Supreme Court says Americans have right to own guns, strikes down D.C. ban
Originally published Thursday, June 26, 2008 at 6:29 a.m.
Updated Thursday, June 26, 2008 at 10:46 a.m.
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!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.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
I can't believe it was 5 to 4 they really are out of touch.
At least they got this one right. I'm glad that they realized guns are guns. 90 out of every 100 Americans own a gun. I guess the Hollywood liberals against gun ownership just hire someone to carry one for them.
"At least they got this one right."
My sentiments, exactly.
you have to define who or what is the "militia". the militia in the constitution isn't the national guard troops. it's everyday average joes and janes like us. and having the weapon isn't just tied to when it is time to go off and join a group for the national defense. the arsenal is left for each of us individually to hold onto until time of need.
Now, real Americans need to work hard to make sure we don't elect Barack Hussein Obama to office where he can appoint gun-rights hating Federal Justices who will take away our hard fought rights to gun ownership and personal protection.
Thanks to President Bush and his appointments, the Courts got it right. Just read some of the liberal trash in the dissenting opinion to see how important it is to get the right President - who makes these life time appointments to the Courts.
"Thanks to President Bush and his appointments, the Courts got it right."
Yep. This time. What about this Supreme Court's rulings in the the Exxon Valdez oil spill and the emminent domain case back East?
Its about time they did something right...its no secret who the 4 judges are who voted against this ruling...
i really question people's motives when they spell out barack's whole name. i thought america represented freedom regardless of religion, ethnicity or national origin? and while your at it, thank president bush for slowly taking away your other rights in the name of fighting terrorism, basically bankrupting the government, making the us the most hated nation in the world, creating the largest deficit in us history, deceiving the american public into attacking iraq, instead of really going after the ones responsible for the 9/11 attacks! do you now how many of the highjackers where from iraq?? a bit fat 0! how about from saudi arabia, 16 of the 19. the list of his failures goes on. and i have yet to touch on this gun issue!!!
Hard to believe there are 4 judges on the SCOTUS that think we DO NOT have a right to be well armed!! America is on a slippery slope...if you get the chance, read Ron Paul's book Revolution, it is an eye opener.
Zumbada: its OK, you can LET GO now...tell your therapist youre feeling better...good grief...
Zumbada - Addressing your comment is an exercise in futility. While you work on getting over President Don't worry, President Bush is almost gone and we can see further destruction of our great country with either of these leftists in office. Instead of finding the anti-Bush, everyone SHOULD have been looking for the best person for the job. But now we have these two. YUCK.
"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.' No evidence? Huh? How about: "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."?
Judicial activism is terrifying, and it's beyond time for them to stop it. At least they got it right this time I suppose.
At least they got it right this time, huh?
Hmmm. Must be early - I did some doubling up and iffy grammar. Sorry.
Oh oh. The right wing extremist are all riled up today! Save the country, Barrack Hussein Obama for pres. Did I miss something? Did he ever say he wanted to take away guns? As an average liberal,(don't burn down my house) I think good gun control is using 2 hands. I know many,many liberals with a house full of guns. We care too.
DarkHorse, two of the four justices (Stevens and Souter) who voted *against* overturning the DC gun ban were appointed by conservative presidents, one of whom was W's daddy. Did you even read the dissenting opinion? The issue at hand wasn't about whether people can or cannot possess guns, it was about whether or not the rules governing firearm ownership by residents of the District of Columbia, which is not a state, deprived DC residents of their constitutional rights. The dissenting opinions essentially argue that the rules that currently regulate handgun ownership in DC (you need a permit from the chief of police) are no more restrictive than the laws that were in effect in cities like Boston, Philadelphia, and NY when the constitution was enacted.
States can make whatever rules they want as long as they don't violate the Constitution. That's why you can't own an AK-47 in California, why you need a permit to concealed-carry in most states (Alaska and the conservative bastion of Vermont are the only states where you don't), and why you can't own a Class III machine gun without a BATF permit. But DC is different because DC isn't a state. That's why if you commit a crime in DC, it's under federal jurisdiction. What the dissenting opinion argues is that the laws of DC don't restrict its citizens from forming a well-regulated militia any more than other laws.
