Court takes a second look at 2nd Amendment

There's big news coming out of the Supreme Court, which struck down a section of a Washington, D.C., ban on handguns earlier today in an unprecedented way. Times writer David G. Savage sums it up thusly:

Americans have a right to keep a gun at home for self-defense, the Supreme Court ruled today in striking down part of a handgun ban in the District of Columbia.

By a 5-4 vote, the court concluded that the 2nd Amendment and its famous right "to keep and bear arms" protects the gun rights of individuals, rather than just a state's right to maintain a militia.

Justice Antonin Scalia, speaking for the court, said the history of the 2nd Amendment shows its authors intended to protect the "right of the people" as individuals to have weapons, both to defend themselves and their community.

This is no small-fry ruling here. It's the the first time that the Supreme Court has struck down a gun-control law based on the protection of the 2nd Amendment. Never before has the court declared that the second part of the 2nd Amendment ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed") is not necessarily contingent on the first part ("A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state").

President Bush and Sen. John McCain hailed the landmark decision but dissenting Justice John Paul Stevens criticized the ruling, saying  "The court is making new law today."

Hunters and outdoors folks out there, what do you think of the decision? Does this decision simply affirm common sense or is it overreaching?

--Liam Gowing

Check AP video after the jump.

Comments

[Tom]

WAY Overdue!!

[Nagendra Mishr]

A great ruling.. based on a thought that was conceived hundreds years ago when society that didn't enjoy blowing up people as if they were insects...

If we're so stuck on preserving everyone's rights, perhaps we need to think about better technologies to prevent abuse.. for example, make each gun require authorization from a centralized computer.. or force guns to transmit signals if they are fired.. i.e. when a gun is fired, it takes a sonic snapshot of everything all around as well as date time and biometrics of the person who fired it. Outlaw all guns that are not compliant and tax the hell out of bullets.

[Rick Hawthorne]

I am very glad to hear that the Supreme Court recognized this fundamental right. As a hunter and an American who believes that my liberty may one day be threatened by abusive governmental policies, it is comforting to know that our Constitution still has clarity and authority. Long live our liberty.

[Gary]

This ruling affirms the basic right of law-abiding people to protect themselves against lawless predators. No one can or should try to prevent people from being able to defend themselves with force when threatened with force. Enough said.

[Cory Hine]

And the heroes are made today, from the rifles of the NRA. To the lib politicians: Stop whining and start living in America. If you don't like the fact that we are a free people, get the hell out of my country! In any case, our court has ruled.... live with it and have a nice day.

CH

[Jeff_F_F]

Its impact will be fairly limited at first, but will still be important. Because it only effects ownership and the ability to posess a gun in the home it isn't going to have a direct impact on the number of guns "on the street" very much. However, it will give useful information for policy decisions which may have a stronger impact.

If the number of home robberies (thefts from occupied homes, as opposed to burglaries from unoccupied homes) drops sharply in the effected cities, it will provide dramatic evidence that gun control is the problem, not the solution to violent crime. Evidence from countries such as Britain and Australia where gun bans uniformly increased rates of violent crime strongly suggests that this is exactly what will happen. This may fuel more permissive laws across the board in these cities.

For example, data collected by the UN (a world-wide proponent of gun control) shows Britain is now being the most violent nation in Europe and far more violent than the US. In the early 1990s the reverse was true, as was pointed out by supporters of gun control under the Clinton administration. When the backlash against gun control in the US dramatically increased individual rights to keep and bear arms such as "shall-issue" concealed carry laws, violent crime rates plummeted. Meanwhile the British government moved to ban not only guns but all other weapons, and violent crime rates skyrocketed. The story in Australia was quite similar.

Also, it should be noted that while New York is billed as the "safest large city in America" it is only the overall crime rate that is exceptionally low, and that fueled by very low property crime rates at about 1/2 the national avarage rate. Violent crime rates in New York are equal to the national avarage. In cities where gun ownership is more prevalent, even if the overall crime rate is higher, the opposite relationship between violent and non-violent crime is commonly seen, with property crime rates being more common compared to the national avarage than violent crimes.

The inescapable conclusion is that gun ownership leads criminals to select safer targets for theft without the danger of confronting an armed owner, thus reducing the incidence of violent crime overall. Similar patterns are seen between robbery and other violent crimes such as assault and rape, but they are more difficult to analyze meaningfully because their motives are more complex. The ratio of burglaries to robberies is more clear-cut because the motive of both crimes is the same and only the means of acomplishing the motive changes.

