Meaning of Second Amendment is at issue in Supreme Court
Published Monday, March 17, 2008
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!Related Multimedia
Related Multimedia
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court gets to write on a blank slate when it takes up the meaning of the Second Amendment “right to keep and bear arms” and the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns.
The nine justices have said almost nothing about gun rights, and their predecessors have likewise given no definitive answer to whether the Constitution protects an individual’s right to own guns or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
The case that will be argued Tuesday is among the most closely watched of the term, drawing 68 briefs from outside groups. Most of those support an individual’s right to own a gun.
“This may be one of the only cases in our lifetime when the Supreme Court is going to interpret an important provision of our Constitution unencumbered by precedent,” said Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett.
Even if they determine there is an individual right, the justices still will have to decide whether the capital’s 32-year-old handgun ban can stand and how to evaluate other gun control laws. This issue has caused division within the Bush administration, with Vice President Dick Cheney taking a harder line than the administration’s official position at the court.
The local Washington government argues that its law should be allowed to remain in force whether or not the amendment applies to individuals, although it reads the amendment as intended to allow states to have armed forces.
The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because “handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia.”
Dick Anthony Heller, 65, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home — about a mile from the court — for protection. His lawyers say the amendment plainly protects an individual’s right.
The 27 words and three enigmatic commas of the Second Amendment have been analyzed again and again by legal scholars, but hardly at all by the Supreme Court.
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 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.
Chief Justice John Roberts said at his confirmation hearing that the correct reading of the Second Amendment was “still very much an open issue.”
Heller lost his suit in U.S. District Court in Washington. By a 2-1 vote, a panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck down the handgun ban. Notably, it was the first appeals court to strike down a gun control law on the basis of an individual’s Second Amendment rights.
In 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft reversed long-standing Justice Department policy when he asserted that the Second Amendment protects individuals’ rights. The administration’s brief in this case holds to that view.
But Solicitor General Paul Clement told the court that reasonable restrictions should be allowed and warns that federal laws restricting sales of machine guns and barring felons from owning guns, among others, could be threatened under the appeals court ruling. Clement wants the court to send the case back to lower courts without deciding whether the handgun ban is reasonable.
Clement’s brief was harshly criticized by supporters of gun rights. Cheney joined majorities in both the House and Senate in signing a brief that says a handgun ban is clearly unreasonable. Experts on the court could recall no other case in which a vice president took a public position disagreeing with the administration he serves.
Barnett is among those on both sides of the issue who believe the practical effect of the court’s ruling will be limited.
Forty-four state constitutions contain some form of gun rights, which are not affected by the court’s consideration of Washington’s restrictions.
“There is almost no other enacted gun law that would be threatened by this case,” Barnett said.
The case is Heller v. District of Columbia, 07-290.
———
On the Net:
Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Sorry to be repetative in my "letter to the Editor". I did'nt know it made the front page. This is Huge! and will affect us all. Here. Thanks.
This becomes an issue of "At Law" and "At Equity" as distinguished by the rules of "Courts" In the past if you robbed a bank, or train. You were an Outlaw. "At Law". Today, now, if you spit on the sidewalk, jaywalk or generally offend someone there is a statute that can make you a criminal "At Equity" who the vultures can feed off of. Who actually knows. Make it simple again. Local rule.
The Founding Fathers wrote this constitution not to govern a small colony of self oriented constituents. They "in my opinion" wrote it to govern millions. They were inspired. Follow the simple rule. Do unto others as they would do unto You..
Forgiveme. Turn the other cheek.
they can have my guns when they pry my cold dead fingers from the barrels. if guns are oulawed only outlaws will have guns. i remember those bumper stickers when i was a kid. i never thought it would come to life. i went to austraila last year and new zealand this year. i pray to god we dont follow them in our gun laws. all of the laws in both of those countrys are very much like communists. it is very much socialist in any ones eyes. they are both beyond a libral society. i have a consealed wepons permit. i also have a FFL. i have jumped thru every hoop and followed all the laws to obtain both. im not ever giving up my guns. i will die to keep them. im not an out law. i pray they dont change the law and make me one. i have never broke a law with a gun. im not a felon. they will have to kill me to take my guns. i have collected guns all my life. i have stocked up ammo for every caliber of wepon i own. all i got to say is come and get them.
