Targeting The Supreme Court

How A Libertarian Who's Never Owned A Gun Brought The Decisive Case On The Second Amendment

(CBS)  Supreme Court decisions always have the potential to make headlines and provoke debate. Case in point: Its ruling this week on the right to own a gun. It's a cause one man worked long and hard to bring before the court, as we hear in our Cover Story reported by Martha Teichner.

---

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."

[cfin5]

Posted by arpjoe at 04:02 PM : Jun 30, 2008---- That is the 9th. Amendment,.....the Guardian of the Amendments.

[arpjoe]

CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen statement is completely wrong. "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."

Cohen 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.

[cfin5]

The decision to buy and keep guns in your personal space carries responsibility, and deaths due to ignorance, or misuse of that responsibility, should also carry a significant penalty.

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".

[arpjoe]

I strongly disagree with the statement below:

"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.

[three-o-six]

kindrox

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.

[godseyesore-2009]

As much as the ''supreme'' court has shown it''s a**, the decision clarifying 2nd amendment has nothing to do with people dying. Protection of citizenry is for congress to address with LAWS, and for enforcement to effectively do their job under those laws, and for courts to stop coddling criminals by lenient sentences and paroles. If there were harsh mandatory sentences (without possibility of parole) for use of any kind of gun in a crime, the use of guns would go WAY down. The decision to buy and keep guns in your personal space carries responsibility, and deaths due to ignorance, or misuse of that responsibility, should also carry a significant penalty.

[godseyesore-2009]

The decision clarifying 2nd amendment has nothing to do with people dying. Protection of citizenry is for congress to address with LAWS, and for enforcement to effectively do their job under those laws, and for courts to stop coddling criminals by lenient sentences and paroles. If there were harsh mandatory sentences (without possibility of parole) for use of any kind of gun in a crime, the use of guns would go WAY down.

[kindrox]

* I mean, over 30,000 killed by guns year after freaking year after freaking year has got to count for something, right? *

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?

[kindrox]

* dude stop the daydreams and fantasies where you are the hero shooting the bad guy. Reality is you are likely to have your guns stolen or used against you or you will shoot someone in your family. *

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?

[terrorislami]

Posted by FloydZepp2 at 06:32 AM : Jun 30, 2008

husseins buddies fascist nazi terrorislam want to make it a theocracy nancy,,,

but then you knew that already,,,

[fsilber-2009]

The Founders disagreed about the role of the the militia, but I have not been given a single example of one who advocated letting the federal government disarm individual citizens. Not one. And I''ve seen many writings from the founders and their contemporaries who say that the 2nd Amendment _is_ about a right of individuals to own and carry personal firearms (and swords).

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.

[closethippy1]

Posted by tootall10142 at 07:21 AM : Jun 30, 2008

Stop pretending you''re a hero, you loser. Making things up just to make a point. Shame on you.

[tootall10142]

Once again here we go with the never ending argument.I was attacked by a man high on meth it was costly mistake for me and a fatal one for him and part of the reason ican no l;onger work not by choice the doctors and the a.l.j.sent me to the teepee because i suffered a severe blow to the head and osha says because of this i could no longer be 100 percent at my tradeand was too old to reducate yes you read that right too old to reducate.with out my side arm it would not have mattered the drug would have taken another person by proxy.yes they can have my gun but i have another and think i will go purchase a few more this december when they go on sell. i will need them when all the anti-gun folks need some one to help them i will be prepared to defend my brothers and sisters.i hope no one is ever forced to take another life outside the realm of battle.but there is one less crank head coming down the hiway toward you and your children think about it.

[closethippy1]

If every American was to be disarmed and the only ones to have guns are criminals the number of gun deaths would be a fraction of what it is today.
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.

[floydzepp2]

Posted by closethippy1 at 06:13 AM : Jun 30, 2008

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!!!!

[terrorislami]

Posted by closethippy1 at 06:13 AM : Jun 30, 2008

the usa is not a theocracy nancy,,,

never has been,,,

[closethippy1]

Never mind the Constituion. How about the Bible? In it God says it''s perfectly OK to, for example, kill your own children if they disrespect you.
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.

[stubbyjr]

For years I watched CBS News and still do. I watched Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather every night almost like a religion. As I grew up though, I also realized that maybe they weren''t actually telling the whole truth about some stories they did on the evening news, especially about guns. After I realized that I would laugh and make fun of most of their biased stories that were trying to promote gun control laws that this news outlet thought was in the countries best interest. I would also laugh on Election Day when those politicians who would believe those stories that this network produced go down to defeat time after time. From Walter Mondale to Michael Dukakis to Al Gore to John Kerry and maybe now even Barack Obama, the gun control issue has hurt the Democratic Party, badly. I wonder since the Supreme Court has decided on what the second amendment means; was the tens of thousands of hours of pro gun control stories this network expended on this lost cause and the many politicians political graves that lie at the feet of Miss Liberty all worth it?

[patriot12436]

sista-tee
It may still happen but i do not see it happening with any humor.

[patriot12436]

chiefsfan-10
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.