# 5-4 supreme court rules in favor of gun ownership



## Matt Vanderpan (Nov 21, 2007)

The Supreme Court has ruled individuals have right to own guns, striking down a DC handgun ban :jammin:


----------



## Dak (Feb 28, 2005)

Link to the opinion:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Sweet!

This victory is HUGE!


----------



## T Shot (Oct 4, 2002)

:beer:


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> Sweet!
> 
> This victory is HUGE!


Yes it was a huge victory, but it happened a couple hundred years ago when the Constitution and Bill of Right were drawn up and endorsed by the American people.

Why would they need to vote, or rather why are they voting on one of our basic rights?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I have been laying brick at the church, and with no radio. I was very anxious about getting home to see how this turned out. I am appalled that it was not a 9 to 0 in favor of the constitution. I am not surprised, but I am disappointed.

Try to imagine what would have happened if this decision was made two or three years from now with Obama in office. There would have been more of those empty headed activist judges who think the constitution is a living document for them to screw with.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Here is No boma views on gun control..........

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_ ... ontrol.htm

Very interesting. Worth the read.


----------



## h2ofwlr (Feb 6, 2004)

As Plainsmen said, I was very surprised it was so close of a verdict. I thought it would be 7-2 decision. We are not at all standing on as near of firm legal grounds as I had imagined with the liberal justices and society as a whole.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Another view............

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer

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.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

This case was huge win for gun owners, and I agree that local jurisdictions should not be able to infringe on a person's civil liberties, even if a majority of the citizens vote that it should be allowed. This is why certain things are called civil liberties. This case, and the reactions of many on this board, caused me to point out a couple observations.

First, it is obvious that many conservatives feel passionately about the 2nd amendment and will fight hard to ensure that the rights described there are protected. My hat's off to you, since I believe in protecting civil liberties too. My only plea is that that those same conservatives fight just as hard to protect the rights described in the 1st amendment (freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly), the 4th amendment (freedom from unreasonable search and seizure), and the 6th amendment (right to a speedy trial). Somehow, many conservatives have ignored or disregarded these civil liberties in recent years, citing the need for national security in GWB's War on Terror(ism).

Second, there is a bit of a hypocrisy in how some of us view the issue of national vs local control when it comes to gun laws. Many conservatives believe in local governance and ensuring that we don't have an overbearing federal government. This is why many conservatives support the ability of local governments to carve out school curriculums to include creationism themes or exclude sexual education, to allow states to decide if abortion should be legal or not, or to celebrate Christian religion on public property because a municipality is predominantly Christian. However, in the same breath, those conservatives fight vehemently against a local government that decides to even discuss local gun laws, or those conservatives fight for a federal law to ban abortions because it is a position that they agree with. This does seem a bit hypocritical. After all, do people believe in local control or do they not? Do they want overbearing federal power or do they not? Or, do they agree with overbearing federal power only when it agrees with their personal views. My plea to all is to be consistent with your views on the appropriate level of federal control.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> This does seem a bit hypocritical. After all, do people believe in local control or do they not?


I don't have much faith in any government, but I will use whichever one will get the job done that I want done. I would also protect those things you want to like the first amendment, but I will not extend those rights to non citizens with known connections to terrorists.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Local control is fine. Local control is what most conservatives want and strive for. But when local control moves out of bounds with extreme unconstitutional decisions and attempts to dictate from the bench then a equalizer is called upon which is SCOTUS or federal control if you insist. That is not being hypocritical at all.


----------



## huntingdude16 (Jul 17, 2007)

> I have been laying brick at the church, and with no radio. I was very anxious about getting home to see how this turned out. I am appalled that it was not a 9 to 0 in favor of the constitution. I am not surprised, but I am disappointed.


I've read your posts before, and don't find myself always exactly agreeing, but I feel the exact same. Just the fact that it was so close of a decision on something clearly stated right there in the constitution, is distrubing.

None-the-less, it is still a victory.


----------

