- Jun 25, 2007
I don't own one, may be in the near future!... Anyway, what's your take on this turning point lawsuit?!
Source link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23688073?GT1=43001
Supreme Court considers 'right to bear arms'
Justices set to mull gun rights
Landmark case on D.C. ban expected to have major ramifications
MSNBC News Services
WASHINGTON - In a landmark hearing on gun ownership, 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 Columbias 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.
Justice Samuel Alito, who like Roberts was appointed by President Bush, cited another provision requiring rifles or shotguns be kept unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock, and said it did not seem as if they could be used as such for the self-defense of ones home.
The courts four liberals seemed most sympathetic to the law during the arguments. Justice Stephen Breyer suggested that the Districts 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.
Bush administration sides with partial bans
Solicitor General Paul Clement, the Bush administrations 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.
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 individuals right to own guns or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
The 27 words and three enigmatic commas of the Second Amendment have been analyzed again and again by legal scholars, but hardly at all by the Supreme Court.
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.
The court's ruling, expected by the end of June, could have a far-reaching impact on gun-control laws in the United States and could become an issue in the November election.
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 terrorists 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 courts first extensive examination of the Second Amendment since 1939 grew out of challenge to the Districts ban.
Anise Jenkins, president of a coalition called Stand Up for Democracy in D.C., defended the districts 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.
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 Districts 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 administrations 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 individuals 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.
Roberts said at his confirmation hearing that the correct reading of the Second Amendment was still very much an open issue.
The arguments follow a series of mass shootings in the past year multiple killings on at least three college campuses, two shopping centers and one Missouri town meeting. Gun deaths average 80 a day in the United States, 34 of them homicides, according to Centers for Disease Control data.
The case has split the Bush administration.
Solicitor General Paul Clement, the administration's chief advocate before the Supreme Court, has adopted the position that individuals have a right to own a gun, but it is subject to reasonable government regulation.