4um: Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right

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 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)

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 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.

The DC Gun Ban Pandora's Box

Posted by Citizen X at 6/28/2008 9:43 AM and is filed under Gun Control

"The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem [gun crime], including some measures regulating handguns."—Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in DC v. Heller

As I predicted, the Supreme Court decision in DC v Heller, the Washington handgun ban case, will be hailed by both sides of the gun control debate. The media in general and conservative talk radio in particular are claiming that this decision is a victory for gun rights activists and a vindication of the 2nd Amendment. While the Court should be applauded for finally putting the spurious individual right versus authority of the states to form militias debate to rest, its decision was by no means a defense of the Constitution. In fact, just as they did in the Kelo v New London case, the justices have amended the Constitution by stealth.

The 5th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from taking private property for anything other than "public use." In Kelo, the Court effectively changed the term "public use" to "public purpose," meaning that takings no longer needed to be used by the public directly as in roads, government buildings, etc., but simply needed to serve the public good, a much lower barrier to cross and one that gives politicians and bureaucrats much more arbitrary power. In her dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor even went so far as to say that the Court had eliminated the phrase "public use" completely, thus leaving Americans with no protection from arbitrary government seizure of their private property.

In DC v Heller, the Court added a word to the 2nd Amendment. The final four word of the Amendment are very important. They read, "shall not be infringed." How clear is that? Simply, the government shall not infringe upon any person's natural right to acquire and possess the tools necessary to defend themselves, their property, and their liberty. However, now even the most conservative justice on the Court, Justice Antonin Scalia, agrees that's not what the Framers really meant.

According to the Supreme Court, the 2nd Amendment now 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 unreasonably infringed." This change is very troubling for the future of gun rights in America. The focus of the argument will now change from the right to bear arms, to what is reasonable. The term "reasonable" will be used as a club to beat gun rights activists into submission. After all, why won't you support this anti-gun legislation; you're being unreasonable. In addition, "unreasonable" will be used as a fulcrum to lever in more and more "reasonable" anti-gun laws.

There is more than one way to skin a cat and there is more than one way to eliminate or greatly restrict private ownership of firearms. Many Americans would never have stood for an outright ban on individual firearms ownership. Recognizing this, the anti-gun lobby has softened its rhetoric and pushed for more regulation instead. In the end, however, its goal remains the same: to take guns out of the hands of private individuals. This will now be done through even more licensing, permits, waiting periods, regulation of commerce, and high taxes. Thanks to the DC v Heller decision, the Supreme Court has given these efforts official sanction.

Replies to Comment # 29

There are no replies to Comment # 29.

End Trace Mode for Comment # 29.