Justices agree on right to own guns

[HelioPrime]

Justices agree on right to own guns - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON - Americans have a right to own guns, Supreme Court justices declared Tuesday in a historic and lively debate that could lead to the most significant interpretation of the Second Amendment since its ratification two centuries ago. ADVERTISEMENT Governments have a right to regulate those firearms, a majority of justices seemed to agree. But there was less apparent agreement on the case they were arguing: whether Washington's ban on handguns goes too far. The justices dug deeply into arguments on one of the Constitution's most hotly debated provisions as demonstrators shouted slogans outside. Guns are an American right, argued one side. "Guns kill," responded the other. Inside the court, at the end of a session extended long past the normal one hour, a majority of justices appeared ready to say that Americans have a "right to keep and bear arms" that goes beyond the amendment's reference to service in a militia. Several justices were openly skeptical that the District of Columbia's 32-year-old handgun ban, perhaps the strictest in the nation, could survive under that reading of the Constitution. "What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked. Walter Dellinger, representing the district, replied that Washington residents could own rifles and shotguns and could use them for protection at home. "What is reasonable about a total ban on possession is that it's a ban only on the possession of one kind of weapon, of handguns, that's considered especially dangerous," Dellinger said. Justice Stephen Breyer appeared reluctant to second-guess local officials. Is it "unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate ... to say no handguns here?" Breyer asked. Alan Gura, representing a Washington resident who challenged ban, said, "It's unreasonable and it fails any standard of review." The court has not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. 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 basic issue for the justices is whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia. A key justice, Anthony Kennedy, seemed to settle that question early on when he said the Second Amendment gives "a general right to bear arms." He is likely to be joined by Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — a majority of the nine-member court.

I'm guessing this only sets a precedent now? So the gun ban opponents still will have to take the issue to the court.

Sad thou. If only the need for guns could be banned universally for all non uniformed citizens. Instead we allow the rights to own them and thus create the need to own them for protection as well.

[tivodan1116]

What clown wrote this article? Judges regularly ask questions that might or might not be indicative of their opinion on the topic. A lot can happen between oral argument and a written decision, and what they said at oral arguments today by no means tells us how the decision will come down.

Quote by: HelioPrime I'm guessing this only sets a precedent now? So the gun ban opponents still will have to take the issue to the court.

This sets nothing now. If, when they publish a written opinion, they rule against the ban, the law is overturned. The opponents need do nothing else. At this point it is up to the Court.

Sad thou. If only the need for guns could be banned universally for all non uniformed citizens. Instead we allow the rights to own them and thus create the need to own them for protection as well.

Huh? What kind of logic is this? Very few crimes are committed with lawfully owned guns, so how does a legal or illegal status affect that? "Allow[ing] the rights to own [guns]" has nothing to do with whether or not they are used in crimes. Take it from someone with graduate-level study in Criminology - if a criminal doesn't mind committing crime, he certainly doesn't mind if the gun he uses in that crime is illegal.

Furthermore, the right was not intended for protection against crime, it was intended primarily from protection against tyrannical government. Regardless of how effective such protection would be against today's tyrannical government, that was clearly the original intent.

[Halofan48]

IMO, we should use non lethal weapons instead. Great stopping power, not nearly as deadly.

[The Dunedan]

Really?

Tazers: Limited range of only 20-30 feet. Probes may be defeated by heavy clothing. One-shot affair.

Stunguns: Require the user to be at contact range with an opponent who may be larger, stronger, or armed. This places the person defending their life at a disadvantage.

Pepper-spray: Very limited range, frequently stored in a container which can easily be fired in reverse by accident. Furthermore, people can build up immunity to the spray. Furthermore -yet-, it does not instantly incapacitate the attacker and leaves him able to strike back, if only in blind fury.

Sticks: Requires considerable strength to use well, very limited range.

Martial-arts: Takes years to become proficient and requires the defender to be in actual physical contact with the attacker.

Firearms: Allow the user to strike an incapacitating blow from a safe distance, multiple-use in case of more than one attacker or need for a follow-up on a miss, cannot be stopped by clothing (vests aside, obviously), and have no batteries to go dead or cylinder of compressed gas to get a leak. The batteries on my Makarov can't go dead because it doesn't have any, and the ammo will still go "bang" if I leave it in a drawer for the next half-century.

Less-Lethal weapons most certainly do not have "great" stopping power in a life-threatening situation. The sole exception to this appears to be the newer EMD-type Tazers, which have been strongly alleged to be responsible for over 140 deaths (almost all in Police custody). It remains, however, a one-shot weapon with limited range and therefore is unsuitable for serious consideration as a primary civilian self-defense tool.