The Second Amendment isn't absolute. It's been interpreted as non-absolute for well over a hundred years. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Not many people can seriously argue that I should be able to go to Sportsman's and buy an RPG, or an Abrams tank, or a Minuteman missile. Those are all "arms," but they aren't guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
Before anyone flames me as some tree-huggin' Kaliforny liberal who just don't get it, I'll say that I own three pistols, two assault rifles, two shotguns, and three hunting rifles. I've also lived in DC. I didn't own my pistols then, but my assault rifle was within easy access. The DC law required the rifle to be unloaded, but come on -- even the NRA says you shouldn't store a loaded weapon. I never had my house broken into, but if I did, it wouldn't have taken much time for me to slap the mag into the AR and be ready to (100% legally) rock and roll. I don't see how that infringed on my rights within the context of the Second Amendment.
"90 out of every 100 Americans own a gun."
What orifice did you pull this "statistic" out of?
RabbleRabble,
You were in violation of the DC law and a criminal by having your assault rifle handy and ready to use by just loading. Part of that law was that you were to have your long guns disassebled or inoperable to use. Good thing they didn't catch you, and a good reason they overturned the law.
It is about time that the supreme court gets something right. I was concerned on there ability to make decisions after yesterdays ruling. I am still angry from the outcome of yesterday! I still think it is ridiculas! Luckily, enough of the courts have stocks in guns or the outcome of this decision would have problemly been different!
wow i've got warm fuzzies! the government threw us a bone to keep the masses happy. maybe they'll give us another $300 or let us pick which effigy to burn next. don't look behind you or you might catch a glimpse of something really happening.
rabble rabble's post was quite good don't you think? facts and opinions but oh no it's a complicated issue....what to do? think, think!
The real question that nobody is asking........ why did it take 32 years for the DC Ban to finally be brought to court?
The question California gun owners should be asking - why has nobody challenged those laws yet?
Political Correctness is going to be the death of the US. I am so tired of the argument, 'if it could save just one life' - something nobody will ever actually know or verify, having merit. Hopefully the rulling of Heller vs. DC will be an 'eye opener' for people to look at all the rights we have squandered away, and not just gun rights, and start to get our freedoms and country back.
It's about time common sense started to mean something - and our laws stop being driven by the miniscule minorities. Laws are not designed to fit every situation 100% - that is why we have a court system and a jury of our peers - to help the people who need the exception.
When we start enacting laws that fit 100% - sweeping bans and broad requirements - that my friend, is a lost freedom.
Kevin
Without guns, we are subjects.
With guns, we are citizens.
I will be buying more soon.
90 out of 100 may be a bit high due to the amount of bleeding heart liberals out there. Here in Alaska it should be even closer than 90/100. The ones with out guns are sitting ducks for crime.
Gun control is "Using both hands and breath control"
The constitution of Alaska declares every able-bodied person from 18 and up to be de-facto members of the state militia, so it is clear the 2nd Amendment applies here. And the ASDF organization provides a cadre force of officers and leaders in case that militia needs to be activated, which it has been from time to time in response to disasters.
This ruling goes beyond the original intent of the 2nd amendment by declaring the right to "keep" as an individual right even in the absense of the intent to participate in state militia activities. This may be something people desire, and the court may well be responding to that desire by this interpretation. But it was not the original intent of the amendment.
DC Code § 7-2507.02. Firearms required to be unloaded and disassembled or locked: "Except for law enforcement personnel described in § 7-2502.01(b)(1), each registrant shall keep any firearm in his possession unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device unless such firearm is kept at his place of business, or while being used for lawful recreational purposes within the District of Columbia."
