June 28, 2010 2:56 PM

Supreme Court Gun Rights Decision: A Win or a Setback?

By
Brian Montopoli
Topics
Supreme Court ,
Domestic Issues
(Credit: CBS/AP)

Updated 4:59 p.m. Eastern Time

Both sides of the gun rights debate are claiming some degree of victory concerning today's 5-4 Supreme Court decision restraining government limits on gun ownership while also allowing for the possibility of some governmental regulation.

The decision did not explicitly strike down a Chicago law banning handguns, though it did seem to set a course for an eventual overturning of the law. The majority opinion, however, also said the decision that local governments are fully subject to the Second Amendment "limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values." The position echoed a decision two years ago regarding District of Columbia gun laws.

Despite the perception that the decision was a setback for gun control advocates, Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said in a statement that he was "pleased that the Court reaffirmed its language in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment individual right to possess guns in the home for self-defense does not prevent our elected representatives from enacting common-sense gun laws to protect our communities from gun violence."

Helmke argued that Chicago can now amend its laws to comply with the decision and also maintain its regulations on firearms.

"We are reassured that the Court has rejected, once again, the gun lobby argument that its 'any gun, for anybody, anywhere' agenda is protected by the Constitution," he said. "The Court again recognized that the Second Amendment allows for reasonable restrictions on firearms, including who can have them and under what conditions, where they can be taken, and what types of firearms are available."

National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, meanwhile, called the decision a "constitutional victory" that could still result in "practical defeat."

"The NRA will work to ensure this constitutional victory is not transformed into a practical defeat by activist judges, defiant city councils, or cynical politicians who seek to pervert, reverse, or nullify the Supreme Court's McDonald decision through Byzantine labyrinths of restrictions and regulations that render the Second Amendment inaccessible, unaffordable, or otherwise impossible to experience in a practical, reasonable way," he said.

The NRA is preparing lawsuits to what it sees as overly-restrictive gun laws based on the decision, chief NRA lobbyist Chris Cox told Politico's Ben Smith. "We're going to be in courtrooms making sure these aren't just words on a piece of paper," Cox said.

New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has pressed for tighter gun laws and enforcement, released a relatively upbeat statement following the decision, saying today's ruling and the D.C. ruling "both make clear that we can work to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists while at the same time respecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens."

"That's what New York City has always done," he said. "And, I will continue to collaborate with mayors across the country to pursue common-sense, constitutional approaches to protecting public safety."

During the Elena Kagan confirmation hearings today, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California said she is "extremely dismayed" by the decision, which she said holds "that common sense state and local gun laws across the country now will be subject to federal lawsuits."

"This decision and its predecessor -- the District of Columbia v. Heller -- have essentially disregarded the precedent of 71 years embedded in the United States v. Miller, a 1939 case," she said. "I find that shocking as a former mayor. I believe the proliferation of guns have made this nation less safe, not more safe. We now have more guns than people in this country. They are sold everywhere: on street corners, in gun shows, with no restraint whatsoever, any type of weapon. They fall into the hands of juveniles, criminals, and the mentally ill virtually every day of the year. And the Supreme Court has thrown aside seven decades of precedent to exacerbate this situation."

Feinstein's claim that there are "more guns than people" in the United States may not be accurate, though it is at least close. According to the Brady Center, which cites a 2004 national firearms survey, there were about 283 million guns in the county at that time. That figure is about 20 million less than the total population. (Interestingly, a 2009 Pew study found that gun ownership is concentrated in 1/3rd of U.S. households, which suggests the average gun owner has nearly three guns.) Feinstein's office did not immediately provide sourcing for the claim but promised to do so.

UPDATE: Here's a response from Feinstein's office:

"A UN Small Arms Survey in 2003 found that there were up to 96 guns per 100 people in the United States. A recent Congressional Research Service (CRS) put the number at 294 million: 106 million handguns, 105 million rifles, and 83 million shotguns.

Senator Feinstein meant to remark upon the fact that there are more guns than there are adults capable of handling them. The figure is not entirely accurate if you include infants and children."


