Supreme Court To Decide D.C. Handgun Ban

Divisive Case Is First "Right To Bear Arms" Examination In Nearly 70 Years

(CBS/AP)  The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the District of Columbia can ban handguns, a case that could produce one of the most in-depth examinations of the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms."

The justices' decision to hear the case could make the divisive debate over guns an issue in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections.

The Court has agreed to hear the case of Dick Heller, who's challenging the 31-year-old ban on owning handguns in the District of Columbia, reports CBS News correspondent Wyatt Andrews. Heller, a security guard, packs a handgun during the day, but can't have one in his own home.

"We the people have the right to defend ourselves with whatever firearm is most practical," said Dick Heller.

That simple argument has led to the most important gun case in decades, adds Andrews.

"It's one of the rare times when the Supreme Court gets to tell us what the text of the Constitution means," said professor Randy Barnett.

"Whatever the justices decide in this case will have an enormous impact on the debate," CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen says. "If the Court sides with D.C. and offers a narrow interpretation of the Second Amendment, we'll see more gun control. If the justices side with the gun owner here, gun control measures around the country will be in jeopardy."

The government of Washington, D.C., is asking the court to uphold its 31-year ban on handgun ownership in the face of a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban as incompatible with the Second Amendment. Tuesday's announcement was widely expected, especially after both the District and the man who challenged the handgun ban asked for the high court review.

The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment of the Constitution protects an individual's right to own guns or instead merely sets forth the collective right of states to maintain militias. The former interpretation would permit fewer restrictions on gun ownership.

Gun-control advocates say the Second amendment was intended to insure that states could maintain militias, a response to 18th century fears of an all-powerful national government. Gun rights proponents contend the amendment gives individuals the right to keep guns for private uses, including self-defense.

Alan Gura, a lawyer for Washington residents who challenged the ban, said he was pleased that the justices were considering the case.

"We believe the Supreme Court will acknowledge that, while the use of guns can be regulated, a complete prohibition on all functional firearms is too extreme," Gura said. "It's time to end this unconstitutional disaster. It's time to restore a basic freedom to all Washington residents."

Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, noted that 44 state constitutions contain some form of gun rights, which are not affected by the court's consideration of Washington's restrictions. "The American people know this is an individual right the way they know that water quenches their thirst," LaPierre said. "The Second Amendment allows no line to be drawn between individuals and their firearms."

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the Supreme Court should "reverse a clearly erroneous decision and make it clear that the Constitution does not prevent communities from having the gun laws they believe are needed to protect public safety."

The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. That decision supported the collective rights view, but did not squarely answer the question in the view of many constitutional scholars. Chief Justice John Roberts said at his confirmation hearing that the correct reading of the Second Amendment was "still very much an open issue."

The Second 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."

Washington banned handguns in 1976, saying it was designed to reduce violent crime in the nation's capital.

The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because "handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia."

The District is making several arguments in defense of the restriction, including claiming that the Second Amendment involves militia service. It also said the ban is constitutional because it limits the choice of firearms, but does not prohibit residents from owning any guns at all. Rifles and shotguns are legal, if kept under lock or disassembled. Businesses may have guns for protection.

Chicago has a similar handgun ban, but few other gun-control laws are as strict as the District's.

Four states - Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New York - urged the Supreme Court to take the case because broad application of the appeals court ruling would threaten "all federal and state laws restricting access to firearms."

Opponents say the ban plainly has not worked because guns still are readily available, through legal and illegal means. Although the city's homicide rate has declined dramatically since peaking in the early 1990s, Washington still ranks among the nation's highest murder cities, with 169 killings in 2006.

The U.S. Court Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 for Heller in March. Judge Laurence Silberman said reasonable regulations still could be permitted, but said the ban went too far.

The Bush administration, which has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, has yet to weigh in on this case.

[dan9111]

So sad. There will be those who say having guns is right, and those that say having guns is wrong. But very few on either side are consistent on the matter.

If cops and military are "allowed" to have guns, then one can only suspect that owning guns is a good thing. Otherwise, if it isn''t a good thing, then it is wrong to make an exception whenever a uniform is worn.