Had the issue come up (which I doubt it would have, because I had no reason to involve the police in any of my business or invite them in my house), I would have argued that by removing the magazine, which rendered it inoperable, the rifle was disassembled. Had it been a bolt action rifle instead of a gas-operated one, I would treat it like I treat my rifles now - remove the bolt when I'm not using it, and keep it next to the magazine.
I should point out that I don't have kids, but if I had any, you better believe I'd make sure that if I wasn't in direct control of it, any firearm in my household would be rendered inoperable -- doesn't matter if I'm living in Alaska or D.C. That's part of being a responsible firearm owner. I'd rather have to deal with an additional half-second or so of putting the bolt in than have an accidental discharge on my hands.
All that being said (and for the record, I agree the DC law should have been overturned), I think the most compelling argument in the DC case is the old adage of "when you outlaw guns, the only ones who are armed are the criminals." The handgun ban in DC has been in effect since 1975. That hasn't stopped DC from having one of the highest per capita murder rates in the nation, most of which were committed using handguns. Now, I know some people will argue "well imagine how bad it would've been had the handgun ban NOT been in effect," and it's hard to tell, but it's strikingly clear that the law was just as effective in stopping the usage of handguns to commit illegal acts as the hard-line federal drug laws of the 80s were in stopping Marion Barry from smoking crack.
The real question that will come up now is "well, is your average law-abiding DC resident now going to go out and purchase a handgun, and if so, will that help prevent gun crime in DC?" Who knows. I doubt it will. I doubt that overturning the bill is going to make some crackhead about to do a home invasion robbery think twice about whether he's going to get capped for doing so.
But that being said, that really isn't what this Supreme Court case was all about. It wasn't about whether overturning the handgun ban will enable the citizens of DC to arm and defend themselves with handguns, it was about whether the District of Columbia (which is in a unique situation because it isn't a state, doesn't have a state constitution, etc) overstepped the boundaries of the Second Amendment's guarantee that "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" by passing a law that restricts the ownership of handguns (not all guns) by its residents. Five justices said "yes," four said "no." The first commenter said "they really are out of touch," and that may actually be the truth -- in a good way. The job of the Supreme Court is to "stay in touch"...with 1787! "What did the framers intend this document to mean?" And if you read the majority and dissenting opinions, that's what both sides are trying to figure out -- and both sides make really good arguments!
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/0...
The way I see it there are two groups that dont like this ruling some of our misguided liberal friends and all of the criminals who all have guns no matter what the ruling is.
Finally! Some sense.
And although the 2nd amendment does talk about the militia, it is specific in saying “the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
And anyone who thinks that the ban has kept crime from being committed by people with handguns in DC is delusional.
I am relieved to know this was overturned, however for how long? 5 to 4 is too close for comfort. As for the 90 out of 100 Alaskans owning firearms, I've found for several years the numbers between 54% and 67%, depending on which gov't department conducts the survey and for what purpose.
I agree with "gun control" (but in using both hands as the control) but to add to it, EDUCATION!!!!!!!!!!
We've got to educate our youngsters on how to properly handle a firearm. The leading argument that opposers have is based around ignorance of firearm safety.
I found an interesting site based on research for Alaska, really gives basis for the gun control support, maybe we need to address this problem? Did you realize that youth related firearm deaths in rural AK outnumber the rest of the state?
http://www.hss.state.ak.us/dph/ipems/inj...
Then again, there's the argument for gun control that simply put pairs gun ownership to gun related crimes. These stats burn me up!!
Most are biased toward moving numbers in favor of gun control by combining homicide and suicide (grrrr!) plus, they usually combine states with high crime rates with states with high gun ownership rates to get the numbers "where they need to be" (double grrrrrr!)
Not arguing that we need to wisen up on firearms! As a WHOLE we're stupid when it comes to guns. Why not educate (gee, can you get the idea I'm big on firearm education?)
My kids understand the purpose of firearms, were taught at a young age how to care for and handle a gun. *Maybe* when they get into their later teens I'll hide them, but right now, my guns are seperate from the ammo and bolts/clips, alot of it depends on my kids.
