Supreme Court Revisits Second Amendment

Hotly Anticipated Washington D.C. Gun Ban Case Goes Before Justices

(CBS/AP)  The Supreme Court appeared ready Tuesday to endorse the view that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own guns, but was less clear about whether to retain the District of Columbia's ban on handguns.

The justices were aware of the historic nature of their undertaking, engaging in an extended 98-minute session of questions and answers that could yield the first definition of the meaning of the Second Amendment in its 216 years.

A key justice, Anthony Kennedy, left little doubt about his view when he said early in the proceedings that the Second Amendment gives "a general right to bear arms."

Several justices were skeptical that the Constitution, if it gives individuals' gun rights, could allow a complete ban on handguns when, as Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out, those weapons are most suited for protection at home.

"What is reasonable about a ban on possession" of handguns?" Roberts asked at one point.

But Justice Stephen Breyer suggested that the District's public safety concerns could be relevant in evaluating its 32-year-old ban on handguns, perhaps the strictest gun control law in the nation.

"Does that make it unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate...to say no handguns here?" Breyer said.

Solicitor General Paul Clement, the Bush administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, supported the individual right, but urged the justices not to decide the other question. Instead, Clement said the court should allow for reasonable restrictions that allow banning certain types of weapons, including existing federal laws.

He did not take a position on the District law. Washington residents are not allowed to own handguns, period, CBS News correspondent Wyatt Andrews reports. And shotguns, which are allowed, are required to be kept unloaded and trigger-locked.

The court has not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The basic issue for the justices is whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

The 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."

While the arguments raged inside, advocates of gun rights and opponents of gun violence demonstrated outside court Tuesday.

Dozens of protesters mingled with tourists and waved signs saying "Ban the Washington elitists, not our guns" or "The NRA helps criminals and terrorist buy guns."

Members of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence chanted "guns kill" as followers of the Second Amendment Sisters and Maryland Shall Issue.Org shouted "more guns, less crime."

A line to get into the court for the historic arguments began forming two days earlier and extended more than a block by early Tuesday.

The high court's first extensive examination of the Second Amendment since 1939 grew out of challenge to the District's ban.

Anise Jenkins, president of a coalition called Stand Up for Democracy in D.C., defended the district's prohibition on handguns.

"We feel our local council knows what we need for a good standard of life and to keep us safe," Jenkins said.

But, Andrews reports that Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty said: "This is a public saftey case. Handguns represent a disproportionate number of crimes in the District of Columbia."

Genie Jennings, a resident of South Perwick, Maine, and national spokeswoman for Second Amendment Sisters, said the law banning handguns in Washington "is denying individuals the right to defend themselves."

Even if the court determines there is an individual right, the justices still will have to decide whether the District's ban can stand and how to evaluate other gun control laws. This issue has caused division within the Bush administration, with Vice President Dick Cheney taking a harder line than the administration's official position at the court.

The local Washington government argues that its law should be allowed to remain in force whether or not the amendment applies to individuals, although it reads the amendment as intended to allow states to have armed forces.

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."

Dick Anthony Heller, 65, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection. His lawyers say the amendment plainly protects an individual's right.

The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights.

Given the Court’s strong conservative makeup, it is likely that both a right to own, possess and use a firearm and the government’s right to restrict that ownership, possession will survive the Heller case, says CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen. The only thing that remains reasonably unpredictable and mysterious is the language the Court’s majority will use in conjuring up the legal standard that will govern review of gun control legislation.

Chief Justice John Roberts said at his confirmation hearing that the correct reading of the Second Amendment was "still very much an open issue."

[gunownerdan]

"Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government."
-- Congressman Ron Paul, June 27, 2006

[bhappy2-2]

If the Supreme Court decides the second amendment is a right of the state, not an individual, then the first(for peaceable assembly), fourth (unreasonable search and seizure)and tenth (delegation of powers) will be taken soon; they are each written as "of the people", not specifying who "the people" are. Then, all those who want the guns banned will have no problem giving up "their" rights, since the gun owners will not be able to defend the rights of ANYONE.