Logic is pretty clear on this. You can either ban them all without exception, cops and all on the same day, or else leave things alone. Anything else is pure inescapable hypocrisy. Sure, we all know what the Constitution says. But worse yet, any "gun ban" will most certainly be a violent assault on common sense as well, leaving us all vulnerable to further violence.

[jetranger7]

The NEO-CON IDIOTS are really pressing for this!!! Just More ways for the Corrupt Fraudulent Bush Institute to control America is by Ignoring the Constitutition,,, this is just a prelude of whats to come across the united states, criminals will have guns and we law bidding citizens will be at mercy of a rubber band I guess !! Of course it helps that BUSH has powerful friends that sit on that Supreme court, the very ones that put the idiot in power-go figure ! Theres more to come it isn''t over yet, this is just the beginning !!!

[dana417]

That''s not right. We''re losing our rights in this country. Signed a Democrat Gun Owner CCW.

[oscarez]

"the most in-depth examination of the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" in nearly 70 years"

I''ll bet the NRA is just about to have a cow. The NRA says "when we march in Washington for YOUR gun rights we need our trusty AK47 handy for protection".

[newsguy11]

These pop-up ads that appear on CBSNews.com aren''t good business. Nobody wants to see them and I close out on them before I even see what they''re about.

[oeangus]

Only hicks and rednecks believe carrying a gun is a right. It is the 21st century now, people. Wake up and smell the enlightenment.

[oeangus]

newsguy11 - I don''t get popups on this site. It''s your CPU and settings.

[newsguy11]

Actually my settings are pretty secure but CBS still manages to throw a curveball around them sometimes. My point is that CBS News shouldn''t be putting pop-up ads on the site in the first place.

[roger_inkart]

Well, the SCOTUS is stacked in the conservatives favor, so the status quo will be maintained.

Of course, the conspiracy nut in me thinks there _will_ be a change, Blackwater will become Bush/Cheney''s personal army and the administration will ''suspend'' all elections until further notice.

How bizarre would that be? Progressives and gun owners united against the fascists in the White House?

[newsguy11]

It''s a moot point for the Supreme Court to weigh in on this issue. Ban or no ban, the violent handgun crimes are still happening. The majority of the shootings that occur are committed by people who weren''t supposed to have handguns in the first place, those who are felons, don''t have a license, bought their guns on the black market, etc. So discussing bans on handguns is just a waste of air. Something of more substance should be done to deal with gun violence.

[marcodele]

This is a no brainer. The Bush/Bush Supreme Court will uphold the lower court and declare the ban unconstitutional. Those neocons love their guns.
It''s like a second peniss to them.

[gunshack1]

I''m sure that "the right of the people" in the second amendement is the same as "the right of the people" in the first amendement. They were talking about the SAME people. They were not talking about military groups or other organizations, they were talking about the PEOPLE of the country.

[srotramel]

If the guns are banned it will only be the law abiding citizes that don''t have them. Are rights are slowly being taken away. This has got to stop.

[bennyblack1]

Well, I can speak for our forefathers when they assumed that a well educated and moral people would be living here. The Constitution was written for the moral majority. Moral people can own weapons, because they know when and when not to use them, how to use them, and teach their children about their proper use. The question, really, isn''t whether guns should be banned. Is there enough of a moral majority in the United States that would present a strong arugment AGAINST banning guns? At this point, I don''t think there are.

[j-whitman]

Give them each a handgun, lock em in a room & let em shoot it out... ------ Maybe one of them would get an idea that might work.

[libsluvsuvs]

yeah owning ''handguns'' is a crime..that would stop criminals from EVEN THINKING OF GETTING GUNS..

Now I see the liberal logic behind this..

[cybervigilante]

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

is the operative phrase. The thing about civil militias is just a supporting condition - but they might have cited many other supporting conditions. Given that the "patriot" act is making this into a police state, I am one former gun control advocate who thinks we need to keep them now.

[nexgen99]

First off they will never ban Gun ownership. Too many citizens own guns and will not turn them in whatever the limp d.i.c.k.e.d Democrats want. Their would be a war in this country first.