Gun control just keeps the honest man honest...no more guns, and crime continues, then we'll outlaw bows & arrows, and knives. When crime continues with a deadly weapon (anything can be considered a deadly weapon!) then maybe spoons, yo-yo's and bananas are next!!
Just one more biased opinion I thought needed to be added. :)
"i really question people's motives when they spell out barack's whole name. i thought america represented freedom regardless of religion, ethnicity or national origin?"
Alright folks, sorry, but have to respond...
When we mention Hilary, we hear all the time "Hilary RODHAM Clinton", when we talk about our current president, we often call him George W. Bush, of "Dubya" or some variation of using his middle initial or name.
Zumbada, are we being racist or sexist in either of these two examples as well? Please, you're just trying to pick a fight because someone used Obama's full name. Your sensitivity is ridiculous, and I'm the type that won't put up with it, ...
I thought you all might want to see what Obama stated today.
Barack Obama:
I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.
As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.
DC isnt going to see a drop in handgun related shootings; now, however, there is a better chance of the real criminals being on the recieving end.
An unloaded or disassembled gun is useless. As a victim of a 2AM home invasion, I can tell you true I had no time to think, only time to react; had my .45 been unloaded, dissassembled, or even stored beyond the reach of my bed, I may not be typing this today.
Now its just a question of how long it will take before a gang of lawyers figures out a way around the ruling...
praise the lord and pass the ammunition!
gotta love living in a culture that celebrates violence and abhors sex! we truly are god's chosen.
zumbada, did you know that barack HUSSEIN obama is a muslim? and that he was trained in an alqaeda training camp?
also, he happens to be first cousins with saddam hussein and half brother to osama bin laden, hence the name. he's clearly not "one of us".
factoid: he's also the anti-christ discussed in the book of revelations. if the rapture hasn't taken you to heaven by now, i guess yur a sinner! and yur stuck on this planet to suffer the tribulation! EGADS! but at least you're armed so you can protect yurself against the hordes of illegal immigrants.
patcaribou - No one here has said anything of the kind. C'mon now.
patcaribou:
I'll start by saying I DO NOT SUPPORT OBAMA... But...
Where did you get your information - what are the sources of your info?
Why would you tear him down without quoting sources?
Don't write foolishly!
*************** ELECT MCCAIN ! ****************
Seen on the wall of El Squid Roe Cantina in Cabo San Lucas --
"Get real, like Jesus would carry a gun and vote Republican?"
I just about fell out of my chair laughing when I saw that one!
*************** ELECT OBAMA ! ****************
[Sorry reformer, could help my self]
[BTW folks - I think Patcaribou was joking...]
[That should say "couldn't help myself"]
nah, but seriously folks! the end is nigh!
http://www.barackobamaantichrist.blogspo...
Feinstein is so delusion if anything we are safer than before
Thanks for the info Hacksaw. What Obama said sounds quite reasonable.
One of the justices accurately implied/stated, this is not the 'end-all' to this debate.
This ruling mirrors what was predicted by some on both sides of the discussion; "the second amendment is an individual right, and that there may be 'reasonable restrictions' placed upon the exercise of that right."
Please find a concise and clear meaning for the concept of 'reasonable restrictions,' and post it.. I can't find one. ;^>)
fishtales, there's a third group that's displeased with this ruling.
That group consists of those who know that firearms ownership (especially of the sporting variety) was such a 'no-brainer' when the Bill of Rights was drafted, that it would've been akin to crafting a specific amendment today, stating that the government will be prohibitied from stopping you from shopping for groceries, eating lunch, etc.
The drafting of the 2nd had NOTHING to do with hunting or individual self-defense. Those two concepts were 'givens.' What the 2nd amendment did address was the citizenry being empowered to "put down tyranny, both foreign and domestic."
I've been a gun owner/possessor since I was 11 y.o. I feel no need to ask tyrants for permission to breath, eat, protect myself, or any other normal everyday function. I don't accept subjugation by persons who have already shown that they're more ethically challenged than many they claim to govern.