[Tycoon]

What clown wrote this article? Judges regularly ask questions that might or might not be indicative of their opinion on the topic. A lot can happen between oral argument and a written decision, and what they said at oral arguments today by no means tells us how the decision will come down.

Either way it makes interesting news. It just made the front page of Yahoo, at least.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Tivodan Huh? What kind of logic is this? Very few crimes are committed with lawfully owned guns, so how does a legal or illegal status affect that?

Because all illegal guns begin as legal guns, Tivo. In a country where guns are so incredibly prolific, anyone can get them if they want them, legally or otherwise. And this difinitely includes legal gun manufacturers who profiteer by selling guns in mass, directly or indirectly, to criminals, and why we should be able to sue them for it.

How many gun crimes were committed because guns were so available? And how many non-criminals became criminals because guns were so available?

Quote by: Tivodan Furthermore, the right was not intended for protection against crime, it was intended primarily from protection against tyrannical government.

Oh stop it, please! This is a romantic notion that existed in the minds of the Founders still giddy with the success of their own revolution by citizen soldiers, and their desire that the country should continue to be defended by citizen soldiers. The civil war put that silly notion to rest, and today, against the most powerful military the world has even known, the notion of armed citizens overthrowing the American government is a ridiculous libertarian wet dream.

The only reason you'all keep clinging to that silly notion is that it sounds far more respectable than "we don't care how violent our nation has become, we like having our guns and we wanna keep 'em!"

Quote by: HelioPrime I'm guessing this only sets a precedent now? So the gun ban opponents still will have to take the issue to the court.

The precedent has been set and reset since the Miller decision in 1939, and affirmed and expanded upon by the majority of Federal Circuit Courts. The Heller v DC decision is the anomoly to those decisions, which is exactly why it ended up before the High Court and why so much is at stake. When the NRA and gun advocates go on about our "constitutional right to bear arms", they've been lying to us for the last 70 years. By the current law of the land, we have no such individual right.

And Tivo is right... absolutely nothing has been decided, although given the conservative nature of the Bush Court I fully expect Miller to be over-turned.

Having said that, what stood out in the article for me was the Court's seemingly desperate desire to find some way of making a decision that changes nothing, except the DC ban, and pretty much maintains the current status quo... meaning a decision that allows Congress and states to pass gun control laws - short of banning them altogether - while still allowing people to say they have an individual right to keep and bear arms.

.

[Roxdog]

Quote by: HelioPrime Sad thou. If only the need for guns could be banned universally for all non uniformed citizens. Instead we allow the rights to own them and thus create the need to own them for protection as well.

The only thing that is sad here is your opinion. You believe in a power monopoly of the state. It would be pretty difficult for you to be any more naive. The 2nd Amendment doesn't create crime, as you pathetically attempt to assert. It is because crime exists that makes the 2nd Amendment imperative, not the other way around...

Come and get them, Bootlickers....

[Roxdog]

Because all illegal guns begin as legal guns

False.

How many gun crimes were committed because guns were so available?

Statistically, very few. Why does crime skyrocket whenever guns are banned?

And how many non-criminals became criminals because guns were so available?

No way to really know but probably very little. Inanimate objects don't magically turn law abiding people into murderers. Your silly fantasy world has little to do with reality...

[Roxdog]

Quote by: Halofan48 IMO, we should use non lethal weapons instead. Great stopping power, not nearly as deadly.

Right....I should sell my guns and trade them in for a tazer to defend myself against crack heads with guns. That makes total sense....

[Roxdog]

Oh stop it, please! This is a romantic notion that existed in the minds of the Founders still giddy with the success of their own revolution by citizen soldiers

Um, you need to go back to school and take US History 101. Writing the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights was basically a suicide pact when it was written. The so-called "revolution" barely existed at that point and any semblance of "success" was a half decade away....

Just admit it....you're clueless.

the notion of armed citizens overthrowing the American government is a ridiculous libertarian wet dream.

Actually, that is simply your ridiculous straw man. Your demented world view makes it necessary for you to employ them.

No one is talking about "overthrowing" the current govt. There is nothing unreasonable about law-abiding persons having the ability to defened themselves....unless your a socialist bootlicker.

[Roxdog]

The precedent has been set and reset since the Miller decision in 1939, and affirmed and expanded upon by the majority of Federal Circuit Courts. The Heller v DC decision is the anomoly to those decisions, which is exactly why it ended up before the High Court and why so much is at stake. When the NRA and gun advocates go on about our "constitutional right to bear arms", they've been lying to us for the last 70 years. By the current law of the land, we have no such individual right.

