Gun-Plagued Cities Decry Handgun Ruling

Washington D.C.'s Ban On Handguns Was Struck Down By Supreme Court Thursday

(CBS/AP)  Washington's blanket ban on handguns will fall and tight gun laws in places like Chicago and San Francisco are sure to come under attack. But most of the nation's firearms regulations will probably stay on the books, and some politicians said Thursday's Supreme Court decision won't hinder their efforts to prevent bloodshed.

The high court struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, ruling that Americans can keep guns at home for self-defense. It was the justices' first-ever pronouncement on the meaning of gun rights under the Second Amendment.

But the court said the right to bear arms is not absolute and suggested that the ruling should not affect federal restrictions on the sale of guns or who may own them and where they may be carried.

"Gun rights advocates now have a fully recognized individual right to bear arms. But gun control advocates now have a Supreme Court ruling that declares that this right, like other rights in the Constitution, is not absolute. So we finally get some clarity in an area of the law that was begging for it," writes CBS News chief legal analyst Andrew Cohen.

Across the country, mayors in urban centers reacted to the ruling.

"In limiting its opinion to the matter of self-defense, and in saying the right is not absolute, the United States Supreme Court decision today is an explicit statement of support for cities all across America who are creating reasonable measures to limit the ability of those who will do harm, who will maim, who will buy, carry weapons illegally," Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter said.

In San Francisco, which has some of the toughest handgun regulations in the U.S., Mayor Gavin Newsom said the ruling "just flies in the face of reality. You just wish the Supreme Court could spend a week in public housing and then come out with this decision. It's very easy and comfortable to stand there with security guards and metal detectors and make these decisions."

San Francisco bars people from carrying handguns on county property, including in parks, schools and community centers. Newsom said city attorneys have been researching new regulations that might place tighter controls on ammunition and further restrict where guns could be carried.

District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty responded with a plan to require residents of the nation's capital to register their handguns. "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence," Fenty said.

After Thursday's decision, gun-rights groups filed a lawsuit against Chicago's handgun ban, which closely resembles the Washington law that was struck down. The National Rifle Association planned to file a similar complaint against San Francisco.

Cohen cautions that the ruling will not "immediately end all gun control regulation around the country. Jurisdictions that want to control guns - especially outside the home - still will be able to do so in some fashion."

---

Read Andrew Cohen's CourtWatch column on Thursday's ruling.

---

Chicago, which passed a gun ban similar to Washington D.C.'s 25 years ago, had 325 gun homicides last year, including a 10-year-old shot in the head, a pregnant woman gunned down and a college student shot and killed, reports CBS News correspondent Bill Whitaker.

Chicago Mayor Richard Daley said the court's ruling was "a very frightening decision" and predicted greater violence if his city's law was overturned.

Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard Law School, predicted that the ruling could open the door to challenges of regulations already adopted by state and local governments nationwide.

"Now it's going to be open season on gun regulations," he said. "I think we're going to see a cottage industry of lawsuits against gun regulations, even regulations that in the end are going to be upheld."

Robert Levy, an attorney with the libertarian Cato Institute who organized the case against the District of Columbia, said he expected the decision to help create a framework to clarify which laws pass constitutional muster.

"This skeleton is going to have to have some flesh put on it," he said of the decision. "That is going to have to be done through further litigation."

The high court said nothing in its ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

Some states, like New Jersey and Massachusetts, weren't so concerned about the decision, believing the court had expressed its distaste for D.C.'s flat-out ban but left room for some firearms regulation.

"We regulate the possession of handguns - we don't ban handguns," said New Jersey Attorney General Anne Milgram. "But we have strict licensing requirements, and we are prepared to maintain those requirements and vigorously enforce our laws."

New Jersey requires purchasers of any firearm to obtain a permit before purchase. Federal law only requires purchasers have a background check at the time of purchase.

In New York City, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said "fighting illegal guns has nothing to do with the Second Amendment rights of Americans." He said local authorities "have a responsibility to crack down on illegal guns and punish gun criminals, and it is encouraging that the Supreme Court recognizes the constitutionality of reasonable regulations."

The ruling was celebrated in gun shops, by gun-rights advocates, and elected officials who support greater freedoms for gun owners. The White House embraced the decision even though it went farther than the Bush administration had wanted.