[omega39-2009]

This issue has caused division within the Bush administration, with Vice President *** Cheney taking a harder line than the administration''s official position at the court.

As much as I dislike Richard Cheney, you have to admire his solution to an over population of lawyers.

[generey]

The court has not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment in the 216 years since its ratification.

There is no interpretation. It say''s what it say''s.

[gunownerdan]

"The NRA is committed to constitutional rights. While most people think of us as focused on firearms, we are rather more focused on freedom. Yes, we concentrate on the Second Amendment, but the Second Amendment is about liberty. It''s an insurance policy for all of your constitutional rights. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to make sure that you have the ability to protect your life, liberty and property, and those of your loved ones, against any who would try to take them from you. That includes your freedom to speak, worship, protest and vote. It includes the things you hold most dear."
- Sandy Froman, former NRA president

[daniel.harris6]

People should not fear the government. The government should fear the people, and a population consisting of millions of armed individuals is pretty intimidating.

Granted, I highly doubt our current government would ever consider a more totalitarian stance. But if we were entirely disarmed, for how long would that remain true? It would start with over-taxation for legit interests. Then a corrupt politician would realize that a stance against extreme taxation could be used for personal gain to elevate himself and an inner circle to positions of power, via votes from disgruntled citizens. Once in power, taxation would continue (or increase), and freedoms would be eroded. We would be powerless to stop it. This scenario has played out in many foreign countries, largely because the civilian population had no means to resist once things turned south.

[beehive21-2009]

Fear not the Justices are people,and know w/o a gun near anyone can come into your dwelling at anytime and bully you and yours, guns, keep the local bullies away unless they need a bullet in the head.

[rowdytexan2]

The 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."

Seems pretty clear to me. And it seems that Washington, D.C. has in fact, infringed on individual rights to bear arms.

[bhappy2-2]

tuffone3- Did you even bother to read Commenter1''s post? It speaks out AGAINST disarmament.

As you said, Ah, some light!

[freedomrace]

If we keep trying to interpret the documents of the past with different people at the helm, then we will always get different interpretations. I think that in a society of "free people" we have given a lot of freedoms away for wrong reasons and feelings of the time. Our constitution is to protect the "people" from being unjustly confined to one persons or peoples beliefs. God bless the "United" States of America.

[evm1928]

A Mountain out of a mole hill? For over two hundred and twenty years the American people have had the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, or so they thought. Apparently in all that time, with all those millions of armed citizens carrying arms, there never was a time that the U.S.(or any State) Supreme Court felt that there was any doubt about the RIGHT of the American citizen to own and carry a firearm. Jesse James, Clyde Barrow and other bad guys were thought to be "bad guys" because they did bad things. But there right to "bare arms" was never in question. Not by their victims or by the Supreme Court. Later laws were passed the made it illegal for convicted crimminals to keep and bear arms. But in two hundred years it never occured to anyone that a respectable law-abiding citizen should be denied the right to defend him self.

[bks59]

when the us constitition was written, powder loaded, single shot guns and pistols were the weapon of the day. as i understand DC does permit shot guns, that seems close enough to the original intent. why should ''we the people'' allow any breathing body possesion and ownership of any weapon available?

[gkc99]

"weapon of the day. as i understand DC does permit shot guns, that seems close enough to the original intent. why should ''''we the people'''' allow any breathing body possesion and ownership of any weapon available? "--Posted by bks59


Under D.C.''s oppressive gun laws, you could not keep a flintlock rifle over your fireplace with powder and ball in the barrel. All guns must be locked and disabled.

So your argument misses the point.

[bks59]

"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."

it does not state the right of individuals to bear arms, but the right of the people,(collective, state)to bear arms.

[jeff-fla]

The 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."

Seems pretty clear to me. And it seems that Washington, D.C. has in fact, infringed on individual rights to bear arms.

Posted by RowdyTexan2

I agree that people should have the right to bear arms. My only question is this. D.C. not being a State of The United States of America, does the same apply?

After all is does use the word "State".

