U.S. Supreme Court rules DC gun ban unconstitutional.

[tone]

:wavey:

[Restless28]

They got one right! :supergrin:

[zulu45]

+1 to Restless28. Excellent news!

[tone]

Supreme Court Shoots Down D.C. Gun Ban
Justices Find an Individual Has a Right Own Guns
By ARIANE de VOGUE
June 26, 2008



The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the District of Columbia cannot ban a citizen from keeping a handgun at home, throwing out one of the nation's strictest gun control laws.
SCOTUS / guns
The Supreme Court has overturned Washington, D.C.'s strict gun ban.

The 5-4 decision marks first time the court has ever definitively addressed the issue, which had been one of the great unresolved constitutional questions as experts debated whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and carry a gun, or only a state's right to arm a militia.

While statistics show that overall violent crime numbers are down in most big cities around the country, there has been an increase in crime in Washington DC, Cleveland and Baltimore. In the nation's capital there were 181 murders in 2007.


The issue came to the high court after Washington, D.C., resident Shelly Parker sued the city over its gun control law, which has been in effect since 1976. The law bans handguns and requires shot guns to be locked up.

"The criminals have the guns," Parker argued. "If you are a law-abiding citizen, the law in this city says you do not have a gun."

But the city's mayor, Adrian Fenty, has fought to keep the gun control law on the books. He says tough gun laws are essential in the city, where the crime rate is among the highest in the nation.

"Whatever right the Second Amendment guarantees, it does not require the district to stand by while its citizens die," Fenty said.

There has been a deep split on the issue in lower courts. While a majority of courts have said that the right to bear arms refers in connection to service in a state militia, two federal courts have said the amendment protects an individual's right to keep a gun.

In supporting his gun law the mayor had said "The District of Columbia has too many handguns."

His lawyers argued in court papers that "handguns are the weapon most likely to be used in a street crime. Although only a third of the nation's firearms are handguns, they are responsible for far more killings, woundings and crimes than all other types of firearms combined."

But lawyers opposing the gun ban argued that the city's efforts to fight crime are falling short. In court papers they said that the city "consistently fights to secure its right to stand by while its citizens are victimized by crime."

Recent polls have found that most Americans believe an individual has the right to own a gun. According to Gary Langer, head of the ABC News Polling Unit, "While gun control in general is popular, banning handguns entirely is not; better enforcement is preferred to new legislation; three-quarters believe the Constitution guarantees individuals the right to own guns; and culture get more blame for gun violence than the availability of guns."

Gun's rights advocates will now turn their attention to other cities like Chicago with strict gun control laws and argue that those laws should be overturned as well.

Dennis A. Henigan, of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, says that the "whole purpose of the litigation is to achieve a Supreme Court precedent that they will use to attack many other laws."

"This will inspire years and years of litigation and undercut the network of gun laws," he said.

ABC News' Jason Ryan contributed to this report.

[Branspop]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns

http://www.scotusblog.com/

http://news.yahoo.com/i/701;_ylt=AvDzye9RR38PWmaCBBcwKHyyFz4D

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSWBT00928420080626?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

[Hedo1]

I skimmed over the ruling. It's about 150 pages.

Scalia leaves no doubt that the 2 nd. is an individual right.

Scalia further states that banning a class of weapon that individuals choose to defend themselves with is unconstitutional.

He rips Stevens and the minority a new one with brilliant logic and scathing wit.

I think this was a decisive ruling with further implications. For example in preventing the ban of a "class of weapons" ,in this case hanguns, the ruling could certainly apply to the prevention of any sort of "assault weapon ban". At least I hope it could.

All in all a pretty great day for the good guys.

[zulu45]

To celebrate, I'm gonna go target shooting with my G19. :D

[nick__45]

so can dc people go buy handgun now or this is another wishy washy right such as the right to a fair trial and those other one.

[cloudbuster]

I think, on p. 55 of his opinion, it leaves open the possibility that bans on fully-automatic weapons could be declared unconstitutional. It all hinges on what is in "ordinary use" -- but wouldn't fully-automatic weapons be in ordinary use if they hadn't already been regulated nearly out of existence for civilians? You could build on Miller and say that personal arms used by the military (M9/M4/M16) ought to be allowed to be in ordinary use by citizens.

At the very least I think it does preclude a ban on AR-type rifles as they are very definitely in ordinary use by millions of citizens.

Scalia and crew are not done with this issue. He makes that clear in his closing statement.

[cloudbuster]

I love the line from Justice Stephens' dissent that the media is picking up on: the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”

Well, duh. That's exactly what the entire Constitution is designed to do -- to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate various aspects of the citizens lives.

I cannot believe this man is on the Supreme Court. I'd make a better Supreme Court justice than him.

[srothman]

It is a huge victory for the second amendment supporters. I think that there will need to be several more cases brought to them to define some of the opinions and the clauses.

It read it could be read and interperted to include full auto, and silencers. Someone with the backing is going to have to go through the local courts and get to the SCOTUS, and see what happens.

It is huge victory for the constitution, the second amendment, and people everywhere. It is also going to make any type of assault weapon ban (by our new president) very hard.

[JNKIRK1974]

The people in D.C. can only own revolvers. The mayor and police chief just announced it.
There is also a 21 day registration period, in which the gun owner must register the gun with the city.

You can tell that ALL of these people are pissed about the decision:)

[Highspeedlane]

I'm not sure I wouldn't label this a mixed victory, or "with a catch".

For one, though I'm grateful for the outcome don't get me wrong, I was disappointed in the split. A 5 to 4 to me means that though we can relish a sensible ruling, there remains only one or two liberal appointments between us and a potential reversal down the road pending a new case.

The ruling also left in place the possibility that D.C. can still make the permitting process a grueling one, as they let stand the majority, if not all, of current prohibitions, save for complete 100% banning.

Then there is the question of whether, if at all, any of this can be directly translated to a state issue, which will undoubtedly have to be decided later.

The judicial split in this issue, though completely predictable, indicates that we have still much work to do politically. Our Constitutional framers never placed a footnote on the Bill of Rights to the effect that the liberties enumerated herein may be selectively applied or are revocable based on "evolving social circumstances", yet there are apparently some justices who feel that is the case.

But still, the ruling itself is monumental, and my hat is off the justices who have upheld the honor of our highest court.

[unit1069]

"Whatever right the Second Amendment guarantees, it does not require the district to stand by while its citizens die," Fenty said.

So, Mr. Liberal Mayor, how many people died after your predecessors in city government instituted the unconstitutional ban compared to the number who died in the comparable timespan immediately before the ban?

Answer the question, you slimy puke!

[HiVelSword]

Call up the Brady Campaign and VPC and say, "HA HA!" (like Nelson from the Simpsons) and then hang up.

[zulu45]

So, Mr. Liberal Mayor, how many people died after your predecessors in city government instituted the unconstitutional ban compared to the number who died in the comparable timespan immediately before the ban?

Answer the question, you slimy puke!

If that coward did (which he wouldn't) he'd either lie or place some liberal spin on it (same as laying, IMHO).