Add a Comment See all 212 Comments
by KirkSkywalker July 30, 2010 5:20 PM EDT
It's amazing how many gun-haters say things like "guns do this, that and the other bad thing, so the Second Amendment SHOULD be suppressed--" when the issue is not guns, but THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

Obviously, they believe that it's ok for government to VIOLATE any law or people they don't like, based on their naive arrogance; that's what Lenin described as "useful idiots."
Reply to this comment
by KirkSkywalker July 30, 2010 5:03 PM EDT
The Constitution clearly dinstinquishes between rights of the states, and of the People. The Supreme Court simply wanted to subjugate the American People in order to prevent another Civil War, so it expressly stated in 1876 that state-citizens have no right to defend themselves with arms, but are entirely at the mercy of their states to do this for them (US v Cruikshank).
This is also ironic, because the US Supreme Court also held that people have no right to police protection (Castle Rock vs Gonzales).

So there we have it: the Supreme Court holds that your "right to life" ends with the state not killing you; you have no right to the means necessary to DEFEND it, since the states have green-light to outlaw them

Obviously, the anti-gun crowd agrees; they think it's better that they have their illusion of safety at your expense; but that's because they also think that gun-laws will criminals from carrying, when even laws against gun-crimes like robbery and murder won't deter them from THOSE things. Clearly, they must believe that Santa will save them.
Reply to this comment
by Violet_Petran July 12, 2010 3:07 PM EDT
I wrote about this and the other major decisions to come out of the courts last day....http://legalmatch.typepad.com/businesslaw/2010/07/a-look-at-the-last-day-of-the-supreme-court.html
The decision seems to be win win in a sense but this is such a controversial issue it will be interesting to see what lower courts do when it comes time for some interpretation.
Reply to this comment
by KirkSkywalker July 30, 2010 5:42 PM EDT
It's lose-lose, since people still can't carry concealed handguns without a permission-slip from mommy-government, on the grounds that adult citizens are children who can't be trusted not to put their eye out with something.

Of all rights in the Constitution, the supreme court only approves state violations of GUN-rights, using a ridiculous claim that "The People" means the states; clearly this is legislation from the bench.
by PursuitOfHappiness1 July 2, 2010 11:37 PM EDT
The UK outlawed guns. Now it's a crime to carry a knife with a blade longer than 3 inches because criminals resorted to knives.

With many individuals, emotions interfere with logic. The problem with killing in our nation lies with society - not the instrument used. We don't need gun control, we need people control.
Reply to this comment
by KirkSkywalker July 30, 2010 5:32 PM EDT
by PursuitOfHappiness1 July 2, 2010 11:37 PM EDT
With many individuals, emotions interfere with logic.
---------------------

Utterly false: they have no logic to begin with. That's why they believe that a 1-year sentence for carrying a gun, will stop someone who's willing to risk a 5-year sentence for armed robbery, or a LIFE-sentence for committing murder.
That's why we HAVE the Constitution, i.e. so idiots couldn't vote away certain rights, including the right to bear arms.
by strong-environmental-laws July 1, 2010 2:55 PM EDT
The Second Amendment was written in the 18th century by people (chiefly Thomas Jefferson) who didn't yet know if they could hold a nation together. And that prospective, experimental nation had a smaller population than Rhode Island has today. Do you feel that Jefferson was omniscient, that he could have any idea how the world would change over the next 230 years? If he were resurrected today, he'd feel that he was on another planet. And not one that he'd like. Insanity to keep throwing these 200-plus-years dead guys at us as if what they said/did/believed will always be relevant/helpful/practical/true.
Reply to this comment
by PursuitOfHappiness1 July 2, 2010 11:42 PM EDT
Brilliant! With your logic, we should burn our Constitution because they wrote it 234 years ago. So do you agree you should no longer have freedom of speech?!
by KirkSkywalker July 30, 2010 5:24 PM EDT
With HIS logic, a 3-foot tall fence will stop wolves from jumping a 6-foot one and killing the sheep. Obviously, criminals aren't stopped by misdeameanor-laws, if they're willing to commit MURDER-- HELLO? Meanwile, those "1-foot fences" simply stop the sheep from escaping, giving the wolf a free dinner.
And that's EXACTLY why crime-rates are higher in anti-gun states.
by verypublishedwriter July 1, 2010 2:33 PM EDT
Nearly 13,000 people are murdered with guns every year in
the United States. (Compare that number with these from nations with
strict gun control laws: Canada, 150; England, 50; Australia, 50;
Japan, 19.)
Reply to this comment
by PursuitOfHappiness1 July 3, 2010 12:05 AM EDT
Over 39,000 are murdered in China each year - and guns are outlawed there.
by KirkSkywalker July 30, 2010 5:25 PM EDT
And 150 million people were murderd in the 20th century by tyrants-- NONE in the United States. Can you see a pattern here?
by verypublishedwriter July 1, 2010 2:25 PM EDT
The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age fifteen is twelve
times higher in the United States than in the other twenty-five
largest developed countries combined. American kids are sixteen times
more likely to be murdered with a gun, eleven times more likely to
commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from a
firearm accident than children are in the other twenty-five biggest
industrialized countries combined. Every single hour, two American
kids are killed by guns. Every day, nearly 100 Americans die from gun
violence. Nearly 13,000 people are murdered with guns every year in
the United States. (Compare that number with these from nations with
strict gun control laws: Canada, 150; England, 50; Australia, 50;
Japan, 19.)