[gkc99]

One thing we can count on about the Supreme Court--the "Nine Dwarves" won''t display any more courage or honesty than they did when they decided Bushit v. Gore, or when they decided that "separate but equal" race segregation was allowable under the Constitution, or when they decided that arbitrary imprisonment of U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry was Constitutionally allowed.

The Nine Dwarves simply don''t have the guts to take a real stand. Expect a mealy mouthed, incomprehensible decision that doesn''t really reach the issue.

[gkc99]

One thing we can count on about the Supreme Court--the "Nine Dwarves" won''t display any more courage or honesty than they did when they decided Bushit v. Gore, or when they decided that "separate but equal" race segregation was allowable under the Constitution, or when they decided that arbitrary imprisonment of U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry was Constitutionally allowed.

The Nine Dwarves simply don''t have the guts to take a real stand. Expect a mealy mouthed, incomprehensible decision that doesn''t really reach the issue.

[notblue]

"Americans have the right and advantages of being armed unlike citizens of the countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms"
-James Madison, The Federalist Papers-

That would be CITIZENS not militias!

[gkc99]

""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."

it does not state the right of individuals to bear arms, but the right of the people,(collective, state)to bear arms"--Posted by bks59


The term "the people" is also used in the First amendment (right before the Second amendment) and in the Fourth amendment (just after the Second amendment).

By your construction there would be no individual right to freedom of speech, religion, assembly, press, or freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. Those "rights" would only be held by the government.

So you think the Bill of Rights guarantees nothing at all.

[gkc99]

""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."

it does not state the right of individuals to bear arms, but the right of the people,(collective, state)to bear arms"--Posted by bks59


The term "the people" is also used in the First amendment (right before the Second amendment) and in the Fourth amendment (just after the Second amendment).

By your construction there would be no individual right to freedom of speech, religion, assembly, press, or freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. Those "rights" would only be held by the government.

So you think the Bill of Rights guarantees nothing at all.

[bks59]

notblue,

ooh the federalists papers that takes us back a couple of centuries, please go live there.

[notblue]

bks59, wasn''t that about the same time as the constitution???? Just trying to understand your point?

[bks59]

remeber there are state and federal, us constition is about identifying state''s rights and over the years states have done some pecular things and federal couts have made decalarations that, right or wrong, effect state''s ability to oppress, IE: jim crow laws.

[jeff-fla]

"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."

it does not state the right of individuals to bear arms, but the right of the people,(collective, state)to bear arms.

Posted by bks59

If the word "Keep" was not there, then I would lean towards the collective statement. But the word "Keep" and not the word "Collective" is written in the 2nd. That would imply possession. Therefore people are to "Keep" there arms at home.

[bhappy2-2]

when the us constitition was written, powder loaded, single shot guns and pistols were the weapon of the day. as i understand DC does permit shot guns, that seems close enough to the original intent. why should ''''we the people'''' allow any breathing body possesion and ownership of any weapon available?

Posted by bks59

When the Constitution was written quills and inkwells were the usual instruments of writing. Does this mean you support banning pencils, typewriters, retractable pens, word processors, computers and other modern inventions? Does this mean freedom of the press only applies when used with the old typeset printing presses?
Dealing with people like you gives me a headache; lucky for me I have a box of BC powders!

[lorinkundert]

The 2nd Amendment is three different clauses, one establishes the State''s right to a militia, two the right of the individual to have weapons, and three the prohibition of the government from infringing on those rights.

The founders were very clear on the meaning in later writings.

[lorinkundert]

George Washington went even farther when asked if the Government should register weapons, George made it clear that the people would be unable to defend against a repressive government if the government knew where the weapons were.

[bhappy2-2]

Last time I checked, someone didn''''t run into a crowded mall and kill 8 people with a word processor. What bks59 is referring to is the fact that they didn''''t have automatic weapons on every street corner for every 2nd Amendment junkie and psycho to get their hands on. They were single shot weapons that were used to defend their farms against the Red Coats. Dealing with people like you gives me a headache.

