Supreme Court considers 'right to bear arms'

[TJ Phaserman 2]

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court considers a landmark legal battle over gun rights Tuesday, taking up for the first time in decades whether Americans have the right to keep and bear arms.

 

In a major case over the meaning of the Second Amendment, a Washington security guard who wants to keep handguns at home for protection is challenging the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban as a violation of his constitutional rights. A federal appeals court in Washington agreed that the city cannot ban handguns.

 

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments Tuesday in perhaps the most closely watched case of the term. It drew 68 briefs from outside groups, most opposed to the ban, and people began lining up Sunday for a chance to watch the proceedings.

 

The court has not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment in the 216 years since its ratification. The basic issue for the justices is whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

 

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."

 

But *Richard* Anthony Heller, 65, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for self-defense. His lawyers say the amendment plainly protects an individual's right.

 

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.

 

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 Supreme Court's last review of the Second Amendment came in a five-page discussion in an opinion issued in 1939 that failed to definitively resolve the constitutional 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.

 

 

Clement, who is arguing before the justices, seeks to preserve all of the current federal restrictions, including a ban on new machine gun sales, a ban on felons owning guns and required background checks for new buyers of handguns.

 

But Vice President *Richard* Cheney joined a group of U.S. House of Representatives and Senate members in urging the court to adopt a stronger stand in favor of gun rights.

 

Walter Dellinger, the attorney defending the Washington law, argued the Second Amendment protected only militia-related firearms rights.

 

But even if an individual has the right to possess guns, the law should be upheld as a reasonable restriction, he said.

 

The third attorney scheduled to appear at the arguments, Alan Gura, said the law should be struck down. He represents Heller, who lives in a high-crime neighborhood.

[Itchygomba69 0]

I think we all have the right to bare arms, I mean it will be too hot to wear long sleeve shirts all the time

[Kor37 9]

Whats so wacky about this story?...

[Itchygomba69 0]

Whats so wacky about this story?...

the goverment is forcing you to wear long sleeve shirts, thats wacky! LOL

[Theunicornhunter 2]

Whats so wacky about this story?...

 

I actually think it is downright scary - I don't personally care for guns - and I'm not opposed to certain types of regulation - like keeping them away from people with serious mental illness or a history of violence. But if the city of DC prevails on their argument (that only militias have the right to be armed) it could have serious consequences.

[ussvwbeetle 0]

The way I see it is that as long as a person is mentally stable and has common sense, then they have all the right in the world to own a gun, for self defense. Take that guy in Texas who shot the two or three thieves who were robbing his neighbors house. If it wasn't for his weapon, they could of gotten away. As long as there is a way to monitor the movement of weapons, it would be a lot easier to control violence. Remeber, guns don't kill people, people do.

[Lady Britannia 0]

"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."

 

It's the words "well regulated militia" that needs to be looked at.

 

My interpretation is that the right of Americans to keep and bear arms comes with the proviso of being part of an organised militia.

 

The main areas of debate IMO fall into the following catagories.

 

1- What does the text mean by "militia?"

 

2- What dodes the text mean by "well-regulated?"

 

3- What did those terms mean when the amendment was written?

 

4- What do those terms mean today?

 

5- Which definition will the Supreme Court side with?

[TJ Phaserman 2]

1- What does the text mean by "militia?"

 

i believe the next best thing is the united states national guard

[KIMIMELA 1]

You Americans never cease to amaze me

[TJ Phaserman 2]

like you brits never cease to amaze me. blowing prince harry's cover...clever. j/k, it's not directed at you personally cara. so im sorry in advance.

Edited March 18, 2008 by tj_hawk

[Wishfire 2]

[Lady Britannia 0]

1- What does the text mean by "militia?"

 

i believe the next best thing is the united states national guard

 

If that's true, then it could be that the framers intended for the people of the United States to keep and bear arms only if they were a part of an organised National Guard. I think it's all besides the point anyway. Americans will never give up their weapons and I think it's unlikely they'd be willing to join the National Guard in order to keep them.

 

like you brits never cease to amaze me. blowing prince harry's cover...clever. j/k, it's not directed at you personally cara. so im sorry in advance.

 

The story about Prince Harry in Afghanistan was blown by Matt Drudge, an American website operator.

 

The British press maintained a 100% blackout on the story.

[Wishfire 2]

like you brits never cease to amaze me. blowing prince harry's cover...clever. j/k, it's not directed at you personally cara. so im sorry in advance.

 

The story about Prince Harry in Afghanistan was blown by Matt Drudge, an American website operator.

 

The British press maintained a 100% blackout on the story.

 

The Drudge Report article you make reference to was published on Feb. 28. The Australian magazine New Idea published Prince Harry's military status on Jan. 7, well over a month before the Drudge Report.

[mj 7]

DC needs that gun law. It's crazy enough, but if the police do not have something that allows them to seize guns from criminals, then the criminals will take over.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

DC needs that gun law. It's crazy enough, but if the police do not have something that allows them to seize guns from criminals, then the criminals will take over.

 

I think commiting a crime pretty much gives police officers the right to take your gun away - particularly when they arrest you. And criminals in DC still have guns regardless of the law - it's law abiding citizens who are without the means to protect themselves that is the focus of this case.

[Lady Britannia 0]

like you brits never cease to amaze me. blowing prince harry's cover...clever. j/k, it's not directed at you personally cara. so im sorry in advance.

 

The story about Prince Harry in Afghanistan was blown by Matt Drudge, an American website operator.

 

The British press maintained a 100% blackout on the story.

 

The Drudge Report article you make reference to was published on Feb. 28. The Australian magazine New Idea published Prince Harry's military status on Jan. 7, well over a month before the Drudge Report.

 

Yes, but the Australian story passed without much notice.

 

It was the Drudge Report which gained the most attention. They picked up the story and posted it online.

[Wishfire 2]

like you brits never cease to amaze me. blowing prince harry's cover...clever. j/k, it's not directed at you personally cara. so im sorry in advance.

 

The story about Prince Harry in Afghanistan was blown by Matt Drudge, an American website operator.

 

The British press maintained a 100% blackout on the story.

 

The Drudge Report article you make reference to was published on Feb. 28. The Australian magazine New Idea published Prince Harry's military status on Jan. 7, well over a month before the Drudge Report.

 

Yes, but the Australian story passed without much notice.

 

It was the Drudge Report which gained the most attention. They picked up the story and posted it online.

 

That's because for some reason everyone pays attention to the American publications. If people payed attention to Australian journalism (or European, since the German publication "Bild" also reported on Prince Harry in Afghanistan before Drudge did), Drudge's report on the situation would've been mostly overlooked as old news.