See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Jun 26, 2008
Author: Mark Sherman
Post Date: 2008-06-26 10:30:14 by Rotara
Keywords: None
Views: 368
Comments: 29
The Supreme Court says 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 strikes down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes 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. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home." In dissent, 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." THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below. WASHINGTON (AP) _ The Supreme Court says 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 strikes down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes 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.
(2 images) 
The Supreme Court is seen in Washington, Wednesday, June 25, 2008. The Supreme Court has struck down a Louisiana law that allows the execution of people convicted of a raping a child, and also cut the $2.5 billion punitive damages award in the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster to $500 million. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 2.
#2. To: Rotara (#0)
If they ruled that we do have a right, and did not strike down all gun control laws, how do they get around the part about the right not being infringed? I can't wait to read that bit of doublespeak.
#19. To: Critter (#2)
That is the point. The ruling is doublespeak - or "newspeak" if you prefer. "You have a 'right' but we determine what the right is." So, they did not rule in favor of the second amendment but they wiggled around the plain wording of the second amendment to grant the government the right to regulate your "rights".
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Replies to Comment # 2. If they ruled that we do have a right, and did not strike down all gun control laws, how do they get around the part about the right not being infringed? I can't wait to read that bit of doublespeak.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 2.