One key question in the nation’s gun debate now has an answer, but no one expects it to end the argument.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment’s “right to keep and bear arms” applies to private citizens – a practice already observed in most parts of the country but never fully protected until now.
Supporters of gun control have long argued that the Second Amendment guarantees firearms to militia-type organizations only – yesterday’s version of the National Guard.
Thursday was the first time that the high court has given its own interpretation. The case stemmed from Washington, D.C.’s 32-year ban on handguns within the city.
The justices split 5-4 on their decision – a reflection of the nation’s near-even division when it comes to views on guns. While the United States is the most heavily armed country in the world, with an estimated 270 million firearms, surveys consistently indicate that roughly half of all Americans don’t own a gun.
Writing on behalf of the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
Justice Stephen Breyer, in a dissenting opinion, wrote: “In my view, there simply is no untouchable Constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house … ”
The landmark ruling is the result of a lawsuit brought by security guard Dick Heller against Washington, D.C. The district has the strictest gun policy in the nation: Handguns are banned, and rifles and shotguns must be unloaded and outfitted with trigger locks or disassembled.
Heller said he lives in a high-crime part of town and applied for permission to keep a handgun in his home to protect his family. When turned down, he sued the city. Heller lost the first round, then won on appeal. Lower courts have often disagreed on gun rights. Both Heller and the district asked the Supreme Court to settle the issue.
Second Amendment cases have reached the Supreme Court before, but none have zeroed in on the fundamental right of gun ownership, a question that has fueled decades of fiery debate.
“This puts us on a solid rock,” said Philip Van Cleave, head of the pro-gun Virginia Citizens Defense League. “It eliminates the other side’s contention that this is not an individual right. This took a whole lot of wind out of their sails.”
Ron Hyson, a gun owner from Virginia Beach, said he’s relieved. “This was kind of a fence-sitter. The sad thing now is you’ll hear a whole lot of nitpicking about it. We’ll be celebrating, but we’ll be questioning what’s next.”
At the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, based in Washington, executive director Josh Horwitz is pondering the same thing.
“We’ve got a bunch of unanswered questions,” he said. “But the reality is that the idea that the federal government is going to come in and ban guns is off the table. It probably always was.”
Horwitz said he takes heart in the fact that the justices left room for “reasonable regulation” of firearms. They specifically cited laws that bar felons and mentally ill people from owning guns, prohibit weapons inside schools and other sensitive places, outlaw particularly dangerous weapons, and regulate commercial sales.
“Now, it’s all about what’s reasonable and what isn’t,” Horwitz said. “And it’s clear we have a wide swath of options. So I’ll go back to my desk and pursue the policies I’ve always pursued. This doesn’t put an end to the gun-control debate.”
Horwitz pointed out that because the district is not a state, Thursday’s ruling does not automatically apply outside the city limits.
It’s only a matter of time before it does, said William Van Alstyne, a professor and constitutional law expert at the College of William and Mary.
Van Alstyne said similar bans in other cities and counties will now be challenged and struck down. The National Rifle Association has already said that it intends to file lawsuits in Chicago, several of its suburbs and San Francisco.
“This case is to the Second Amendment what Roe vs. Wade was to abortion,” he said. “That one didn’t settle all the questions, and some people still don’t like it, but it was a watershed, like this one.”
Van Alstyne said the ruling’s “heat and volume” give the opinion added weight – 150 pages of research and dissections of the amendment’s 27 words, broken down phrase by phrase. The justices explored historical context and took into account how Americans spoke and wrote two centuries ago, when the amendment was ratified.
“Some people might try to dismiss it by saying it doesn’t amount to much, but that’s just wrong. This is serious business – a meaningful opinion that will stand for the indefinite future.”
No one expects Virginia’s state laws to be affected. Attorney General Bob McDonnell filed a brief with the court opposing the D.C. handgun ban, joining 30 other states on Heller’s side.
“This is a tremendous victory for individual liberty and freedom,” McDonnell said. “It ratifies what Virginia has always believed about the Second Amendment.”
Staff writers Julian Walker and Dale Eisman contributed to this report.
Joanne Kimberlin, (757) 446-2338, joanne.kimberlin@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
You are correct!
"You are clear about how transparent you are, right?" You are correct! I am not at home and cannot get to my email and do not have my password, but you are still quite juvenile with your silly attacks.
"By the way Pappy {Just Pappy will be fine}, I provided a link with the source of my information. Have someone read the post to you again."
I read the link you fool and it proves my points not yours. LOL!!
Now stop your childish banter and grow up a bit, would you?
Pappy/ProGun
You are clear about how transparent you are, right?
What a hoot.
Hey, if I invite you both out for a drink, will only one of you show up?
Too funny.
By the way Pappy/ProGun, I provided a link with the source of my information. Have someone read the post to you again.
W. F. Buckley lol!
"I understand that Pappy needs help" LOL!!! Are you serious? I that kind a juvenile attack the best you can do? LOL!!!
"Would gun control laws help? An overwhelming percentage of Americans thinks so:" WHAT??? You got that from what? What set of data are you looking at? From what I seen, CNN which is known for being a=on the left, ran a poll which clearly agrees with what I have said.
Pappy has said this over and over again:
"Requiring gun owners to register their guns with the local government" For: 79 Opposed: 20
More misdirection
I understand that Pappy needs help - he has only his uninformed opinion - but with all of its distortions and carefully selected data, the website you suggested provides nothing to support Pappy's wild claim.