[libsluvsuvs]

....Those neocons love their guns....
It''''s like a second peniss to them.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by marcodele at 02:09 PM : Nov 20, 2007
+ report abuse

********

humm so the republicans loves thier guns..what do the democrats love??? obviously its the criminals..

btw they love criminals because they got thier liberal pe nis in a death grip.

[free2mosey]

I am not going to argue the Second Amendment issue, but only of common sense. One need only to look at history around the globe coming forward to today and realize that those with guns rule those who are without guns. There is no feeling in this world worse than feeling absolutely helpless. That is how you, your wife and children would feel when the armed criminal confronts you in your home or auto to rape, torture and murder.

[truthspeake2]

What a bunch of "Conservative" BS...the members of the Supreme Court obviously have too much time on their hands!

[bennyblack1]

Well, guys, considering that laws are not written for those who uphold the law, but for those who break the law, can you really say with all the crazy stuff that has been going on, that we DESERVE the right to bear arms? Internet conspiracies, children shooting children (in schools), college adults persuaded by terrorist influences (over the internet) to shoot their peers, children shooting their teachers, children shooting their parents, parents not only aborting their children - but killing their 2 to 5 year old children by shooting, drowning, neglect, baking to death in the hot sun in a car ... it just shows me that Americans are not moral enough to be responsible with life in general. Life has been cheapened so that it doesn''t mean anything anymore. If a person bugs you, well, like a spider or a fly, you crush him/her, and ground that person beneath your feet. So, under that light, do you REALLY think that we DESERVE to have the right to gun ownership? My opinion . . . I don''t think so. Not anymore.

[dan9111]

A lot of folks cites historical gems, or are on the other side and say we are "in the 21st century". Yet few are advocating the cops and military give theirs up. Not exactly a consistent bunch, are we?

Say whether you think gun ownership "is right" or "is wrong" and see where it gets you. Both ways work. It''s only when you waffle somebody is murdered by way of firearms.

[gwagener]

"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 District of Columbia is not a state, therefore, the 2nd amendment does not apply. Case closed.

[tburzio]

"Well regulated" means proficient, likely to cause a good outcome.

Just thought you would like to know this.

[earlyprophet]

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?"
- Patrick Henry

"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

[earlyprophet]

"Well regulated" in 18th Cebntury parlance meant "well armed."

[bennyblack1]

and let''s not mention the American terrorists that have been planning major attacks on airports and military bases.

I never thought I''d be saying this in a million years. Now, I think, it is not an American right in general, to keep and bear arms. I think that it is now on an individual and case by case basis. Individuals must prove that they can legally obtain one, responsibly carry one, and prove that they can maintain the right to keep one from time to time.

[tburzio]

The Bill of Rights is not ala carte, and must be taken together. What are they for? All are necessary for the overthrow of a tyrant. Since this is the case, the 2nd Amendment clearly is intended for citizens to use to shoot tyrants and their soldiers. Not hunting. Not protection. Not target practice for sport. They are to be used to shoot government officials.

[earlyprophet]

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
- Mahatma Gandhi

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
- Samuel Adams

[billpl-2009]

The Supreme Court shoots from the hip.

bang bang

[secundus2]

It would be a great thing if the media could cite the 2nd amendment correctly without adding extra commas and being sure to capitalize the word "State". Such things can matter greatly at law, if they shed light on the intent of those who wrote the amendment

[robaldrich]

There is not one documented expression of any founding father advocating the denial of the individual citizen''s right to keep and bear his own arms.

Federalists argued that the Constitution gave the federal government no power to deprive the people of their arms and therefore the Second Amendment was unnecessary. 5 J. Elliot DEBATES 538 (1845).

Federalists also argued that to put such a guarantee in a bill of rights, excepting a power never granted, would create the false appearance that Congress did have the power to deprive a citizen of his arms. Madison, Hamilton, & Jay, THE FEDERALIST PAPERS 513-514 (New American Library 1961).

Anti-Federalists demanded the inclusion of the Second Amendment to make clear that the militia must always be comprised of armed citizens and never any %u201Cselect militia%u201D or %u201Cstanding army%u201D; both being considered the bane of liberty. 5 J. Elliot, DEBATES IN THE SEVERAL STATE CONVENTIONS 444 (2d ed. 1836).