[Mike]

In regards to Tom's (June 26, 2008 @ 03:22 PM) comment:

I recommend you read Justice Scalia's judgment, which can be found on the Supreme Court's website. Your comment about how it's "based on a thought that was conceived hundreds of years ago" seems to say that our rights become antiquated because of the evolution in society. Would you also say, then, that we have less of a right to free speech, because now we live in a society where any citizen with an internet connection can post vile words, offensive images, and dangerous slander?

As far as the technologies you propose...they will only be effective in capturing criminals if we mandate that every single person in America submit a DNA sample (I refer to the "biometrics" portion of your suggestion), and that will be the biggest 4th Amendment issue in the history of the U.S.

[Norm Glitz]

It's Justice Stevens who, while trying to make new law, failed. The language of the Second Amendment has alway been clear; the right is "of the people" and it is a right "to keep and bear arms." This was obvious to the writers of the 2A and all who read it for well over a century. Only in the last few decades have those who were trying to make America a less free place, read it differently.

Now for NJ, Chicago and every other place with an unconstitutional ban.

Norm in NJ

[Jason]

No Bush-supporting NRA-type has any understanding of what "freedom" really is. Americans had lost the 2nd Amendment along with a number of other freedoms supported by habeus corpus two years ago in Bush's riduculous MCA 2006. Until the other ruling last week, the government could cheerfully take your gun away under the MCA 2006, no trial or right to get it back. And only now you notice?

[Ricky Cain]

It only takes a casual reading of the history of the second amendment to see that the authors intended it to protect the rights of individual people to have and own guns. It's refreshing to hear an intelligent decision come out of Washington.

[John]

To the first poster "Tom",

Please.....

Maybe we should have everyone phone in to a US Gov curfew center every night too? That way the gov't can ensure that everyone is "safe and sound" in their homes by 10pm. Oh...and we'll have cameras inside our homes as well to take "snapshots" of everyone's mug at 10:15pm so that the gov can make sure us 2nd Ammend'rs aren't out blowing up the "insects".

[Jack Ian Mayer]

Its good news on the face of it. One may ask (as the courts have been so rabidly charged with politcal whim) if this ruling is ultimately a measured responce attempting to placate those , and I am one , concerned with those two, most recent, constituional violations by a leftist court. It's too late to wonder what would have happened when an armed mother confronts a monster raping her 8 year old?

[jim matvia]

To all you communists out there : The constitution gives us rights and they are for the people who love our country, who would die for our country to give you the rights. This is THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Don't use your rights to take away our rights. We don't need that kind of Change!

[Bill]

Another 5-4 decision - For that reason alone, the issue is far from clear. The Court has become polarized by politics (e.g., Bush v Gore). Stalemates are broken by appointees of the Bushes.

But back to specifics: I fully agree with the post earlier today by Nagendra Mishr. The Second Amendment was passed in a day long since past. The Court's decision is a stark example of the difference between those Justices who treat the Constitution and its Amendments as static and those Justices who believe these fundamental principles to be a living set of rules open to interpretations take into account changes that have occurred in this country since 1787. The mere fact that the Constitution allows Amendments is an acknowledgment that the original provisions may not make much sense for every generation following Ben Franklin and the other signers of the Constitution.

The decision does split the baby - not in half, but at least at leaves a sliver for what I believe to be the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Opinion invalidates "absolute prohibitions" on handguns. That leaves open the opportunity of local, state, and federal government to seriously consider all sorts of restrictions short of prohibition.

Unbelievably, this does not include requiring a safety on all handgun triggers. This requirement in DC was absurdly thrown out by five of the nine judges. But the decision does leave open the possibility of "constitutionally" imposing national gun registration, background checks, a waiting period, and absolute prohibition of weapons such as assault weapons, automatic weapons, and your garden-variety bazooka.

For me, it makes no sense to veil the lowly handgun under Second Amendment protection. Look at the news. Militias don't fight with handguns. They fight with bazookas! Only Dirty Harry fights with a handgun. Of course, that one looked like a bazooka.

[Jerry Flaherty]

Granted the court defined the law, but the margin is so fine [5-4] that gun rights advocates must continue their efforts to influence legistators and executives [present and future day] to use COMMON SENSE in their efforts to control CRIMINAL ACCESS. Guns don't kill. Neither to Automobles.
May no one be in a situation where their lives are SAVED by an armed citizen [who may be the person across the aisle] but better that than at the mercy of an armed assailant.