What humors me, in a cynical sense, is the gun-owning crowd that appears to think that tyranny inherently comes from elsewhere. That same group, many of whom sit back while 'unalienable right' after 'unalienable right' is violated, trimmed, jack-hammmered, always for what some bureaucrat, hooked on a comfy, tax-payer-purchased lifestyle, defines as 'necesssary.' That same group of gun-owners that believes that as long as the infractions committed by governments are limited to the experiences of some other poor schmuck who lives differently than they do, that it's o.k. "Just don't take my guns.. " "Not that I'll ever really use them for what they were guaranteed for, anyway..".
Then there's the folks who want to pass laws based on what someone MIGHT do, rather than what they did, striking a blow to individual rights every where, in the name of that elusive 'prevention,' while helping our legal and legislative systems to live in the proverbial land of Chicken Little, afraid of its own shadow, and curtailing others' rights forever more, as a result of the sacred group-held neuroses, apparently (and strangely) believing there's some petri-dish society somewhere, where every one will be safe, no one dies prematurely, or is unnecessarily injured, and no one's feelings will get hurt.
These are the two groups I see most prominently involved in the current gun debate.
Truly free persons don't ask the government (or neighbors) for permission, providing that they're not interfering with another's living their life equally freely.
Yay guns!
Sorry it was 90 guns per 100 people in the US, per Fox radio news.
If gun ownership equals breaking the law with a gun, Alaska should have the highest crime rate in the nation. The argument that gun ownership equals more crime is nonsense. There are 300 plus million people in the US, and one nut case does a mass killing so the 299,999,999 people should pay the price for one person's action. With this logic, if one person drinks and drives and kills someone, everyone else needs to turn in their driver's license.
"""The drafting of the 2nd had NOTHING to do with hunting or individual self-defense. Those two concepts were 'givens.' What the 2nd amendment did address was the citizenry being empowered to "put down tyranny, both foreign and domestic."""
Excellent post Dirk, thanks for pointing that out. Clearly, the Founding Fathers were fearful of an out of control government having the sole power of wielding the firearm. Reading what they said in regard to the right of personal firearm possession bears that out exactly:
"""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
"""Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner - Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting the vote""".
-Ben Franklin
Conversely, consider how Adolf Hitler felt about the right of the people to own or "possess arms":
"""The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so"""
The Founding Fathers were always concerned with containing the power of government and the second amendment is really a furtherance of that concern. Really, the second amendment is the last ditch defense of the Constitution itself.
i would never give up a single shotgun, pistol or rifle regardless of how they voted. can anyone really imagine the government trying to disarm this nation? i dont know a single person anywhere that isnt armed with a firearm of some sort. if they sent the Army or swat teams to get my guns, my neighbors would intervene and i would do the same for them. if the government looks across this nation they will find that they lack the manpower to take our guns. in north carolina where i plan to move to be near my daughter they have even more guns that we have here, then look at Texas and those southern and midwest states, guns are inj most homes. probably only the big cities and that bastion of liberalism (california) are without but the gangs and crackheads are well armed there.
i am glad the vote went the way our founding fathers intended but just the same i never would give up a thing, it is out right to bear arms and no sleazy politician is taking that from me.
Well at least we dont have to hear people ranting about how the second amenment only applied to the national guard, and the framers of the constitution actually had a comma fault and thus all the confusion.... what a dumb argument. The important thing was that the court specifically stated the second amendment was about PERSONAL right and not that of a regulated militia.
I think I'll celebrate by going out and doing some shooting tonight. Anyone want to join me at South Cushman?
"""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
Tyrany in gov't - example: Judges who dictate law on based on popular public opinion (an evolving morality) rather than our constitution. (... the other 4)
I like RabbitRabbi's comments. He makes sense. Does anyone here REALLY believe an ARMED militia of Alaskans is going to stop anyone? Where was everyone's guns in 911? Get real folks. Philadelphia doesn't even know who has guns, whether the gun holders are US citizens, or why they have guns. At least 3 kids a week are shot down in crossfire between gang fights.