I agree with john on this issue
I hope that our present Supreme Court Justices will consider what the founding fathers had to say:
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson
"A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
- Alexander Hamilton
"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry
the state militia is all the average joe and jane citizens above the age 18 in the usa. the state militia is NOT the national guard. that is a wing of the us military. if the court now says average citizens can't have handguns then i would say it is time to load those same guns.
id say the same, as john, there are no ifs and s or buts about it, nope ill not be given up me guns, iv never have done no harm to no one,will not, unless id have to in fear for my life only, but as a woodsman, hunter, trapper, i use them, iv got no jailtime in my life, not one bit, im a vets son, and have lost famly ,world war 1# & 2#,and now have my older bothers son fighting in this one, nope id not give me guns up, and for that matter theyer fighting for all of us , and the freedoms that we have in the usa,realdeal, the same, as john, both of you are right ,thank you,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
polarmark,
i am on the same page as you. they take this right from us and freedom of speach is next. i know some americans will not stand for it. i also know more americans will. it is only the begining. we will end up like so many other places on earth. no freedom is no free men. the goverment wants us to believe they are looking out for us. no thanks. i will look out for my self. the worst words in life are - hi im here from the goverment and im here to help. yeah right. i will pass. go help the sheople some where else.
Amazing! Finally, you are all in agreement about something!
Guess that says something about the importance of this issue!
Though I am not the A-typical gung-ho gun lover...I am a believer in my own personal rights. One of which being able to arm and thus protect myself and my family. I feel strongly that anyone owning or operating a weapon has the responsibility to themselves and the public to know how to handle it safely and securely. Which I have made sure to do.
As a young mother of 2 living in a very isolated and rural area, with my husband often working nights...I feel strongly about someone trying to take that reassurance away from me. The idea of not having my own personal weapon within a moments grasp, is ludicrous to me. I dont feel I am being paranoid nor do I want to shoot anyone. I am being prepared and cautious for my own and my childrens safety. Which is my right-as a woman, a mother, a wife and most importantly...a citizen of this country.
The incredibly intelligent and foreseeing men that founded this nation had it right. An armed society is a safe society. And looking at todays society its as safe as is possible these days anyway. Criminals were justly punished in their days, they are not now. Therefore, people are much more willing to risk the consequences of their intended crimes in the present day. I will not sit idly by while I or my family is threatened or harmed...thats for sure. Therefore, if someone wishes to risk it by coming into my home...they will be met with an XD-.40 in my right and a shotgun on my left hip!
Michael Dukes says this a whole lot better than I but it goes something like this....an armed populace are called citizens, and unarmed populace are called subjects. They will get my guns over my dead body.
Do I own a gun? Do I own lots of guns? Do I hunt? Do I not hunt? None of anyones business!
The Second Amendment is our nation's most important right. It guarantees the security of all the others. If the Court incorrectly interprets the right as one belonging to states, our other rights will follow suit.
be a subject, over my dead body, im not liveing in the ussr, nor will i, it should be noted the the govrment is make up of persons we put in office, that most of them feel the same as us, now its up to the court to see the facts of what the truth is, and i know alot of person s that work for all of us that id gladly stand by, not all are bad , with that sayed, id have some faith in the courts there are some very good persons working in them , that i know , on this one i dont see them ruining the place they live in, like us, they care to,you have to look at they have famly like us that are and have given theyer lives in the wars for ower freedom, thank you,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
A Russian General was once quoted as saying "the only reason we did not invade the u.s. was'nt that we are unable to defeat your army, it was the armed citizen".
