Supreme Court: Handgun Ban Unconstitutional

(CBS)  In some cities plagued by gun violence, the solution was to ban the guns. But that didn't stop the gunfire.

Chicago resident Otis McDonald challenged that city's handgun ban, saying he needed to protect himself.

"If I see innocent and law-abiding citizens on the streets with guns, I'll be safe," said McDonald. "I'll feel safe because they're not going out there breaking the law."

Today the Court said a complete ban on handguns is unconstitutional, ruling individuals have a fundamental right to protect themselves, reports CBS News chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford.

The case split the Court sharply along conservative and liberal lines.

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito reaffirmed a decision two years ago that the Constitution's Second Amendment protects an individual's right to "keep and bear arms" for self defense. That decision struck down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban.

But today's decision resolved a huge question: Did that landmark decision to other cities and states, or only to Washington DC?

The Court settled it today: The Second Amendment, Alito wrote, "applies equally to the federal government and the states."

Retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, in his last day on the Court, said in dissent, that the ruling would prove "destructive…to our nation's communities and to our constitutional structure."

The ruling was a victory for the NRA, which has fought for decades to establish a constitutional right to own guns.

"It's a vindication for the great majority of Americans all across this land," said NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre.

But the Court emphasized the right was not absolute. Cities and states can pass reasonable restrictions on gun ownership.

"We feel confident that communities and states will be able to decide things now to keep their communities safe," said Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

But even though today's ruling says cities and states can't ban handguns outright, today's ruling is certain to lead to more lawsuits over exactly what kind of restrictions they can impose.

[RatPackSixGun]

Meet the plaintiffs:

http://www.chicagoguncase.com/about-us/meet-the-plaintiffs/

All you hysterical liberals gnashing your teeth over this ruling go ahead and tell Colleen Lawson and her friends why her possessing a handgun is unacceptable under the 2nd amendment.

Oh that's right, it isn't! Thank God this went through the Supreme Court before we load the bench up with yet another wild-eyed liberal judicial activist.

[Hooplahpro]

I bet the anti-gun Boxer, Feinstein, Pelosi, and Waxman in California are just livid per the MacDonald vrs Chicago ruling. Now they'll have to let you own a Ruger LCP which, among hundreds of weapons legal in other states, was not approved for sale in CA. The reasons were because it does not have a magazine disconnect (used to ban most semi-auto pistols in CA) and a loaded chamber indicator (actually it does, just not a specific mechanical one). Oh well, it doesn't look too good for their re-election anyway. Maybe after November some common sense will finally arrive in a land besieged by chaos.

[bra1sinha]

Countries, States, municipalities around the world outlawing guns have above average statistics as regards "intent to disarm" citizens. Chicago, Rio de Janeiro, Cairo, Kabul to name a few, come to mind. Crimes of passion, committed with hammers, chain saws, knives, forks, chains, rocks, etc., also subject to "controls?"
Can't have it both ways.
"Good fellas" preferred method of enforcement was the baseball bat, going to control that, too?
Education, training, practice, teaching, are tools to for a "gentile" citizenry to defend itself.

[davidjo12]

I really don't see the problem. The court has ruled. If you don't agree with the constitution amend it. That is the way it is supposed to work. The constitution is clear and I applaud the supreme court for finally learning how to read. Also, aren't registration fees associated with a basic right illegal and amount to no less than poll tax for exercising ones right to vote?

[MNBantisbanned]

I would go with removing the trigger finger of anybody found in the possession of a gun legal or otherwise. I think a law like this would have a profound impact on violence and crime at a minimal cost.

[KrieDubya]

And while we're at it remove the uterus of anyone who has an abortion. Turn homosexuals into Eunuchs. It doesn't matter if it's legal. I don't like it.

[nyctuber1]

@Rob459

I re-read your comment. Your argument is a dog chasing it's tail. The 14th Amendment guaranteed freed slaves equal protection and due process of Law. What you missed is the fact that the 2nd Amendment sets the ground rules for Constitutional gun rights. Again, the 2nd Amendment refers to militias, and defending the STATE. This twisted decision by the Supreme Court obliterates/ entirely ignores that simple fact. They're pretending it's still the 18th Century.

[jamesfalero]

@nyctuber1

Your conclusion about the 2nd amendement only applying to militias and states, is incorrect. Clearly your not aware of history, specifically what "militia" meant during the formative years of the U.S.

Interpreting the Second Amendment in its proper context clearly designates it as an individual right. Amendments in the Bill of Rights besides the Second use the same language ? phrase ?the right of the people? or ?the people? ? to recognize the natural, individual rights of the citizenry.

The Constitution and its first ten Amendments were not written and agreed upon in a hurried or ill-considered fashion. Every article, section, paragraph, line, and word was debated ad nauseum. If the Second Amendment was meant as collective recognition, the language would have been along the lines of ?each State shall have?? The Tenth Amendment, for instance, deliberately uses the distinguishing language ??reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.? If the Second Amendment only applies to a state?s right to regulate its own militia then this would be the only instance in the Bill of Rights where that language or phrase peculiarly and ambiguously deals with a state right.

All other interpretations positing only the collective right, twist the argument by failing to look at the historical context of the language involved in the amendments.

[KrieDubya]

Actually it says in order to preserve a well regulated militia, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. In other words, if you get drafted, you're better off if you know how to shoot.

[nyctuber1]

@WereScrewedForSure

Slavery isn't the issue. It's an allegorical non-literal allusion to how illogical the Right Wing is. Gays want equal rights, something that actually IS guaranteed by the Constitution.

@Rob459

Semantics and absurdist technicalities aside, the idea of being in a militia in order to defend the STATE is beyond antiquated. No one in the gun fight has ever, or will ever, want guns in order to, as stated in the Constitution, defend the STATE. As for slavery, why is it conservatives can never comprehend sarcasm used to make a point about the illogical extremist nature of the Right Wing...

[KrieDubya]

"Gays want equal rights, something that actually IS guaranteed by the Constitution." So is the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Our forefathers added this provision so the people could protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. The Second Amendment is THE amendment that allows us to preserve our way of life. The first one states our rights, the second one assures that we maintain them.

[KrieDubya]

And the militia isn't to defend the state, it's to defend the people. Being responsible for your own well being isn't antiquated, though liberals have done their best to give up that responsibility to the Federal Government. The constitution was written "By the people, for the people" not by the Government to control the people.

[GoodBadUgly23]

Know what every government official has in common that say Otis should not have a gun? They all say this from inside government buildings where they protect themselves with armed personnel.

[CBSTV]

I would agree it is okay to possess deadly weapons *provided* the country has strict laws against killing people (under virtually any circumstance).

[KrieDubya]

Which it does. So what's the problem? I am sure you are against the death penalty, so life in prison is the worst punishment possible which is the what you get for murder in the first degree.

[ResponsibleGunOwner]

sorry i said 60%, i meant 40%....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm

either way, your "statistics" are nowhere near accurate....