[Andrew]

Jason wrote "No Bush-supporting NRA-type has any understanding of what "freedom" really is". My comment to Jason and Jason types are as follows:
1. Why do you say that NRA types must be Bush supporting? Frankly I am not pleased with his performance (or many other politicians) but I do agree with the NRA as it pertains to my right to bear arms.
2. Are you trying to say that there is no common ground in which you agree with the President?
My recommendation to you is to is to stop practicing hate and look at the positive side of the situation. Our Courts have upheld a right we were granted in the constitution. Perhaps there is hope yet.

[Anonymous]

Has anyone posting on here even BEEN to DC and seen the state that it's in? This amendment to the Constitution was written in the 1700s' - over 200 years before there were anything like the current-day urban conditions that are found in our cities.

[Kevin O]

If in the name of "urban safety" the 2nd amendment can be suspended, why not suspend all the other pesky amendments that get in the way of making our cities safe?

Just break into all homes (4th), take any weapons (2nd) or substances you find illegal, or even questionable (5th). Hold the guilty for as long as necessary (6th) and without bail (8th). Since a jury of their peers my let them go, we can use judicial tribunals (7th). If anyone complains, lock them up for obstructing justice (1st).

It would only be for "a little while".... until things get bad, and we need to do it again.

[Craig Berger]

All you gun lovers are missing the point. As the conservatives always like to accuse non-conservative justices of in order to shift focus from the truth, the Court is now legislating from the bench. The 2nd amendment clearly states that the right to bear arms is for a militia to protect the state and should not be infringed. Scalia and his cronies decided that anyone has a right to bear arms subject to limitations. This is the exact opposite of what the Constitution states. The amendment wouldn't even be open to interpretation to anyone who isn't a gun nut. Nowhere else in the constitution does anyone think that a clause was thrown in there by the founding fathers that is irrelevant, as if it were just thrown in by accident. Someone commented that a casual reading of the amendment shows that it intends for individuals to have the right to keep and bear arms. Clearly a casual reading was all that person could be bothered to give.

[Bob]

Sorry Craig but your reading of the 2nd amendment is colored by your bias.

:"The 2nd amendment clearly states that the right to bear arms is for a militia to protect the state and should not be infringed"

No, the actual wording of the 2nd amendment

"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."

as a thought experiment let's replace guns with books & make a couple other modifications

"A well educated Legislature, being necessary to the governance of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

Would you argue that only the well educated or members of the Legislature be allowed books or that books were only allowed in the context of a Legislature?

The constitution is a "meta" law, law about the construction of other law and it contains a method that allows itself to be changed.

Don't twist the meaning of the 2nd amendment merely because you disagree with it.

The twisting of the meaning began in the early part of the 20th century as a fearful reaction to crime. The congress knew the had no legal power to attack firearm ownership so they approached it from a tax point of view. That is why alcohol, tobacco & firearms are lumped together under the tax umbrella.

Further encroachment on the 2nd amendment occurred during the turbulent 1960's. Again people (esp govt) fearful of an armed citizenry.

Examine the history & motivation of gun control in America and you will see its roots is classism & racism.

The Bill of Rights protect individual rights & to believe anything else is disingenuous.

Would you prefer that future "Bush" administration have a monopoly on deadly force? I prefer a widespread & more even distribution of deadly force.

Around the world, over time, governments have killed (& are currently killing) way more people than the simple criminal.

cheers
Bob

[ReasonableMan]

Anti-gun arguments focus on the danger to innocents. Because many innocent people, including children, are killed or injured by guns, it is the gun that is at fault and ought to be banished from existence.
Anti-gun arguments focus on the criminal deeds of gun toting felons to rob, maim, rape and kill innocents and it is the guns borne by those felons that are the cause of such criminal activity and if guns were wished out of existence then these crimes would go away.
Anti-gun arguments focus on the suicides that occur every year caused by guns and those suicides are the direct fault of the gun and so if the guns went away then the suicide rate would fall dramatically and then maybe there woul be no more suicides.
All the above arguments are invalid. If all guns were instantly gone, innocents would still be hurt and/or killed by autos, glass, bats, bicycles, chemicals, dark, heights, knives, motorcycles, tools, poisons, and yes, even water.
Accidents, criminal activity and suicides are the reasons gun activists want to ban guns.
Before there were any guns on earth, there were accidents crimes and suicides. Historical accounts abound. The Bible recounts such as do other ancient documents.
The anti-guns argument degrades to become only guesses about what the results would be if all guns disappeared.

Guns are not going to go away. There are too many of them. Everywhere. If guns did go away, they would be swiftly created anew, and by the millions. Everywhere.