have fights outside kebab shops after the pub over here, only people rarely get killed in friendly punch-ups. That gun and knife crime is on the rise over here is merely a symptom of kids these days being a bunch of pussies who don't know how to fight properly and the chances of getting shot by someone breaking into your house are still basically nil in this country.

Quote:

How many crimes have actually ever been averted because a homeowner had a gun? I'd suggest that the figure is pretty damn close to zero.

Based on what exactly?

It's a loaded argument - you know it's purely anecdotal and there's no reliable way to compile statistics on it, so you have every bit as much chance of being dead wrong as you are of right.

You can sit here and offer your asinine arguments of Americans merely wanting guns out of some kind of vanity, but I reject that argument out of hand. The most fundamental of individual rights is the right to property - not only to just own it, but to be able to defend it, even with deadly force if the need arises. You don't have to agree with it - hell, I don't want you to, but don't you dare sit there and try to say that I'm a pussy because I value the right to defend myself and my property with a firearm.

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

Based on what exactly?

It's a loaded argument - you know it's purely anecdotal and there's no reliable way to compile statistics on it, so you have every bit as much chance of being dead wrong as you are of right.

You can sit here and offer your asinine arguments of Americans merely wanting guns out of some kind of vanity, but I reject that argument out of hand. The most fundamental of individual rights is the right to property - not only to just own it, but to be able to defend it, even with deadly force if the need arises. You don't have to agree with it - hell, I don't want you to, but don't you dare sit there and try to say that I'm a pussy because I value the right to defend myself and my property with a firearm.

I'm not calling you a pussy for it, I'm calling you an idiot for it. If you get burgled and the person is retarded enough to do it while you're at home and they happen to have brought a gun with them, if you do as they say, you'll lose a bunch of stuff and at worst, get a smack in the face. After a short period of having no stuff, the insurance company pay out and you get brand new stuff, normally better than you had in the first place given that only fucking idiots insure their stuff for what it's actually worth.

If instead you pull out your own gun, there's a distinct possibility that either you or the guy might end up firing. Let's face it, if someone's desperate enough for money to rob a house when someone's home they're possibly desperate enough to actually use the gun they're carrying. Now if you're lucky, nobody gets shot and the dude gets away with whatever he grabbed before you disturbed him. There's a possiblity you'll hit him meaning you have a dead dude in your house and blood all over your stuff, do insurance companies pay out for damage done to furniture by you blowing someone's brains out all over it? I honestly don't know, that kinda thing doesn't happen here. If you're really unlucky though either he shoots you first or he misses and hits a member of your family, the cops get called, he panics, takes a hostage, the whole thing escalates and everyone ends up dead.

I know that's an extreme situation but surely it just makes more sense to run the very slim risk of confronting someone in your home and losing all your stuff which you can easily replace and keep your health in the process against the same risk of meeting someone in your house only with an added risk of you or your family ending up dead in the process?

For me that's a no-brainer. I honestly don't believe that anyone I found in my house would be there to hurt people, they just want to steal stuff and I think that introducing your own gun into the situation is going to increase the risk of someone getting hurt, not decrease it.

Sure, protect your stuff but at the end of the day, it's only stuff and you can get that back really, really easily. I just can't imagine a situation where having a gun at home is in anyway helpful or a good idea for self defence purposes.

Whether or not you think it's stupid or not is not the issue -- the issue is whether or not I should have the right to own that firearm to protect my shit. You don't think I should have tha