It is an individual right. The Bill of Rights are individual rights. Facts. Funny how you get to decide which decisions are the "anomolies" and which ones aren't...

(cough, cough).....Fascist.....(cough)....

Almost EVERY state constitution proves this. They all go on to elaborate on the 2nd Amendment and it's meaning. No need to appointed men in drag to "interpret" what is written in plain English.

Please take your socialist "wet dream" somewhere else, thanks...

[Nono]

Quote by: roxdog It is an individual right.

One-man militias, roxy?

Fascist

Nobody likes guns better than a full-blooded fascist.

[Technosoul]

At any rate the people won in the lower courts over the DC law.

I did not see or know anything about a Supreme Court determination as yet.

[Halofan48]

Quote by: Roxdog Statistically, very few. Why does crime skyrocket whenever guns are banned?

please provide these statistics and links to them.

Meanwhile, will someone please provide the statistics of homicide rates in countries where guns have been banned.

Um, you need to go back to school and take US History 101. Writing the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights was basically a suicide pact when it was written. The so-called "revolution" barely existed at that point and any semblance of "success" was a half decade away....

Yes, the Declaration was signed about 7 years before the treaty of Paris. Still, We must consider main issues. Back when the second amendment was written, the U.S. was very vulnerable to European attack and needed citizen militia. Also, the reload times for all of these weapons were long. Compare this to today. We no have one of the strongest, if not the strongest, military in the world. Also, the normal handgun of today is more powerful and accurate then the rifles during the revolution. A pistol has multiple shots in a short amount of time.

Now if we spent the same amount of time and money developing Non-lethal weapons, we could probably make a multiple shot weapon with a good sized range that would repel criminals.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Sonart Because all illegal guns begin as legal guns. Quote by: Roxdog False.

Really? Care to give me an example of an illegal gun manufacturer?

Quote by: Roxdog Statistically, very few. Why does crime skyrocket whenever guns are banned?

Who says they do? Gun loons made a big deal about how gun crime in Texas dropped 30% in the '90s after Texas passed liberal carry laws... or something to that affect. What they failed to mention was that gun crime also dropped 30% nationwide!

Then there's the futility of passing gun control in one state that borders another that has next to none.

But more than anything there's this simple fact... among the world's wealthy, democratic nations, nearly all of whom - unlike the United States - maintain strict gun control, the U.S. is the most violent civilized nation on earth. Proud of that distinction, are ya?

Quote by: Roxdog No way to really know but probably very little. Inanimate objects don't magically turn law abiding people into murderers.

Guns just make it really, really easy. A gun is not just a tool... it is a WEAPON! It is invented, designed and built to do one thing... easily and quickly kill from a distance. Therefore it makes anyone carrying a gun infinitely more capable of killing, no matter how strongly or marginally motivated they are, with just a few ounces of trigger pull.

Quote by: Roxdog Your silly fantasy world has little to do with reality...

Really? What have I said here that's wrong? Guns aren't weapons invented and designed to kill from a distance, which make it so easy to do so that two small, pre-teen boys could kill 5 people and wound 10 from 200 feet away?

Quote by: Roxdog Writing the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights was basically a suicide pact when it was written. The so-called "revolution" barely existed at that point and any semblance of "success" was a half decade away.... Just admit it....you're clueless.

Who's clueless??

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights was written nearly10 years after the American Revolution. The Declaration of Independence was a pre-revolution list of grievances, an international PR document, and mentions nothing about any right to bear arms.

Quote by: Roxdog No one is talking about "overthrowing" the current govt. There is nothing unreasonable about law-abiding persons having the ability to defened themselves....unless your a socialist bootlicker.

Really? Then what the hell are they talking about when they say things like, "the right was not intended for protection against crime, it was intended primarily from protection against tyrannical government." A bunch of libertarians are going to march on Washington, wave their guns around in an angry but peaceful manner, and the mean 'ol tyrannical government will promptly run away to Canada?

When someone says that being 'armed' is a defense ones own government, the obvious implication has to be the intent to use those guns in an armed insurrection to throw off that government. And NO government is going to allow an armed insurrection against themselves. Period.

For all their romantic belief in an armed citizenry as a defense against tyranny, none of the Founding Fathers, when each of them became President, would have allowed an armed rebellion against THEIR government to succeed. And in 1861 we found out just how far the government would go to prevent such an armed rebellion from succeeding. 600,000 dead.