Furthermore, the website you suggested belongs to Gun Owners of America, a group so radical it criticizes the NRA for being wimpy. I suspect you know that, but everyone else should Google the GOA and decide what they think of this bunch.
And none of it gets around this single, simple fact: The U.S. is the gun death champion of the industrial world.
Would gun control laws help? An overwhelming percentage of Americans thinks so:
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm
This isn’t about abolishing the Second Amendment. It’s about being responsible and rational when it comes to gun ownership. I’m willing to let the majority define those terms.
Are you?
Could you name the cities
Could you name the cities you are referring to; the liberal laws you think exist there; and the statistics that show these "liberal" laws are creating chaos?
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
This one of the best sites that I have seen.
Also, I think you have 'liberal' in this sense confused with 'liberal' as in politics. If you look at Washington DC, who has very strict gun laws and compare the homicide rates with some cites where owning and carrying a firearm is common place, you will see that strict gun laws only help the criminals. I believe we have such a high crime rate because we 'allow' criminals to get away with crime.
How about some facts with that opinion?
Pappy,
Could you name the cities you are referring to; the liberal laws you think exist there; and the statistics that show these "liberal" laws are creating chaos?
In return, I will find you statistics on gun deaths in industrialized countries. You'll never guess who is on top.
Pappy
(1. The crime rate is much higher in cities were firearms have the most restrictions and lower in the cities with more liberal gun laws; why then do you want more restrictions on firearm when you know the crime rate will rise?
2. Since none of these cities with the more liberal gun laws have ever resembled the 'Old West', why do you believe that will change here or DC?
3. Since you have been the victim of so many violent crimes, maybe you can tell us why you refuse to defend yourself and why you think others should become victims too.)
1) I don't know and you don't either as a fact that gun crimes will increase. I agree with the Supreme Court that D.C. folks have the right to own a gun to protect their home.2) The Wild West comment wan't mine I was quoting the June 28 Pilot Editorial. 3) Why would I want anyone to become a victim? And just because you own a gun won't stop you from becomming one.
My questions to start are:
1. The crime rate is much higher in cities were firearms have the most restrictions and lower in the cities with more liberal gun laws; why then do you want more restrictions on firearm when you know the crime rate will rise?
2. Since none of these cities with the more liberal gun laws have ever resembled the 'Old West', why do you believe that will change here or DC?
3. Since you have been the victim of so many violent crimes, maybe you can tell us why you refuse to defend yourself and why you think others should become victims too.
Pappy
I don't know what your question is
So, why don't you answer my questions?
So, why don't you answer my questions?
Pappy
Are you talking about the quote from the VA Pilot Editorial? If so then yes I agree with it. The article was published June 28.
"wasn't my myth"
Well if it is not a myth that you believe in, then why propagate information for which you do not support? If you do support it, then explain yourself.
wasn't my myth
The info came from the Pilot Edirotial page.
You are repeating it, so I am asking you!
You are repeating it, so I am asking you! The stats do not support that myth.
Wild west?
Try asking Scalia.
Wild West! LOL~}~
Wild West? In the cities with the most legal firearms there is far less crime than in places like DC! Who are you trying to fool? LOL
Quotes from Pilot Editoria Page
Scalia's decision, quite explicitly, warns gun activists that the Wild West hasn't been reopened. The Second Amendment, he wrote, "is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose," a position sure to frustrate some activist groups.
He leaves open the door to limits on concealed weapons and the right of felons and the mentally ill to own guns. He says that guns may be banned from "sensitive places such as schools and government buildings," and allows for "laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
Your use of "Georgey" is a tired and childish attempt at intimidation which speaks volums of your maturity level.
I do not own a firearm to protect my home!
I do not own a firearm to protect my home! I own a firearm to assist in protecting my family and I no matter where I am.
Really, I own a firearm because I love putting holes in the center of a piece of paper from as far away as possible.
Yes
"Does the SC need to define every word in the 2nd for it to be valid for you?"
Yes, it's my opinion the door has been opened for a host of changes to gun laws. There will be plenty of decissions each state will now look at. The S.C. said it was unlawful for a gun ban "to protect your home" in D.C. and that will probably carry to Chicago. VA gun laws are very liberal, and I for one can see changes coming. To me there is a big difference in the right to own a gun to protect your home and the right to carry your gun everywhere you want to and I think that's what Scalia was saying. I may be wrong, but I think time will tell where it leads to from here. I've said before I'm not trying to take away your right to own a gun to protect your home, but I am against the right to be able to buy a gun every 30 days, carry them to places like Harborfest, and your family grocery store. Personally I want to see more restrictions. You don't have t
Mark T
I guess anyone who disagrees with you is qualified as a 'gun nut.' Well, there are a lot of responsible gun owners out there that if they are 'gun nuts' as you say, I say more power to them!
This profliferation of guns that keeps getting tossed up is ridiculous: we had more guns floating around this country after World War II than we do now. Where were the gun deaths then? Even with all the turmoil of the late 1960's, where were all the gun deaths? The questions no one seems to be asking are: What is different from the times when we had so many more guns available to the public and much more turmoil in the country to now? Why, with fewer guns in the hands of private citizens, do we have more gun deaths? Is it an education issue? Is it just that anytime there is such a death that it gets reported when in the past, it may not have? Or is it just an issue of a modern media that seeks out such news items and plasters it all over for all to see, thus making it seem as if there are more such deaths?