Posted by matvei1107

Last time I looked there were no AUTOMATIC weapons on the corners. While SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapons are readily available AUTOMATIC weapons are relatively rare and closely regulated.
If you need a BC to deal with me let me know; I''ll post one for you!

[usmcvn2]

They were single shot weapons that were used to defend their farms against the Red Coats.
Posted by matvei1107 at 01:12 PM : Mar 18, 2008


Well, Its 2008 and I have three pistols to protect
myself against the "BLACKS COATS" LOL LOL

[gkc99]

The cute little graphic on the page explains a lot:

D.C. handguns not allowed. Murder rate 34/100,000

West Virginia, a "shall issue" concealed carry state. Murder rate 15/100,000.


So the gun banners solution--make West Virginia more like D.C.?


And to the gun-control Dems: this is a corrupt, repressive, illegally elected administration, put in power by a crooked bunch of appointed judges.
But by all means let''s give up our only possible means of self-defense against physical oppression!!
Makes sense to me--not!

[bhappy2-2]

matvei1107- Another thing I neglected to mention; If malls were not unarmed victim zones these type of incidences would be even more unusual and less frequent.
When people are allowed to defend themselves the criminals tend to go somewhere else. When was the last time you heard of a shooting at a gun store?

[bhappy2-2]

The only difference between a semi-auto and an auto is how fast you can pull the trigger. Now you''''re just splitting hairs. But I like the caps... very effective.

Posted by matvei1107

WRONG! A semi-automatic fires ONE round for each pull of the trigger; an AUTOMATIC fires continuesly until there are no more cartridges, the trigger is released or it jams.
Never mind about the BC, I don''t think they work on stupid.

[jjp735i]

How many people need to die because someone was in a bad mood and shot their wife, kids and or parents?

When you really look at it, those claiming they need a gun to protect their homes are only fooling them selves. It''s rear that someone shots and kills a burglar. Most gun deaths are from some fool firing a gun in fun or anger, not protection.

[tucano2]

Do you really believe the Chinese could have twice invaded Tibet (and other surrounding areas from Korea to Vietnam-usually hiding behind "freedom fighters) if each citizen could have picked off a dozen invaders using 2nd Amendment arms kept at home? Consider this: No "government" is about to get involved, as there is no nation, particularly the USA, strong enough morally, spiritually, militarily, politically, or most critically economically to resist China.
But us "common" folks do have those powers. There are 5 Billion of us (including you) non-Chinese (PRC)on the planet. If each of us spends $10/month LESS on "Made in China" stuff the economic impact on China will be tremendous, and sudden. Economic Power = Military Power. Cripple the one and the other has no punch or staying ability. Don''t count on any "government" to do much at all. It''s up to each and every one of us, you and me included, to weaken China''s strangle-hold on Tibet.

[tucano2]

Frankly it really ought to be the law that each American citizen over age 17 carry a concealed weapon and know how and when to use it. Imagine the young lives that likely would have been saved at Virginia Tech, Northern Illinois University, and for that matter any Mall in America if the shooter couldn''t have gotten off a second shot before being hit hundreds of times by bullets fired back at him/her by others nearby. Maybe the nutcase could have killed one, but no way dozens and dozens.

[bhappy2-2]

matvei1107- I''m alright. Are you alright?

[bhappy2-2]

A gun debate just isn''''t the same without Schoollord and ilikecats clawing each other''''s eyes out.

Posted by matvei1107

How true!

[louklou51]

Just another example of Americans losing yet another right of freedom guaranteed by the Constitution.

[yongamerica]

The Boy Scouts were created in order to teach and instill military values in boys that would b helpful in war time. That first aid badge might save a person. That sharpshooter badge might be put to use off the rifle range.

The US has always had an advantage in war, starting with WWI, because the nation embraced recreational shooting and arms safety. With the advent of gun control advocates eroding this foundation, many young Americans today are taught to fear rather than embrace the Zen of marksmanship.
There was a day where every highschool had a shooting team. Where are these teams today? Disbanded by fear.