Even the few Federalists who advocated a governmental militia, rather than a citizen militia, included the caveat that the individual citizen had the %u201Cright%u201D to keep and bear arms for his own self-defense.

Just a scant reading of the relevant writings reveals that all factions involved guaranteed the right of each individual citizen to keep and bear arms irrespective of military duties; it was a personal right.

[robaldrich]

%u201CFalse is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of this code, will respect less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty--so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator--and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree.%u201D Cesare Beccaria, ON CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS 87-88 (H. Paolucci transl. 1963).

[earlyprophet]

Considering how much the government has done to desecrate our Constitution lately, the Supreme Court will likely overturn the lower court''s ruling, which will open the door for States to pass Laws which prohibit private gun ownership. This madness must stop!

[cfin5]

The 2nd. Amendment clearly indicates that "BOTH" the state militias AND the people, with that little thing called a comma, have the right to keep and bear arms that is not to be infringed upon by the government. If it did not say "the right of the people" in the amendment it would simply mean that the government would not be allowed to disarm the state militias......WHERE HAS THERE EVER BEEN AN ARGUMENT TO DISARM OUR MILITARY? There has never been that argument or precedent in this country........Washington D.C.''s government is in fact violating the 9th. Amendment with its assault on the 2nd. Amendment........The 9th. Amendment says as follows......[The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny of disparage others retained by the people.] Can''t the justices understand what that means? I only went to school for uhm,....10 fingers and 2 toes years and I can figure it out, and easily at that. Those words mean exactly what they add up to folks! And the SUM of that verbal equation put in modern day "American" says it is unconstitutional (against the law of the land) to twist the meaning of the words that spell out what our rights are by some pet interpretation of them to diminish or take away our rights!......And that''s a CONSTITUTIONAL FACT!!!

[mike71067]

Hopefully the Supreme Court will take a strict Constitutional view of this, and preserve our Second Amendment rights. Otherwise, the gun-grabbing wackos (Feinstein, Schumer, etc) will attempt to confiscate our guns, and millions of law-abiding Americans will be forced into criminality. We will never give up our right to defend ourselves.

[robaldrich]

%u201CTheir swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American, ... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.%u201D Tench Coxe (Federalist), Pennsylvania Gazette, 20 Feb. 1788, 2 DOCU.HY.(Mfm. Supp.) at 1778-1780.

[earlyprophet]

If you have any guns, do yourself a favor and hide them well, and don''t waste any of your ammo on target practice. I have a feeling you soon won''t need any...

[bennyblack1]

Well, earlyprophet, it would seem that a whole lot of people have forgotten where they come from, and why they came to be here. While I certainly support the right of a moral and responsible citizen of the United States to carry a gun for protection, I do NOT support a blanket right for just any American to have one. I believe now that it should be police officers, military, farmers, business owners, and morally upright people who have homes and families to protect. And, furthermore, there should be an age restriction. In this day and age, I don''t think that a female under any circumstance should carry anything more than mace or a tazer, and a cell phone, and that single males shouldn''t be allowed to carry a gun until they are 26. By this time, they should have learned that they don''t really NEED a weapon. They should have one because they WANT one. It''s not the first thing you bring out for self-defense. It''s a last resort.

[earlyprophet]

CAMPING-OUT WITH HALIBURTON
The John Warner Defense Authorization Act, which was supported by Clinton, Obama and McCain, permits militarized police round-ups and detention of protesters ("potential terrorists") and other "undesirables" for detention in facilities which are already contracted for and under construction by Kellog, Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton. This Law, which was sold to an "emergency managed" and willfully gullible public in the wake of the 9/11 attacks as a necessary measure needed by our President in order to fight his "global war on terrorism," permits the indefinite detention of American citizens who resists the foreign and domestic agenda of our President. The Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International reported recently that global engineering and technical services powerhouse, Kellog, Brown & Root announced during January 2006 that its Government and Infrastructure division had been awarded a (no bid) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contract to build these detainment camps with a maximum total value of $385 million over a five year term, and that this contract called for the company to build "temporary detention and processing capabilities" to augment existing U.S. government Detention and Removal Operations and to support "the rapid development of new programs." New Programs? Could it possibly get any worse? Why would the president be so concerned about Americans protesting? Aren''t we all happy campers?