For more than 100 years the use of guns has been romantically
presented in movies. For longer than fifty years gun violence has
been glorified on television shows. For almost thirty years the same
has been true for the way gun violence has been depicted in video
games. During this same period of time, guns have come to be abused
in increasingly casual ways.


Part of the message of romantic violence is that if a powerless person
gets a gun, that gun can make him feel powerful. This is not a
message we need to teach with weapons that easily kill and maim.
Reply to this comment
by KirkSkywalker July 30, 2010 5:16 PM EDT
Look on the bright side: the rate of Americans killed by tyrants, is much less than in any other major country in the world. Compare how many were killed by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and other dictators, whether in war or suppression-- but then you must think that's a mere coincidence, or somehow "doesn't count," since you clearly don't believe that the individual right to bear arms is necessary to the security of a free state. Well tough, that's the law.
by ander13 July 1, 2010 12:11 PM EDT
while i am not fond of the carnage that guns can cause in the wrong hands. I still believe that Americans should have limited rights to purchase guns to defend themselves against violent criminals and oppressive government or especially coercive religious entities. Frankly, i want the right to choose guns to defend my safety or freedom if it becomes necessary. The second amendment was meant to protect the freedom of the people and states to keep their own Militia.
Reply to this comment
by KirkSkywalker July 30, 2010 5:39 PM EDT
Pure myth. The Constitution reserves state government's militia-powers only to appointing officers, nothing more; meanwhile the Second Amendment expressly specifies that the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. If they meant the states, they'd SAY "the states;" but dictators love to torture the law into confessing any meaning they want.
If you care to read more, look at Federalist no. 46, where it's clear that the state militias were intended to serve against abuse by the federal government.
by stickandstone July 1, 2010 12:10 PM EDT
Today over 100 million gun owners killed no one
Reply to this comment
by WakeUpRepublicans June 29, 2010 3:50 PM EDT
Empire-George it is not the Police I am worried about. I have lived in this "Desert State" for 30 years. We are loaded with everything from Survivalist to Super Right Wing Nut Cases that all seem drawn to their need for guns. Your damn right, I am just as nervous around these types as a common criminal. We have people shooting and killing the other person for punching them in a bar fight, People shooting at another on the freeway for cutting them off, People shooting randomly into traffic control vans and killing the occupant because they think their freedom is in jeopardy. You don't think their should be some rules? The idea is that humanity works to become more civilized as time goes on...Yea, so go ahead and check me out.
Reply to this comment
by RatPackSixGun July 1, 2010 12:10 PM EDT
And yet, Arizona's statistics of firearms death per 100K residents is almost HALF of the DC, which has the most Draconian gun laws in the US.

Hmm..
by RatPackSixGun July 1, 2010 12:10 PM EDT
And yet, Arizona's statistics of firearms death per 100K residents is almost HALF of the DC, which has the most Draconian gun laws in the US.

Hmm..
See all 212 Comments
.

Follow Political Hotsheet

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook
  • Building You a Better Morning

  • CBS This Morning

    "CBS This Morning," anchored by Charlie Rose, Gayle King and Erica Hill, airs weekdays from 7 to 9 a.m. ET and at the same time in other time zones.
    Learn more...