[gunownerdan]

Some of the first gun-control laws in America were used by the south to disarm freed slaves who had guns to feed themselves and to protect themselves from LYNCH MOBS and the KKK.
Even the famous "SHOT HEARD AROUND THE WORLD" which began the AMERICAN REVOLUTION making America possible was fired in order to prevent a British gun ban from being enforced.
The British troops had direct orders from the King of England to confiscate all guns and gun powder from the Americans!
RESPONSIBLE CIVILIAN GUN OWNERSHIP MAKES FREEDOM POSSIBLE.
Gun bans are hateful and gun bans kill.
For the sake of FREEDOM, please get educated:
www.a-human-right.com

[lorinkundert]

When talking about Constitutionally protected rights you have to remember that this country was founded on individual rights and responsibility, we are not a Socialist nation we are a Republic.

[gunownerdan]

How are you going to make guns go away if you somehow ban them?
Send SWAT teams bursting into every home and business in America looking for guns?
Make the Army or Blackwater soldiers bust down every door in America to take away our guns?
There are enough guns in America to arm every adult in the whole country and then some.
Millions of Americans will never give up our constitutional rights and our best means of self defense.
Where are we going to punish many millions of uncooperative armed citizens?
Do we send anyone who does not cooperate to giant concentration camps?
Our jails are already full!
I don''t know why people are choosing to harm others and themselves but blaming guns and making everyone defenseless will never solve the problem.

[gunownerdan]

you "can''t stop crazy".
Posted by matvei1107

Actually you can, shoot "crazy" before "crazy" shoots you!

[clholli]

Gun Control, Has it''s Pro''s and Con''s. Wether you live in a city or in the country guns have thier uses. Guns are only part of the issue. It really boils down to do I deend and protect with what ever means at my disposal or do I stand back and die when confronted by threat to life and family. People kill People. Guns are just convienient tools. As for Why we don''t see more of the story about people defending themselves from criminals you might want to look more at the local news. Granny killing the local sneak thief doesn''t make national headlines very often because it''s not A popular topic. Most people would admit that they wouldn''t want to kill some one but if had to to protect themselves and family would. I know if someone threatend to take the lives of my wife and children I wouldn''t hesitate to let a little lead fly. Criminals will still have guns and Phycopaths will still find ways to kill people. What it all boils down to is how many more rights are we going to give up for that warm fuzzy feeling?

[gunownerdan]

ElCantante1,
Law-abiding gun owners will obey the law of the land(our Constitution) and will never obey any unconstitutional infringements of the law.

[gunownerdan]

ElCantante1,
Of course as usual you conveniently leave out the fact that most of those 30,000 deaths are suicides.

[crusherking]

A little history for all of you on this issue. In 1996 Australia banned private ownership of guns. Guess what happened. Crime rates INCREASED.

The bans were not limited to so-called "assault" weapons or military-type firearms, but also to .22 rifles and shotguns. The effort cost the Australian government about $500 million, said association representative Keith Tidswell.

Though lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation''s crime statistics tell a different story:
Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;

Assaults are up 8.6 percent;

Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;

In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent;

In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;

There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.

So, to those of you who would take guns out of law abiding citizens hands because you THINK that makes us safer, How can you still be so blind when this type of evidence is provided. Remember, criminals could care less if there is a ban on guns or not. Only law abiding citizens actually ''lose'' their right to have a gun.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304

[gunownerdan]

ElCantante1,
Just because you can find some "experts" that say 2+2=3 doesn''t make it true.

[clholli]

Again it is said guns kill, Yes but only after a person pulls the trigger. To say a gun kills is to say man is not responsible for the murder but the gun. Yes I own guns and yes I think we should all have them. Weapon Vs. Tool is all just semantics. Tools,weapons a hammer can kill it''s just not as efficient.

[bhappy2-2]

The ONE who shall remain nameless said "But if guns are banned that won''''t be unsconstitutional. Many legal experts have said so!~ "

But, many "experts" make mistakes. Many "experts" are wrong. Many "experts" have their own, personal, agenda.