[bombadil4]

While the Constitution/Bill of Rights is by and large a wonderful document, this whole "well-regulated militia" mess is open to all sorts of interpretations. And even if we knew or thought we knew, perhaps at times we need to look beyond it and decide issues on their merits rather than relying on our less than stellar Supreme Court to make their best guess on what the Second Amendment really means. In fact Jefferson himself was troubled that the Constitution might prove to be a form of tyranny by one generation over future generations. Thoreau wrote how puzzled he was that the living are so meekly willing to be ruled by the dead. This is OUR brief moment in the sun; let''s use it wisely.

[cfin5]

Posted by robaldrich4 at 03:04 PM : Nov 20, 200----------------------Excellent post man!

[earlyprophet]

bennyblack1:

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
- Samuel Adams

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?"
- Patrick Henry

"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

[shouston1234]

GladImNotOJ, et. al.-

It''s very simple to look at BOTH halves of the second amendment rather than ignoring one or the other in favor of one''s pet argument:

1. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," -- meaning that the security of the "free state" is dependent upon the ability of that state to create a "well regulated" militia. If there is no ability to create and maintain a militia, the security of the "free state" is question.

2. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." -- In order for the "free state" to be able to create and maintain a militia (which is, according to the first part, NECESSARY for its security), the people must retain their rights to "keep" and "bear" arms.

To recap:
If the people do not have the right to keep and bear arms, the security of the free state cannot be guaranteed.

That''s what they meant when the wrote it and history has proven them correct over and over, when those with guns have ruled those without.

Living in a world where you will never need a gun is a lot different than living in a world where you can never have a gun. I''m all for working towards the former, but that will never happen starting from the latter.

[shanev137]

Guns will never be banned in this country.

[cfin5]

EarlyProphet,......Thank you NOT very much for always completely BURYING others 1st. Amendment efforts to participate in a conversation here. Most of what you say is right, but your method really SUCKS!!!....If you can participate according to the rules, then take off to your own website. I''m not sitting here for nothing dude!

[robaldrich]

%u201CNo free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.%u201D Thomas Jefferson (Anti-Federalist).

%u201CFirearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself.... The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference -- they deserve a place of honor with all that is good.%u201D George Washington.

%u201CAmericans have the rights and advantage of being armed -- unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.%u201D James Madison (Federalist).

%u201CThe best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.%u201D Alexander Hamilton (Federalist).

%u201CThe great object [of the Second Amendment] is, that every man be armed.... Everyone who is able may have a gun.%u201D Patrick Henry (Anti-Federalist), 3 J. Elliot, DEBATES IN THE SEVERAL STATE CONVENTIONS 386 (2d ed. 1836).

%u201CGuard with jealous attention the public liberty, Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.%u201D Patrick Henry (Anti-Federalist), 3 J. Elliot, DEBATES IN THE SEVERAL STATE CONVENTIONS 45 (2d ed. 1836).

[earlyprophet]

There is currently a federal Law which bans carrying a firearm in the National Park System--a death sentence if you visit a National Park in the State I live in (Alaska), over 90% of which is National Parkland. Try doing a little hiking here unarmed. The bears love eating unarmed hikers and fishermen. They taste soooo good!

[robaldrich]

%u201CIt is asserted by most respectable writers upon government, that a well regulated militia, composed of the yeomanry of the country, have ever been considered as the bulwark of a free people. Tyrants have never placed any confidence on a militia composed of freeman.%u201D John Dewitt (Anti-Federalist), THE ANTIFEDERALIST PAPERS 75 (M. Borden ed. 1965).

%u201CTo disarm the people; that [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them.%u201D George Mason (Anti-Federalist), 3 J. Elliot, DEBATES IN THE SEVERAL STATE CONVENTIONS 380 (2d ed. 1836).

%u201CThe people are not [under the Constitution] to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.%u201D Zachariah Johnson (Federalist), 3 J. Elliot, DEBATES IN THE SEVERAL STATE CONVENTIONS 646 (2d ed. 1836).

%u201CThe said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.%u201D Samuel Adams, 2 B. Schwartz, THE BILL OF RIGHTS 681 (1971).