Of the 57% populous sporting guns in Alaska, I bet 23% doesn't even know how to shoot one accurately.
Today's DC ruling is a politically correct judgement,...don't piss off NRA. Please tell me why DC needs 100,000+ guns? What are they shooting at? There's no moose in DC.
"Ron Paul's book Revolution, it is an eye opener."
Yep. Figured this would bring out at least one Paul-bot. LOL! Tell me again how well he did in his attempt at being a candidate. LOL!
As to the SCOTUS decision, When I lived in Fairbanks I never felt the need of a handgun for home protection. Down here in sunny AZ it is a much different story. I would not leave home without one and one is on my nightstand when I go to bed. Right now I am waiting for my renewed permit to arrive....and it is late. But don't think for a minute that the lack of (current) government permission keeps me from carrying mine. After reading oodles of comments at other sites on the decision it is refreshing to come here and see such overwhelming support for the right to bear arms.
OUR constitution !! Can anyone here accurately say it?...save for the 2nd ammendment right to bear arms? OUR constitution was written by candlelight 200 plus years ago. Do ya think "things" mighta changed some since then?
Sorry to read that Bog. I know how things are in AZ, any border state for that matter. I'm simply saying that most people who have guns, for the most part, know how a gun works. It's those exceptions to that case, who frighten me.
Reading closely Senator Obama's statement, "We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals."
I read that to mean banning free trade among legal owners. How in the world are they going to restrict criminals with no regard for the law especially in the global economy and in light of NAFTA? Someone may think there is hope for the Senator from Ohio. Not it!
and freedom of speech!
But I gotta laugh that despite a failing economy Dow Jones down 330 today, despite trillions in debt, despite floods, fires, despite higher gas prices than China,....
people ARE STILL RISKING LIFE AND DEATH TO IMMIGRATE HERE...legally or not.
We can't be all bad.
The Hollywood types have *bodyguards* who carry for them. God forbid Rosey O'D carrying a handgun. Funny how the libs holler "free speech, free speech", but when it comes to defending themselves it is "free SHEEP, free SHEEP"...
It does not matter what they say none of us should turn in our guns. IF it ever happens I will refuse. I hope the rest of the guns owners here feel the same.
Pat
Dove - I think the framers of the Constitution did a d*mn good job. They even thought ahead to when things "changed" - it's called the amendment process (Article 5, I believe). Pretty impressive document, in this girl's view, anyway.
The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.
Hacksaw
Obama has supported every gun control leglislation that has been through congress while he has been a member. He has supported the UNs attempt to disarm Americans with their policy against small arms. Do the research and you will see that he is no friend to gun owners. Unfortunately McCain isnt any better.
As I am prone to do during all the "Founding Fathers" chest thumping is to point out these men owned slaves, counted blacks as 3/5 of one person, and - by virtue of my reproductive organs - restricted my full rights of citizenship.
That's not a comment on how I feel about gun ownership rights. It's a comment on how ridiculous I think it is to argue "Framers' Intent" about anything. We live in this world, now. Let's do find constitutional arguments that support living in this world, not one 200 years old.
That is to say, "thought" by virtue of my reproductive organs that I should be denied the full rights of citizenship.
I swear I'm not 217 years old.
Christina - This negation of the Constitution by virtue of the fallibility of the formers (omg, they were human...) never ceases to amaze me. Usually those who holler the loudest about this are those that screech about the appropriateness of cultural relativity...yet these same people are never willing to apply the same standards to THIS country, its history or its culture.
Yes, these men who penned the Constitution had their issues, but most were CULTURALLY appropriate at the time, yet so obviously wrong to us today. We tend to right the wrongs of the past, thankfully. And I certainly hope that the Supreme Court will continue to do so Constitutionally, with the intent of the framers in mind.
I am sadistically curious though - what do you suggest to fulfill your wish of "constitutional arguments that support living in this world, not one 200 years old"? As it is, it supports living in MY world just fine - as long as these Justices act within their appropriate roles.