Oh you have all said it so eloquently. I agree. I agree.
I believe one of the problems in this country concerning the loss of the peoples rights is the fact that each of the ammendments to the constitution is dragged into court and interpeted as standing on its own. In fact, a study of the 3rd and 4th ammendments reveals that the founding fathers believed the bill of rights was one document of 10 parts; and that the second ammendment is in place not as a stand alone right concerning a states militia, but rather it is the individuals right BECAUSE the state must have a regular army, and a private citizen needs protection from this, just as we need the privacy afforded us in our own homes (3rd ammendment) and security from unlawful search and seizure (4th ammendment).
Another way to arrive at the same conclusion is to consider the framing of the constitutional documents. First, the Declaration of Independence, which declared that the people are in charge. Second, the Constitution, in which the founding fathers clearly delineated the rights and responsibilities of of government, beginning with those famous words "We the people...". Third, the Bill of Rights, which outlines the specific rights of the people as needed to preserve their own soverenity against future attempts by government to usurp power from the people at large.
I love the quotes listed by "tundrarebellion" above; what more proof could a free society want, than their founders reaching out to them across the centuries with words so simple and clear? Inspired? of course! I hope the supreme court can see just a glimmer of this, and assert again that it is THE PEOPLE who protect themselves, not "big brother".
i can not believe the inteligance spoken by so many on this thread. im very surprised all the librals are not jumping on this topic. i know how strongly they feel about gun control. alaska is the last state they want to take hand guns from. thats what they will have to do too. TAKE THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GOOD LUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Keep in mind words had different meaning hundreds of years ago. The word 'regulated' meant both disiplined and trained - as in a well regulated army was considered powerful. Not an army run by beaurcrats.
The term 'malitia' meant local rifle shooters, sharpshooters and marksmen. You still see this word used today - only it refers to militants - and is usually negative. There was no National Guard, and certainly they had no concept of the Air National Guard back then.
The Supreme Court is required to decode the letter of the law as it was intended when written. A good thing for gun owners - so so good for gun grabbers. A modern man reading the 2nd Ammendment could easily view it as meaning 'beaurcrates in charge of the national guard' should have firearms. Makes perfect sense since 'well regulated' usually means government regulated and we view the local National Guard as our local malitia. However, when the document was written.......the context translates into modern verbage as 'well trained and disiplined local shooters and marksman'. Hands down, the Supreme Court will rule in favor of shooters.
When the Supreme Court rules against private ownership (it could happen) - probably from political pressure - you can expect all hell to break loose. And it will have nothing to do with firearms. An unfavorable rulling opens all the rest of the ammendments to modern interpetation by modern standards. It will herald a new era of lawyers running the country.
Although it seems a 'shoe in' for the gun owners - it won't happen. For the Supreme Court to grant handgun ownership in DC it would set presidence against many other firearm related legislation - especially the Gun Control Act of 1936 and 1968. Since the ball and musket were the 'assault rifle' of the day way back when, and the 2nd ammendment was put there to protect the people from the government..... it opens the doors to ownership of machine guns and other destructive devices for people to protect themselves from the government.
My personal opinion - you need to purchase an AR-15 rifle and large capacity pistol NOW. You many not need it today - however - your grand children or their grand children might need it. Consider it an investment to pass down to generations to come.
I grew up in a highly urbanized environment, and guns have always scared the crap out of me. Where I'm from, if you owned a gun, and you *weren't* part of law enforcement, it meant that you were simply up to no good.
My 20 years in Alaska have given me the greatest education and insight on the second amendment. I have learned that people here use guns to protect themselves from dangerous wildlife, to put food on their tables, to provide security and protection from persons of ill intent when law enforcement is nowhere near. Living in Alaska has taught me that guns aren't inherently evil, that they indeed have a constructive, positive use, and because of this, the right to own guns should be protected.