Quote by: Roxdog It is an individual right. The Bill of Rights are individual rights. Facts. Funny how you get to decide which decisions are the "anomolies" and which ones aren't...

I don't decide anything... the US Supreme Court and "such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish" do. And until Heller, only the 5th Circuit Court in Texas (go figure ) agreed with you. The Supeme Court and the various Circuit Courts of Appeal agreed that the 2nd Amendment is a "Collective Right" only, based on the necessity of maintaining a well-regulated militia.

For example...

United States v. Rybar, 3rd Circuit Court -- "Nonetheless, Rybar attempts to place himself within the penumbra of membership in the "militia" specified by the Second Amendment by quoting from 10 U.S.C. section 311(a):

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in
section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are ...
citizens of the United States....

Rybar's invocation of this statute does nothing to establish that his firearm possession bears a reasonable relationship to "the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," as required in Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, 59 S.Ct. at 818. Nor can claimed membership in a hypothetical or "sedentary" militia suffice. See United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016, 1020 (8th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 997, 113 S.Ct. 1614, 123 L.Ed.2d 174 (1993); United States v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384, 387 (10th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 926, 98 S.Ct. 1493, 55 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978); United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 948, 96 S.Ct. 3168, 49 L.Ed.2d 1185 (1976).Rybar boldly asserts that "the Miller Court was quite simply wrong in its superficial (and one-sided) analysis of the Second Amendment." Brief of Appellant at 27. As one of the inferior federal courts subject to the Supreme Court's precedents, we have neither the license nor the inclination to engage in such freewheeling presumptuousness. In any event, this court has on several occasions emphasized that the Second Amendment furnishes no absolute right to firearms."

Love v. Pepersack, 4th Circuit Court -- "In 1939, the Supreme Court held that the federal statute prohibiting possession of a sawed-off shotgun was constitutional, because the defendant had not shown that his possession of such a gun bore a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939).

Since then, the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment preserves a collective, rather than individual, right. Love has likewise not identified how her possession of a handgun will preserve or insure the effectiveness of the militia."

United States v. Warin, 6th Circuit Court -- "Agreeing as we do with the conclusion in Cases v. United States, supra, that the Supreme Court did not lay down a general rule in Miller, we consider the present case on its own facts and in light of applicable authoritative decisions. It is clear that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right. In Stevens v. United States, 440 F.2d 144, 149 (6th Cir. 1971), this court held, in a case challenging the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a)(1):"


Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 7th Circuit Court -- "Although the limited nature of the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment may not deprive Gillespie of standing, it does foretell the outcome of his challenge. For Gillespie has not convinced us that he can demonstrate a "reasonable relationship" between his own inability to carry a firearm and "the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, 59 S. Ct. at 818. Because Gillespie has no reasonable prospect of being able to demonstrate such a nexus between the firearms disability imposed by the statute and the operation of state militias, Judge Barker was right to dismiss his Second Amendment claim."

United States v. Hale, 8th Circuit Court -- [I"Since the Miller decision, no federal court has found any individual's possession of a military weapon to be "reasonably related to a well regulated militia." "Technical" membership in a state militia (e.g., membership in an "unorganized" state militia) or membership in a non-governmental military organization is not sufficient to satisfy the "reasonable relationship" test. Oakes, 564 F.2d at 387. Membership in a hypothetical or "sedentary" militia is likewise insufficient. See Warin, 530 F.2d 103.

Applying these principles to the present case, we conclude that Hale's possession of the weapons in question was not reasonably related to the preservation of a well regulated militia. The allegation by Hale that these weapons are susceptible to military use is insufficient to establish such a relationship. Hale introduced no evidence and made no claim of even the most tenuous relationship between his possession of the weapons and the preservation of a well regulated militia."[/i]

Silviera v. Lockyer, 9th Circuit Court -- "Because the Second Amendment affords only a collective right to own or possess guns or other firearms, the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' Second Amendment claims is AFFIRMED. . . . The constitutional challenges to the validity of the California Assault Weapons Control Act are all rejected, with the exception of the claim relating to the retired officers provision."

Got any other clever ways of demonstrating your ignorance, Roxdog?

Quote by: Roxdog (cough, cough).....Fascist.....(cough)....

Ah, yes, apparently you do. Godwin's Law.

Quote by: Roxdog Almost EVERY state constitution proves this.

So? I beleive the U.S. Constitution trumps State Constitutions.


.

[Halofan48]

Boy shoots sister over bag of potato chips

one case of a child misusing a gun.