Meanwhile, victims of violence and leaders of jurisdictions with gun laws similar to Washington's said the decision would only encourage violence.

"There are so many guns on the streets," said Pamela Bosely, a Chicago resident whose 18-year-old son Terrell was fatally shot in 2006. "If you didn't have the guns, we'd still have our children."

Washington's handgun ban went into effect in 1976, an attempt to stop a wave of gun-related violence. City residents cannot keep handguns in their homes, with the exception of law enforcement officials and those who owned guns before the ban.

The law's effectiveness is questionable. More than 8,400 people have been killed in the past 32 years, many with handguns.

Fenty, the mayor of the District of Columbia, said Thursday that the city has 21 days to draft new regulations for handgun registration, but that during that time, the ban remains in effect.

In Washington's Trinidad neighborhood, where police recently set up controversial vehicle checkpoints to reduce gun violence, reaction to the court's ruling was mixed.

Sadie Kirkland said the Supreme Court's decision has "legalized the turf and gun war." Kirkland, whose brother was shot and killed in 1995 by a friend in a dispute over guns, feared the city's crime would soar following the ban's dissolution.

But Wilhelmina Lawson, who lives several doors down, disagreed. She said she grew up with guns and believes that as long as people are responsible they should be allowed to own them. "If they ban honest people from having guns, the people doing the killing will still get them," she said.

People offered similar comments near Henderson, Ky., where a worker opened fire at a plastics plant earlier this week, killing five co-workers and himself. The gunman was known to have kept a .45-caliber pistol in his car, which is legal in Kentucky.

"The law is scattered around these parts, and everyone has a right to have a gun," said Jimmy Mooney, who described himself as semi-retired.

Coal miner Kyle Lea, 28, said the slayings reinforced his belief that gun ownership should be closely regulated.

"I just don't believe in guns. I don't like guns, period. And I don't think really anybody should be allowed to have guns."

[thgdriver]

Gun-Plagued Cities Decry Handgun Ruling!!

WHY??? Is it not obvious to them that their stupid laws did not work??! If the laws worked in the first place crime there would be gone!! Right?? LOL.

[billorights]

I do have to wonder, if the Miller case had been about a tommygun, instead of a short barreled shotgun, would the conviction have been upheld on the same grounds? It seems to me that a Thompson submachine gun might have been viewed differently in the context of its practicality for use by a militia.

[billorights]

It has not, in 1939, the SCOTUS ruled that shotguns could be made illegal because they were not used in support of a state militia. Look it up.

Moreover, its the difference between allowing something and it being a "RIGHT". Allowing people to own guns is a good policy (in some places in fact probably the best possible current policy) in most areas, but giving them an unquestionable, inaliable right to do so, removes the legislative flexibility to say NO, when saying "NO" is the best possible policy in some circumstances.

That is what happens when you create a "Right"! -Posted by MarkS7177 at 11:59 AM : Jun 27, 2008

First, Marks7177, it is clear that you have not read or understood the 1939 US v. Miller decision. The SC upheld Miller%u2019s conviction for possessing a short barreled shotgun (which had been declared illegal by the 1934 National Firearms Act, along with machine guns). The SC ruled that short barreled shotguns have no practical use in the militia, so his possession of a short barreled shotgun is not protected by the 2nd Amendment. The meaning of the 2nd Amendment was not addressed by this decision.

Furthermore, the right to keep and bear arms was not created or granted by the 2nd Amendment or the SC. This right existed prior to the Constitution and is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.

For some remarkable, eye-opening information, you should read this Supreme Court decision, along with the Miller decision, and educate yourself with the facts of each.

[kansas1946]

Gun-Plagued Cities Decry Handgun Ruling
*********************************************

Faulty logic again. If these cities have laws against guns, why are they "gun-plagued?" There shouldn''t be a problem if they have restrictive gun laws, correct.
Come on guys. If your logical conclusions don''t make any sense, then they are probably not logical.

[latrocinor-2009]

Thank You NRA

Posted by mr2258
..............

You are welcome.