After 20 years of living in Alaska, though, guns still scare the crap out of me because I’ve observed that some of the strongest proponents of gun ownership are people who have the most difficulty in achieving a balanced opinion, people who show no inclination to truly consider opposing points of view. For these same people, it's a lot easier to incite hatred and partisonship than it is to *really* listen.
Gun-loving, trigger-happy individuals aside . . .
The authors of our Constitution are on just this side of godhood to me. But I dare say, in the 21st century, the second amendment stands to be revisited. Most of the US population lives in an urban setting, where grizzlies aren't a threat, where it's easier to get food from the supermarket, and where police protection is only a 911 call away. Guns are simply dangerous in an urban setting. It's true, if guns were outlawed, then only outlaws would have guns. The thing is, they'd have them anyway, legal or not. And I'm *all* for making it as hard as possible for them to get more guns or ammunition.
A gun ban in Washington D.C. makes sense. A gun ban in rural Alaska simply does not. Maybe the right to gun ownership should be granted not on a federal level, but on a state-by-state, or even county level.
The intent of the second amendment is to guard against tyranny. The provision allowing the people to bear arms is perhaps the most effective way of assuring political freedom. The second amendment is, was, a brilliant strategy to provide a check/balance on the government by those who are governed. The second amendment, therefore, is, was, incredibly important to our political freedom. But considering the technological advances made since the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, I'd argue that mere guns are no longer sufficient to prevent a government as powerful as ours from tyrannizing its citizens. Our founding fathers wanted us, the People, to have weapons to protect our political freedom. Guns are no longer the appropriate weapon to provide such protection; our continued diligence and oversight of the government is.
I agree with every comment here.
Next up: ice skating in hell!!
i love the AR-15 i have one for every member of my house hold. also have thousands of rounds of ammo for all my 223 rifles. you can still find lots of glocks both 40cal. and 9mm pre ban. i have an FFL so i can get just about any thing. i agree with glacierwolf. buy em all now because you may not be able to after the librals take over.
LadyNYC,
Regarding the statement, “Guns still scare the crap out of me…” two things that you need to consider. One, education can help reduce fear anything. Joe Nava has taught firearms safety for over 40 years (and provides guns for his classes). Second, they sell gun locks and safes. Now, regarding the “people (who)… incite hatred and partisanship”, you’re still going to have to contend with them even if every gun in the United States were to disappear overnight. I guess it’s a matter of what you fear most; guns or predators? Predators can “smell” fear. If you’re not going to own a fire arm, how are you going to defend yourself? Understand this however – my guns are no threat to you and I will not surrender them because you’re afraid.
No, the Second Amendment does not need to be revisited. There a saying that, “a gun in the hand is better than the 911 Operator on the line when the perp is at the door and the police are five minutes away.” I encourage you to listen to Michael Dukes’ “Firearms Friday” from 4 to 6 PM. Ask questions! Challenge him when you think he’s wrong! He will educate – politely as long as you are polite to him – more effectively than I can. The Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) was written to protect the rights of citizens of the United States from the Tyranny that the British Crown had imposed on the Colonists and guns are what allowed them to rise against the tyranny of the British Government (and throw off the yoke of the British Army). Guns also keep American Politicians circumspect.
A gun ban in Washington D.C. makes sense? Not if it violates the American Constitution! Do you realize what is involved to change the Constitution? The last thing that was attempted was the Equal Rights Amendment and it failed to draw Ratification from 38 States because the People of those States DIDN’T WANT IT! The Framers of the Constitution made it deliberately hard to change for a reason.
Regarding “the technological advances made since the founding fathers wrote the Constitution,” I'd argue just the reverse. The flintlock rifles of 1776 were “state-of-the-art” for that period. That’s why the “Soldiers of the Crown” were trying to confiscate the Powder stored in the Magazine at Concord. The answer is for those who can afford the price to purchase the most up-to-date firearms available today. I’m not talking about “automatic” weapons; “state-of-the-art” means I’d like to have a Barrett 50 caliber rifle (but at $3,700+ I‘m getting one any time soon). They have an “effective range” of well over a mile. That’s what will prevent a government as powerful as ours from tyrannizing its citizens. Our founding fathers wanted us, the People, to have weapons to protect our political freedom. Guns are the most appropriate means to provide that protection. Do you realize that our next Chief Executive is going to be Barrack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or John McCain? We need guns (& ammo) more than ever!
