June 29, 2008
Targeting The Supreme Court
How A Libertarian Who's Never Owned A Gun Brought The Decisive Case On The Second Amendment
-
Play CBS Video Video Making The Case Against Gun Bans The Supreme Court's decision affirming the right of individuals to own guns has created much controversy. Martha Teichner talks to the lawyer (who's never owned a gun himself) responsible for bringing the landmark case to court.
-
Robert Levy from the Cato Institute outside the Supreme Court in Washington, Tuesday, March 18, 2008, after the court heard arguments in an attempt to overturn the District of Columbia's firearms ban. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
-
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.
Outside the Supreme Court the battle was still being fought as the decision was announced - the 5-4 ruling overturned Washington, D.C.'s ban on handgun ownership and explicitly stated for the first time that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to own a gun for self-defense.
Washington mayor Adrian Fenty's disappointment was palpable. "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence," he said.
Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley, bracing for an attack on his city's gun law. He said the Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller is "very frightening" for America.
"Why don't we do away with the court system?" Daley said. "The old West - you have a gun and I have a gun and we'll settle on the street."
Within 24 hours, the National Rifle Association and like-minded groups had filed lawsuits against Chicago and San Francisco. Their aim: to test whether the court's decision has implications for all 50 states, not just the District of Columbia.
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA, said, "The NRA views this as the opening salvo, as a step-by-step process of bringing relief to citizens all over the country that have been denied access to that freedom.
"The Second Amendment as an individual right now becomes an important part of the American constitutional law, and that's monumental," he said.
How did it happen? Why this particular case? Why now? It took exactly the right cast of characters, perfect timing, and the determination of a lawyer named Robert Levy who knew just how to play the game.
"The financing for this came out of my pocket," he told Teichner.
Levy's story is remarkable: He got rich in finance, but cashed out and went to law school at the age of 50. (He's now 66.) This is the only lawsuit he's ever litigated.
He's never even owned a gun.
"The gun part of it is, I don't know that I'd say it was incidental, but certainly my primary interest was in vindicating the Constitution and the meaning of the Second Amendment."
Levy is a libertarian, a senior fellow at libertarianism's philosophical brain trust, the Cato Institute in Washington.
"We believe in free markets, individual liberty, private property and, most of all, strictly limited government," Levy said. "We don't like the government in our wallets, and we don't like the government in our bedrooms, so we're very happy to be a bridge between the left and the right, particularly on this issue, which has separated so many on the left and the right."
Levy deliberately distanced himself from the NRA.
"We didn't want to be identified with the usual gun lobby groups," he said. "This was the case that we brought because of our interest in the Constitution."
Levy hand-picked his plaintiff, security guard Richard Heller, and then calculated that the Supreme Court would move to the right before the case managed to get there.
"When we filed the case, in 2003, Justices Alito and Roberts had not yet joined the Court, but it did appear that over the near term there would be replacements of Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justice O'Conner suggested that she might retire, and of course that did come to pass," he said.
And in Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion, Levy had the perfect match with his own strict originalist views of the Constitution - in other words what the founding fathers intended.
Recently on 60 Minutes, Scalia said, "Sometimes people come to me and in, you know, 'Justice Scalia, when did you first become an originalist?' You know, as though it's some weird affliction - 'When did you start eating human flesh?'"
"What you're saying is, 'Let's try to figure out the mind-set of people back 200 years ago, right?'" asked Lesly Stahl.
"Well, it isn't a mind-set, it's what did the words mean to the people who ratified the Bill of Rights or who ratified the Constitution," Scalia said.
The D.C. gun ban suit was a chance to take on the Second Amendment, with its reference of militia … its awkward commas … its ambiguity.
"I don't think the Supreme Court was backed into a corner to decide this case," said CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen. "I think there was enough folks on the court now with the change, with the addition of Samuel Alito, so that they wanted to do it.
"The problem is you have a horribly drafted Second Amendment," Cohen added. "The people who drafted the Second Amendment were just as addled and just as conflicted and contradictory as modern day politicians are when it comes to these tough issues."
Which may not be surprising, according to R.B. Bernstein, a constitutional historian at New York Law School, who said. "Constitutions are political documents and constitutional amendments are political documents. They're written by politicians. They're shaped by the forces of politics."
"I'm tempted to say to originalists sometimes, that you may believe that there is a Santa Claus bringing neatly wrapped packages of original intent, understanding or meaning for good little consitutional interpreters," Bernstein said, "but just as there is no Santa Claus, there is no originalist Santa Claus. We do the best we can with the language we've got."