4 year old kills 5 year old sister

sad :(

Boy accidentally shot sister in chest

As you can see, having a gun to "protect" yourself, could result in your child getting shot. These were on the first 5 sites i checked. (the other two had these: a repeat article of the first, and the other i couldn't get to.

heres a few more articles:
Grandfather devastated
another gun wound...

[The Dunedan]

This is why I don't usually argue from the Constitution, marvelous as it is. Legalistic arguments permit legalistic defeats. I've long ago given up trying to convince Sonart Et Al.

My argument is this: I am not hurting anyone. I have never harmed anyone by my ownership and use of firearms. Unless someone aggresses against me, I never will. Try to disarm me, and I will shoot you. Send someone else, and I will shoot him and -then- shoot you, if I can. If in the process someone manages to kill me, he's welcome to do so. I'll hardly mind, and any country along the lines Sonart Et Al propose is hardly a place I'd want to breathe the air of anyway. But any such incident will end very, -very- nastily. Bring friends. Bring bodybags. You'll need plenty of both.

And there are a -lot- of people like me out there. In Iraq, 20-40,000 insurgents have fought the U.S. & Co. to a virtual standstill for five years. The American Insurgency would number a minimum of 850,000 people (1% of all gunowners, a highly conservative estimate IMO).

Sonart, unless you are personally comfortable with killing or imprisoning a minimum of 850,000 people, piss off. I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea of center-punching anyone who comes through my door with the intent of disarming me. Unless you're willing to look me in the eyes and pull the trigger yourself, you're nothing but a puling coward who sends thugs with badges to do his dirty work and keep his hands clean. So either admit you're fine with killing an otherwise harmless man, or just drop it. My gun is on the table, so to speak. You hide yours behind "laws" and fancy language, but it's there all the same. At least I acknowledge mine and what it stands for and means: you expect us all to look the other way and refrain from noticing yours. No thanks; looking away makes it too easy for you.

[Halofan48]

My argument is this: I am not hurting anyone. I have never harmed anyone by my ownership and use of firearms. Unless someone aggresses against me, I never will. Try to disarm me, and I will shoot you. Send someone else, and I will shoot him and -then- shoot you, if I can. If in the process someone manages to kill me, he's welcome to do so. I'll hardly mind, and any country along the lines Sonart Et Al propose is hardly a place I'd want to breathe the air of anyway. But any such incident will end very, -very- nastily. Bring friends. Bring bodybags. You'll need plenty of both.

Letting people with that sort of mindset is unacceptable. So, tell em, if you have a gun, and a cop tries to get that gun away from you, you are going to try and shoot him. I really hope you don't own a gun.

[The Dunedan]

I own a great many guns, none of which have ever to my knowledge been fired in anger. God willing, they never will be. But yes: anyone who comes to disarm me for no other reason than that I own a firearm will be shot. Repeatedly, if both possible and proper. I am no thief, rapist, or murderer. I have done nothing to warrant aggression. As a consequence, aggression against me will be resisted, by physical force if needed. And anyone who wants to disarm you has probably got something in mind which he knows will put you in a mind to resist, and simply wishes to remove the means of your so doing.

So tell me: are -you- willing to pull the triggers and send bullets into 850,000+ thinking, feeling, harmless people who have done you no wrong? No? Then shut up, coward.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: The Dunedan I own a great many guns, none of which have ever to my knowledge been fired in anger. God willing, they never will be. But yes: anyone who comes to disarm me for no other reason than that I own a firearm will be shot. Repeatedly, if both possible and proper. I am no thief, rapist, or murderer. I have done nothing to warrant aggression. As a consequence, aggression against me will be resisted, by physical force if needed. And anyone who wants to disarm you has probably got something in mind which he knows will put you in a mind to resist, and simply wishes to remove the means of your so doing. So tell me: are -you- willing to pull the triggers and send bullets into 850,000+ thinking, feeling, harmless people who have done you no wrong? No? Then shut up, coward.

What this means, distilled into realspeake - I am my own law, care nothing for the rule of law and will take whatever action I deem necessary, no matter what the will of the people may be. Screw you and your democratic concepts!

If your right to individually own firearms were to be completely overturned by this court, it would be the ultimate expression of a packed court of likeminded, true believers dragged kicking and screaming into the real world by inescapable facts. For love of country, I might walk into your space unarmed and attempt to remove the gun from your hands using nothing but the physical force I could muster so that you would be forced to shoot an unarmed individual to show the world the full faced ugliness of your own b.s. mental gymnastics. Who's the coward now?