Supreme Court To Decide D.C. Handgun Ban
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.
© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report. 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.
once again you are wrong. If you can still see, then go read it again. There is no mention of a uniform anywhere in the 2nd amendment. That is your interpritation, let''s leave an individuals right to mean the same things in all the amendments and not twist reality to your liking.
My fellow Americans need to open their eyes to the fact that our Republic, along with The Constitution upon which it was founded, is being flushed-down the toilet by our nations'' bought and paid for politicians and media. While the Oligarchs warn and incite fear in the sheeple about the prospect of terrorism, they at the same time leave our borders wide open, and then conduct illegal wars overseas that do nothing but incite the terrorism which their Orwellian Laws like the Patriot Act and the John Warner Defense Authorization Act pretend to protect us from. Wake up America! It''s not about protecting you from terrorism, or Global Warming, or any of that other fear-mongering garbage the sold-out, mainstream media feeds you 24/7. It''s about feeding the bankers and the military industrial complex, and facilitating the global elite''s ability to ratchet-down control over the American people, placing us into a total control grid where they can surveille, track and control everywhere we go and everything we do. It''s the groundwork for tyranny. It''s the New World Order plan of Bush, Clinton, Edwards, McCain, Giuliani, et.al., being executed quite beautifully. You''re a frog in a pot: In order to cook a frog, you don''t throw him into a pot of boiling water. If you do, he''ll resist and jump-out. What you do instead is, you turn the heat-up REAL SLOW, and by the time the water is boiling, he won''t be able to jump out anymore, because it''s too late--he''s already doomed.
I can''t think of anytime in history where the U.S. Supreme Court granted Certiorari to a case where they actually agreed with the Lower Court''s ruling, so there is no reason for me to expect this case will be any different. Say "bye bye" to handgun ownership rights in this country. If you do have any handguns, do yourself a favor and hide them well, and don''t waste any of your ammo on target practice anymore. I have a feeling you soon won''t need any. Considering how much the government has done to desecrate our Constitution lately (e.g. The USA Patriot Act, The John Warner Defense Authorization Act, The Military Commisions Act, H.R. 1955, et. al.), the Supreme Court will likely overturn the Lower Court''s ruling, which will open the door for States and local governments to pass Laws which will essentially prohibit private gun ownership. I''m sure of it. Look at what the Supreme Court did with the question of "eminent domain" recently. They overturned practically 200 years worth of common law protecting landowners, making way for governments to sieze your property for private development, so long as it is in the "public interest" to do so. Anyone who says "this will never happen" needs to turn their TV off, and open their eyes to the realities of the world around them. Our Constitution has been under constant attack since 9/11. We''re frogs in a pot, folks. What we need to do is have a good ol'' fashioned Tea Party! teaparty07.com
Like Ron Paul, I share our Founders'' belief that in a free society each citizen must have the right to keep and bear arms. They ratified the Second Amendment knowing that this right is the guardian of every other right, and they all would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents Law-abiding Americans from exercising this right. Congressman, Paul has always supported the Second Amendment and these are some of the Bills he introduced in the current Congress to help restore respect for it: H.R. 1096 includes provisions repealing the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the Federal Firearms License Reform Act, two invasive and unconstitutional Bills. H.R. 1897 would end the ban on carrying a firearm in the National Park System, restoring Americans'' ability to protect themselves in potentially hazardous situations. H.R. 3305 would allow pilots and specially assigned personnel to carry firearms in order to protect airline passengers, possibly preventing future 9/11-style attacks. H.R. 1146 would end our membership in the United Nations, protecting us from their attempts to tax our guns or disarm us entirely. In the past, he introduced legislation to repeal the so-called assault weapons ban before its 2004 sunset, and he has opposed all attempts to reinstate it. Congessman, Paul also recently opposed H.R. 2640, which would allow government-appointed psychiatrists to ban veterans experiencing any form of PTSD.
- Thomas Jefferson
"A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington
"Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion. in private self-defense."
- John Adams
"The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
- Alexander Hamilton
"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed -- unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
- James Madison
"To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them."
- George Mason
Friend you need to get a life or at least spend more of it NOT spamming.
The Constitution talks about a well regulated militia and the ownership of arms to allow the general population to rise up against a tyrannical government. It is not talking about the ability of a drug dealer to do a drive by shooting or Billy Bob hunting.
At the rate we are going in the country (the right taking over the courts and imposing Papal laws on the rest of us) we may have a cause to see the real intent of the second amendment in practice. But until then - remember "well regulated militia."
Consider the Patriot Act. The Law is 342 pages long, or 57,000 words, making it a bit longer than Dostoevsky''s "Notes from Underground" or, if you''re partial to pigs, about twice the size of Orwell''s "Animal Farm." The Patriot Act is the reigning champion of our government''s recent un-American activities. When it was first paraded before Congress and the Senate following the 9/11 attacks, few Members, other than Congressman, Ron Paul dared to vote against it. Most in Congress simply gave it their rubber-stamp of approval, without ever reading it. Why bother? It was, after all, named the "USA Patriot Act." It must be a good thing. Right? Now in effect, the Law wrecks a generation''s worth of constitutional protections against government snooping, legalizing police-state tactics in searches and seizures, criminalizing certain forms of speech and political activity, and opening the way for the mistreatment of foreigners in government custody and wholesale expulsions and imprisonment. It is a repugnant, unnecessary Law that goes against the very principles its name wrongly implies. Yet, it remains unchecked and unbalanced by public opinion, Lawmakers or the Courts. So, yes, we''re a nation of Laws. But the Laws aren''t much to speak of when they''re designed to hoodwink the public to win its docility. Neither is public responsibility much to speak of these days when its docility is secured with nothing more than a ploy-riddled play on the word "patriot."
With the full support of Senators Clinton, Obama and McCain, President Bush recently signed into Law the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, which, according to Senator Leahy (VT), will actually "encourage the President to declare Martial Law." It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a Laws which limits the President''s ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act, helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic Law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush has now undone all of those prohibitions. The John Warner Defense Authorization Act, which was signed by the President in an unpublicized ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency," suspend Congress; The Constitution; and to take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of your Governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder." President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act. The two Laws compliment one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad of those who dissent and are stripped of their citizenship, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home by allowing the President to order the military onto our streets in a domestic Law enforcement role, which is already being done. Vote for Liberty. Vote for Ron Paul.