In fact, in this case, the Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment is very much in line with public opinion.
According to a recent Gallup poll, more than seven out of ten Americans agree with the Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment does guarantee the right to own a gun.
But here's another statistic: Approximately 30,000 Americans are killed by guns every year.
We asked Robert Levy, who brought about the Supreme Court decision, does it matter to you that people might die because of it?
"Well of course, it matters," he said. "And I think it's indisputably true that there will be people who die because of this ruling. There will be other people who would have died were it not for this ruling, and so one has to take into account not just the cost but the benefits."
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The secrets of tennis legend 
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 16
- next
See all 316 CommentsCohen should read "Founders'' View of the Right to Bear Arms" by David B. Young. It was only a tough issue for the modern anti-gun politicians because they were trying to foist the "collectivist" fraud upon the 2nd Amendment rights of the people. First 10 amendments of the US Constitution were prohibitions against government to protect individual rights. Seems the Anti-Federalists were right in 1789 that a government would try to disarm the people and individual rights protection had to be written into the US Constitition.
Posted by godseyesore at 10:36 AM : Jun 30, 2008------ It already does for us law abiding citizens. The criminals now need to consider changing their "trade" because they are now forced to think about what you just said,....."significant penalty".
"The problem is you have a horribly drafted Second Amendment," Cohen added. "The people who drafted the Second Amendment were just as addled and just as conflicted and contradictory as modern day politicians are when it comes to these tough issues."
I suggest Mr. Cohen read "Founders'' View of the Right to Bear Arms" by David B. Young and find out how completely wrong his statement is.
Wrong - I have personally used my guns twic to protect my family and myseld and once to protect a stranger. None of my guns have ever been stolen and used against me.
440,000 thousand people die each year from smoking and there is no constitutional right to smoke. So why are you beating the drums on guns when smoking is much more deadly?
You have said this before. I asked you to back it up and you had nothing. Lot of people use guns every day to defend themselves.
Here is an old man who defended himself against two armed attackers!
http://www.wlky.com/video/16509601/index.html
Are you such a coward you can''t do what an old man can do?
husseins buddies fascist nazi terrorislam want to make it a theocracy nancy,,,
but then you knew that already,,,
Of course, technology has made some weapons too dangerous to be appropriate for use by citizens in defending their rights and the rights of others (i.e., enforcing the law). That''s why police do not use bombs and artillery. That''s why no one complains that private citizens can use bombs and artillery. But if a weapon is suitable for use by police, it is suitable for use by every adult citizen in good standing.
If you''re afraid that criminals will steal guns, then don''t let criminals break into our homes. If police cannot keep criminals from doing that, don''t tell us to accept police as our only protection.
Evidence has shown that gun control did nothing to reverse the rising NYC crime rate over the course of the 1970s and 80s, and liberalization of concealed carry laws did not endanger the public. Therefore, there is no excuse to infringe this freedom -- and those who would are despicable people who apparently oppose freedom for its own sake -- people who care more about the lives of criminals than about our right not to be robbed or raped.
Stop pretending you''re a hero, you loser. Making things up just to make a point. Shame on you.
The reason for that is that the vast majority of gun deaths are due to suicide, family members turning on each other, friends turning on each other, and gang members turning on each other.
Gun owners are their own worst enemies. Too bad they have to involve everyone because of their inability to control their temper.
To live without a gun requires a level of maturity many gun owners are simply unable to reach.
These folks are a bunch of showoffs and couldn''t care less about the consequences of their actions.
Truly childish and selfish.
the usa is not a theocracy nancy
never has been
Posted by terrorislami at 06:22 AM : Jun 30, 2008
----------
You Freakvannies tried to make one but you failed miserably.....HAHAHAHA!!!!
the usa is not a theocracy nancy,,,
never has been,,,
Or kill someone who complains about the odor coming from an animal sacrifice.
Or kill g.ays.
But yet we don''t do that even if it''s the word of God. Times have changed and so the Bible cannot be strictly followed even if God himself said so.
Now, why not do the same with the words of mere mortals?
I mean, over 30,000 killed by guns year after freaking year after freaking year has got to count for something, right?
Times have changed. We''re not in the 1700''s anymore.
This "originalist" bullcrap is going to do the US in.
It may still happen but i do not see it happening with any humor.
You sound like my old college law prof. I think with thigs the way they are now we have to look in all directions to defend ourselves. I dread what we have had for 8 years, but i fear more what is about to happen.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 16
- next
See all 316 Comments