[mr2258]

Thank You NRA

[globalcoolin]

funny that NONE of these whinning mayors are telling us what they are going to do to fix the criminal justice system and get the crime under control!
they aren''t as bothered by crime and violence as they pretend to be or they''d be right on that problem!
In fact? why weren''t they taking care of that problem BEFOR they enacted the gun control?
I''m not buying a word of these idiots excusses and explinations, and want to remind them that every day they fail to act some honest law abiding people are brutalized by the violent criminal at large.
thier crybaby stunts are not harmless

[get0ffmylawn]

Banning guns doesn''t stop people from killing each other. Read the article.

The second ammendment wassn''t drafted to safeguard the rights of hunters. It''s about owning enough firepower to keep the government honest. It exists as one of the most fundamental checks and balances in our republic: a check by the citizenry against the very real possibility of a tyrannical government that ceases to be subject to the concerted will of the people. OUR country was born from armed rebellion and the second ammendment is our last resort for protecting, securing, and maintaining our hard won liberty. As Col. Jeff Cooper said, "Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen."

[patriot12436]

adfolder
Was that before, during or after he attacked the police officers ?

[adfolder]

Rodney King said it best "Why can''t we get along?"

[txgrouch2006]

bhappy2-2 wrote
gun control isn''''t about guns... It''''s about CONTROL!
--------------
GOOD ONE! That''s HCI''s response to "Guns don''t kill, people do."

[bhappy2-2]

Gun-Plagued Cities Decry Handgun Ruling

Can''t you just hear them;

"OH BOO HOO HOO! We can''t stomp on the Constitutional Rights of Americans any more."

Besides, gun control isn''t about guns... It''s about CONTROL!

[toolmangler-2009]

I bet that ''Big Brother'' wet his diaper over this ruling.

[9SLING]

If we can preemptively attack another country - why cant we do the same with our killers at home? LEGALIZE PREEMPTIVE SNIPING OF KNOWN MS13 MEMBERS!!!

[jehovahwtnss]

I find it interesting that no one has commented on the words "...AND BEAR ARMS..." which suggests to me that any member of THE PEOPLE also have the right to carry arms on their person at any time and that these may even be concealed if that member of THE PEOPLE so chooses. But maybe this concept is so taboo that even the most right wing gun nuts hesitate to voice it

[patriot12436]

marks7177
I agree.
It is useless arguing with brain dead idiots like you.

[patriot12436]

cbsoliver
I have never enjoyed killing anyone. I think anyone that does enjoy it is very sick. I don''t know who you associate with but i would be leary of them if they enjoy the killing.

[patriot12436]

mimmick8
marks7177 will be the first one screaming for help when he becomes a victim.

[chad55555]

Wise up it''s not the guns doing doing the crime,we need a break down of race and social class to start solving the problem.racist,no just common sense.MAYBE IT"S MORE GUNS WE NEED TO TEACH THE OLD,SICK AND HELPLESS,THE WEAKER PEOPLE HOT PROTECT THEMSELF AGINST THE CRIMINAL. THINK ABOUT IT.THE BAD GUY DEPENDS ON THE WEAK AND HELPLESS TO BE HELPLESS,THAT"S WHAT MAKES THEM SO BRAVE.THEY make sure no police is around and pick on women and the helpless with no way to protect THEMSELF.DO AWAY WITH GUNS THE STRONG CRIMINAL WILL USE STICKS THE WEAK WILL STILL BE HELPLESS. LET''S GIVE THE OLD,WEAK,SICK AND HELPLESS A CHANCE TO PROTECT THEMSELF.
THIS IS THE FIRST RIGHT THING THE COURTS HAVE DONE IN 200 YEARS.MAYBE THERE IS HOPE FOR AMERICA AFTER ALL.

[abnrgr1952]

"Sheeple" (a mix of sheep and people)That is a word that I use to describe anyone that does not own a gun. People like you will someday be ruled by those that have guns, whether it be hoodlums, or police and Government. Then there are the people like me that are the "Sheepdogs" that do have guns, and would probably come to your aid if asked. People like me who are not afraid to carry a gun for self defense, and not afraid to use it. Most will never, ever know that I carry a gun. I do not brandish it, show it to friends, or take it out to admire it. To me it is just a tool to use when I need it. If you are afraid of it that suits me just fine because you will probably duck when I do pull it out and that may save your life, while I save yours. No need to say thanks. The "Sheepdogs" have always been around and always will be! Don''t bother looking for us. We do not stand out in a crowd, but we watch everyone in it!