Chistina Uticone...
About a month ago I signed a contract with the U.S.A to obey and defend the constitution with my life if needed. I intend to honor this contract, because the constitution is the supreme law of the land which without you wouldn't be free today, even though this nearly perfect document is under attack by our congress and presidents all the time. The constitution was drafted not to be a law that the government can control the people, but the other way around. If we the people think that something in the constitution doesn't apply for the current age, then make an amendment and change it, but until then, the government should obey it.
Hand guns are a must here in Alaska.
It sleeps with you in case of a bear
attack. Works great at close range!
In most case it may be used for food
on your table too.
talk is cheap, the point is i have guns and unless i somehow become a convicted felon or lose my mind completely and move to the west coast of the USA, no one is going to take them from me. in this day and age only a fool will allow his or her home and family to be unprotected, it is just common sense anymore.
the Constitution was created in order to give us control over our government (ourselves) and prevent tyrany, sadly we are no longer in control of our government so now more than ever it is important for us to protect our basic freedoms.
Easy, killers.
I just happen to think "Framers Intent" is one of the weaker methods of Constitutional interpretation. No need to get the collective panties in a bunch. "Plain meaning" supports most of the same arguments without acting like the Founding Fathers were perfect visionaries rather than what they were - dudes doing the best they could while still enslaving men, women and children, perpetuating the decimation of a native population, and keeping women from participating as citizens. Were they great thinkers? Yes! Did they give us a good jumping off point? Of course.
Dana - you can talk about "cultural relativism" but since I haven't engaged in any of that (that I can see in my two previous comments), I'm not sure what your point is. You did say this that caught my eye: "yet these same people are never willing to apply the same standards to THIS country, its history or its culture." In regard to standards we should apply to THIS country and its history, that is sort of my point. It doesn't do us any favors to whitewash history. I'd rather take a critical eye to all of it and use, what I see as, better intepretational frameworks for the very reason that the Framers "intended" a lot of things - not all of them "good" or "fair" or "right".
Thanks for the update Brazilnuts - my con. law profs. covered that part about people being the government, though. No worries. "I get it". Good luck in your newest endeavor and thank you for signing up.
And yes, we own guns, no, I don't use them, and yes, I think in this case the Supreme Court was right. My opinion was STRICTLY in regard to the insistence of the general public in squawking about Framers Intent (original meaning), which again "in my opinion is one of the weaker interpretational frameworks".
"Framers intent" is the arguement most used by those trying to change or uphold the Constitution. For example, saying this Supreme Court decision still allows for 'reasonable restrictions' on gun ownership. OK, back to the Bill of Rights to try to figure out what exactly was the framers intent!
No arguement exists in a constitutional debate which doesnt primarily reference 'framers intent'. Why? Because the documents are so well written, only interpetation of individual words can be used to attempt to change the law. This is why we have SCOTUS, and this is what they do; interpet the Constitution and Bill of Rights according to 'framers intent'.
That Supreme Court seat appointments are used as a political tool is sad, but it also dates back to the Jefferson-Adams debates over what direction to take the fledgling country. Fortunately, even political and moral ideals have a hard time gaining a foothold in Supreme Court decisions...as was the framers intent.
And one can make those same arguments without utlizing "Framers Intent" which, for reasons already stated, is why I find it to be a weak interpretational tool. Most people disagree with me - that's also fine. But after years of reading and briefing cases, I just don't find it as persuasive as other frameworks.
Christine, your comments re. times changing in re. the 2nd, denies an awareness of world events since the Bill of Rights' crafting.
Dozens of 'revolutions against perceived tyranny,' have raged since, sometimes quite effectively.
The Sons of Liberty comprised less than 3% of the residents of the colonies at the time of their creation; minorities start necessary revolutions. Followers jump aboard, either when they've no discernible choice, or they feel safer about doing so... as usual.
Yes, the Founders had imperfections. Some were even humble enough to addess those publicly; a trait much lacking in today's politicos. They were inspired beyond their own wisdom; they acknowledged that, too.
