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?
georges61555 says: Gun
georges61555 says:
Gun advocats will be scrambling to make sure their "right to own a gun to protect their home", reaches beyond to suit their individual "wants". Just rmember "wants" and "rights" are too diferent things. Gun advocats have been told they have the right to own a gun, but they haven't been told they can carry them everywhere they want to..."
The SC only looked at what was brought before them. And that is the unconstitutional ban on firearms in the home. That's what Heller sued for and that is what the SC considered. Do you need the SC to give you history lesson on what term "bear arms" means too? Does the SC need to define every word in the 2nd for it to be valid for you?
Mark Twine:
I'm interested in hearing your proposals on how "we can impose “reasonable” regulations on guns that protect us from criminals and gun nuts who think they are John Wayne." I'm especially interested in your ideas of reasonable regulations that would protect society from criminals, because criminals, by definition, don't adhere to the regulations that apply to the rest of us.
I'm not aware that John Wayne ever threatened or injured anyone with a gun, unless it was in the movies, where he was usually the good guy. Did you mean in the movies, or what?
You must be right, georges61555
You must be right, georges61555
what's next?
"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."
Tighter restrictions on guns, that's what's next. Scalia opened the door for a host of changes in gun ownership. Gun advocats will be scrambling to make sure their "right to own a gun to protect their home", reaches beyond to suit their individual "wants". Just rmember "wants" and "rights" are too diferent things. Gun advocats have been told they have the right to own a gun, but they haven't been told they can carry them everywhere they want to, and they haven't been told their won't be future changes to gun laws.
I'm so glad we have the 2nd Amendment
Here is a case in point of exactly why I feel so much safer now that the teeth have been removed from those liberal anti-gun nuts. This just happened this evening.
"A man trying to rob a pizza shop was shot and killed Saturday night, possibly by a restaurant employee, Virginia Beach police said."
This is why our forefathers had far more wisdom than the average liberal today. We need to protect ourselves. Especially from the type of government that wants to remove those rights.
Okay, but who's "reasonable"
Okay, but who's "reasonable" regulation. Your idea of reasonable may be far more removed than the average citizen's idea of reasonable.
The bottom line here is that ANY dimishment of ANY part of the Constitution is absolutely unreasonable. If we allow one persons idea of reasonable to manipulate the very basic tenents then just much farther can it be stretched?
How about if we put "reasonable" regulations on free speech? Oh! Wait...we already have. Now we have limited free speech thanks to those who have absolutely no respect for the Constitution.
So, Mark Twine, in your opinion, how much more of our freedoms must we relinquish in the name of "reasonable regulation"?
Not quite
Gun nuts want you to believe we only have two choices.
We keep our absolute right to guns or we abolish the Second Amendment. (Surely you’ve seen the lawn signs?)
But Americans have said in one poll after another that they oppose a gun ban and favor limits on handguns and automatic weapons.
The real choice we have is: we can ignore the proliferation of guns and the obscenely high number of gun deaths, or we can impose “reasonable” regulations on guns that protect us from criminals and gun nuts who think they are John Wayne.
The Supreme Court ruling agreed with the Department of Justice, which argued this year that reasonable regulation of guns has always been allowed by the Second Amendment. The court simply rejected absolute bans.
Since very few of us seek an absolute ban, despite the usual demonization of liberals, the task ahead is to define what is the court thinks is “reasonable.”
Mr. Twine, thank you for your input...
But the fact remains that there are a lot of Americans who are not willing to let anyone manipulate any part of the Constitution out of emotional hyperbol. The context of the 2nd amendment is plain, simple, and there is no need to try to remove it, restate it, or manipulate it. If you don't want a gun, that is your right. No one here is forcing an arguement about your decision to not own a gun.
So, please respect the majority of Americans who do want to own guns, or at least enjoy the right to own, just as those same majority will respect you for not wanting to own a gun.
We all know where you stand and it is painfully clear. You will not sway the majority to your way of thinking. It won't happen...not in a million years.
So just leave it alone and move on.
Yes Mark T, we do.
Cars kill more people than anything else in this country. Other weapons ARE used to kill people: just look at the statics about them. But yet we don't regulate knives or clubs or fireplace pokers now do we? People have been allowed to carry firearms in this country for decades and yet we haven't managed to murder off large portions of the population. Amazing, isn't it? I'd bet that if you looked at a comparison per capita of the number of people that do carry firearms in this country to the number of deaths by guns, it would be surprisingly small. Just remember: you still have a much better chance of getting killed out on the highways in this area by a person chatting on a cell phone than you do getting killed by person with a gun.
George wants to make it harder for responsible
law abiding citizens to own a handgun. "The State needs money, so lets start a registration and licensing fee REQUIRED every 2 years on all guns." Submitted by georges61555 on Thu, 06/26/2008 at 1:00 pm. He says the "laws are too liberal" in Virginia and now DC. "How many self-defense shootings have you heard of vs the number of killings by a gun? Very few! Guns are used more for killing and robbery then for any self-defense." Submitted by Georges61555 on Thu, 06/26/2008 at 1:52 pm. And I bet these people would abide by the law you propose wouldn't they George? I mean these people are clearly trying to be good citizens by going out and holding people up and commiting robbery! So these people would be happy to register and renew every 2 years! WOW! What a great idea! I'm sure your sharp tongue "right to your opinion" would deter a would be robber from entering your house or better yet it will chase him o