Supreme Court To Decide D.C. Handgun Ban
Divisive Case Is First "Right To Bear Arms" Examination In Nearly 70 Years
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Significance Of Handgun Case
"Only On The Web": CBS News' Wyatt Andrews explains why the Supreme Court's decision to hear a challenge to D.C.'s 31-year-old handgun ban could be one of the most important cases this court term.
-
Video
Supreme Court To Hear Gun Case
The Supreme Court is diving into the gun control issue, by agreeing to decide whether an outright ban on gun ownership violates the second amendment to the Constitution. Wyatt Andrews reports.
-
Photo
The Supreme Court said Tuesday, Nov. 20, 2007 it will decide whether the District of Columbia can ban handguns. 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. (CBS/AP)
-
Interactive
Guns In America
State-by-state gun laws and death rates, maps of recent school and workplace shootings and facts on who's at risk.
-
Interactive
The Supreme Court
History, traditions and key cases, plus what it takes to get on the bench.
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.
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.



- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
...
- 7
- next
See all 331 CommentsIf 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.
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".
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?
It''s like a second peniss to them.
Now I see the liberal logic behind this..
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.
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.
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.
The District of Columbia is not a state, therefore, the 2nd amendment does not apply. Case closed.
Just thought you would like to know this.
- 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
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.
- 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
bang bang
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.
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?
"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
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.
%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).
%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).
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
...
- 7
- next
See all 331 Comments