Folks like Scalia claim they're supporters of 'original intent'; they're not. His stance re. suspension of unalienable rights says he isn't what he claims.
But I can think of few better methods of interpretting any document, than to have insight into what the original crafter(s) of that document believed their verbage meant. They did, after all, write it.
Principles are issues that don't change as much over time as much as specific physical attributes. The Bill of Rights addresses principles more than it addresses physical realities.
The Mujahideen, the Jews of Warsaw, FARC, and others would likely contest your assertion of armed populaces nolonger being necessary. Though the concept of the 'Butterknife Brigade' brings some legitimacy to the argument.
Is America currently too soft to take part in any necessary 'correcting' of tyrants? Likely so. Which explains many current infringements.
I'm not an NRA member (I cancelled my membership when they made it clear they were willing to compromise other 'unalienable rights' in protecting the 2nd. I'm a Gun Owners of America kinda' guy, though I don't pay them dues).
I'm aware of the other amendments, and the violations to them by both parties running the show. That awareness includes the idea that the Constitution is not the source of those rights, but rather a reference guide to 'birth rights,' in the form of limited enumeration of the obvious issues of that time.
The 9th amendment asserts that 'we' possess other 'unalienable rights,' not specifically included in the B of R. (One more issue where folks like Scalia make it obvious that they're not as oriented toward 'original intent' as they claim.)
Your pointing to the character foibles of the founders is not news, though I hope that doesn't detract from the novelty and profoundness that I suspect you thought you were bringing.
well, i guess a couple of my posts were not allowed , censorship is not a definition of freedom, they probably wont post this either.
you can censor my words from this rag forum but you can never silence me. makes me wonder how many other posts are censored.
This rag forum is the best thing that ever happened to Fairbanks. I am glad to hear that
che won't be silenced. Don't be silenced. But don't go to the movies on the same night I do.
Dirk:
"Christine, your comments re. times changing in re. the 2nd, denies an awareness of world events since the Bill of Rights' crafting."
I never said anything about times changing.
And it's Christin"a" with an A. Thank you.
Dirk:
"Your pointing to the character foibles of the founders is not news, though I hope that doesn't detract from the novelty and profoundness that I suspect you thought you were bringing."
I never claimed it was news, nor that it was "novel" or "profound".
For future reference, you should reply to the things I say, not the things you read into what I say.
What I said was: "I just don't find it as persuasive as other frameworks."
That is my opinion. If yours is different, bully for you my friend!
Dirk:
"The Mujahideen, the Jews of Warsaw, FARC, and others would likely contest your assertion of armed populaces nolonger being necessary."
Nor did I "assert" that "armed populaces" are "no longer necessary".
I clearly stated that I agreed with the decision in question.
Try again. Or, for your own sake, don't.
Finally, Dirk:
"But I can think of few better methods of interpretting any document, than to have insight into what the original crafter(s) of that document believed their verbage meant."
I can. For example, "plain meaning".
Christina- It is good to see that the debate has moved into Constitutional Law jurisprudence (mostly thanks to you). While I generally use Law and Economics on non-Constitutional issues (if the law is not clear, use economic analysis to find the efficient outcome), I disagree with Judge Richard Posner when it comes to Constitutional analysis because of the value of the innate value of the rule of law which I think he discounts too much.
I think "plain meaning" is often the first step in Constitutional legal analysis, but what to do if there ambiguity? For me "original social intent" then comes into play, trying to figure out what the supporters of the clause meet when they wrote it. To view the clause from modern meaning is to essentially burn the Constitution as it will allow any fad thinking to overrule it. Severe legal change as that created by amending the Constitution should be slow and difficult, but possible; exactly what we get with the legitimate amendment process. What I dislike is when one person, currently Justice Kennedy as the swing vote, can amend the Constitution.
I agree that eight members of the current Supreme Court seem to use whatever jurisprudence they want in order to get the result they want. I only have real respect for Justice Clarence Thomas.