Why do you need to shoot something a mile away? (other than bravado and amusement, that is.)
doug in salcha,
you know what you are talking about. i hear you loud and clear. i wish more were like you. new york city or faibanks alaska we all need to have the same rights. my wife and all my kids except for my 2 year old are very well trained with all our fire arms. we all shoot for fun and sport. we all hunt. target shooting is our biggest past time. we all reload. it is a very big part of our life. no one will ever take that away. unless they take us out.
ladyNYC,you seem to hit the nail on the head.I really don't see why anyone in the big cities need gun's.Except law enforcement.On the otherhand,we in the bush who live on a subsistance lifestyle need to live off the land need a little helping hand.I would try and get a moose with a bow and arrow but would not try and risk the animal running off wounded.Yeah...leave the gun's to us who need them to put food on the table...and for law-enforcement to do there job.City-folk don't need no gun's to eat at cafe's and store's.I know crime is getting bad in the city and everywhere else and people have a right to protect themeselve's.(People have a right to protect themselve's!!!)What more can I say?ME..I am gonna eat AND protect myself.If the gov't decide's to take our gun's,they won't take-em all....
you that would sell out the lives given for freedom,you that would make the usa weak by thinkin guns are not keeping your freedom free, you that think we will give over ower guns are unlearned ,we will not,but that dont meen youll get them ,gess intell someone trys killing your love,ed one will you see, or not some of you lack a brain, if the low life dont fear others youll see more crime, you like the mall killings ? alot of persons have lost there live,s because they dint have a gun. ladynyc & woliffll both of you need help, ill keep my guns , thank you,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
WoliFF11, you miss the point guns are not to hunt animals but to protect us against our own government. Not from the Chinese, Russians or Osama but from the tendency of governments to increase their power at the expense of their own citizens/subjects. I believe the true enemy of peopl3 throughout the world is their own governments. Our duty as citizens is constant vigilance. That is why you can not place blind loyalty in any one party or individual. Fire 'em up.
Sadoonek,
"Why do you need to shoot something a mile away?"
Do you know the story of Randy Weaver and Ruby Ridge, Idaho? The ATF used an informant to "entrap" him into a crime. How do you "entrap" someone into committing a crime? The informant begged Randy Weaver to "cut down" the barrell of a shotgun. When Mr. Weaver did so, he inadvertently cut the barrell a quarter of an inch too short. The ATF next went to Mr. Weaver and in return for a deal wherein Mr. Weaver would agree to inform on a group of White Supremists (i.e., "spy on them") they would agree not to press charges against him. Mr. Weaver, it turns out, had some White Separatists sentiments and decided to refuse them. They invaded his homestead in a wild and remote region of Idaho.
As near as I can recall, Randy Weaver's son was out one day and when one of the ATF Agents was spotted by the Weaver's dog, the ATF agent shot the dog and Randy Weaver's son shot and the ATF agent. The ATF surrounded the Weaver's cabin and ultimately shot and killed Weaver's wife while she was standing behind a door holding her infant child. Weaver was arrested and charged and decided to file counter charges for I don't know what all but in the end he was vendicated, all charges were dropped and he won a damage suit against the ATF for over a million dollars.
The answer is this - the military snipers use the Barrett 50 Sniper Rifle and I suspect that the ATF also has access to them. If someone is going to be shooting at me from over a mile away, I'd like to have the capability to "return the favor"! I do not believe in the inherent intellect or integrity of the Federal Government and enough guns in the hands of private citizens may just keep them more circumspect in their behavior.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.