Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)

    Justices Appear Skeptical Of D.C.'s Handgun Ban

    Justices Appear Skeptical Of D.C.'s Handgun Ban

    By Robert Barnes
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Wednesday, March 19, 2008; A01

    A majority of the Supreme Court indicated a readiness yesterday to settle decades of constitutional debate over the meaning of the Second Amendment by declaring that it provides an individual right to own a gun for self-defense.

    Such a finding could doom the District of Columbia's ban on private handgun possession, the country's toughest gun-control law, and significantly change the tone and direction of the nation's political battles over gun control.

    During oral arguments that drew spectators who had waited for days to be in the courtroom, there was far more skepticism among the justices about the constitutionality of the District's ban on private handgun possession than defense of it.

    Justices balanced the commands of a Constitution written more than 200 years ago with the modern-day questions presented by a gun ban that, it was argued, either prevents the law-abiding from a means of self-protection or keeps more guns off the streets of the nation's capital.

    The court seemed swept up in the historic nature of its endeavor, examining a part of the Constitution that most believe has never been clearly defined. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. encouraged the lawyers to keep talking well beyond the scheduled 75 minutes.

    For all the references to Lord Blackstone and the English Bill of Rights and the Framers' intent, Roberts was succinct in describing how he might view the District's arguments that its gun law is reasonable.

    "What's reasonable about a total ban on possession?" he asked Washington lawyer Walter E. Dellinger III, who represented the city.

    The clauses of the Second 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" -- have long vexed constitutional scholars. The Supreme Court's last major ruling on the subject, in 1939, stressed the militia-related aspects of the provision.

    Roberts quickly signaled his disagreement. "If it is limited to state militias, why would they say 'the right of the people'?" he asked.

    Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, often the deciding vote on the divided court, was next. "In my view," he said, "there's a general right to bear arms quite without reference to the militia either way."

    Kennedy expressed, at least three times during the argument, his disbelief that the Framers had not been also concerned about the ability of "the remote settler to defend himself and his family against hostile Indian tribes and outlaws, wolves and bears and grizzlies and things like that."

    Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito Jr. also lent support to the individual interpretation. Justice Clarence Thomas was silent during the arguments, as is his custom, but has previously expressed such a view.

    From the District's point of view, deciding there is an individual right would be answering only half the question. Dellinger argued that it is reasonable for the city to ban the "uniquely dangerous" handgun, which "can be taken into schools, into buses, into government office buildings, and that is the particular danger it poses in a densely populated urban area."

    The D.C. law, passed in 1976 shortly after residents received the right to govern themselves, also requires that rifles and shotguns kept in private homes be unloaded and disassembled or outfitted with a trigger lock.

    Those challenging the law disagree with the District's contention that it provides residents with access to a firearm for self-defense purposes. Several justices agreed.

    "How could the District code provision survive under any standard of review where they totally ban the possession of the type of weapon that's most commonly used for self-defense?" Alito asked.

    The more liberal justices were most sympathetic to the city. Justice John Paul Stevens repeatedly said that only two states at the time of the framing of the Constitution had individual-right guarantees, and most mentioned the need for guns to provide a "common defense."

    Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted that even Lord Blackstone had said gun rights were subject to law and, thus, to restrictions. Justice Stephen G. Breyer was the most aggressive in making the case that local governments may have leeway in restricting gun ownership, based on their own circumstances.

    "Is it unreasonable for a city with that high crime rate to say, 'no guns here?' " Breyer asked Alan Gura, the Alexandria-based attorney for security guard Dick Anthony Heller's suit against the city. Before Gura could answer, Scalia interjected, "You want to say yes."

    While Gura said it is unreasonable, he conceded that governments could ban ownership of some weapons. Machine guns could be one category, he said, and "plastic" handguns manufactured to escape detection. He said that certain individuals, such as felons, could be banned from gun ownership, and agreed that some licensing of gun ownership would pass constitutional muster.

    He hesitated on a question from Stevens: "How about a state university wants to ban students having arms in the dormitory?" "It's something that might be doable, but again, that's so far from what we have here," Gura finally answered. "We have here a ban on all guns, for all people, in all homes, at all times in the nation's capital."

    One of the most intriguing aspects of the case has been the position of the Bush administration. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement in a brief urged the court to accept the individual-rights view, but he also said the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit striking down the city's law was too broad.

    It held that since handguns can be defined as "arms" under the Second Amendment, they cannot be banned. Clement said such "strict scrutiny" could undermine a host of federal gun-control legislation, including restrictions on machine guns.

    His suggestion that the case be sent back to lower courts for more work enraged gun rights advocates, who felt betrayed, and set off a split in the Bush administration when Vice President Cheney joined a brief rebutting the government's position.

    Clement did not back down yesterday. He said it would make a "world of difference" to the viability of federal gun control if government restrictions on gun ownership did not have to meet the strictest constitutional standards.

    Roberts said finding the standard by which to review all government gun regulations may not be necessary in deciding the constitutionality of the District's law.

    Clement said any ruling narrower than that of the appeals court would be welcome.

    The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, and will be decided before the court adjourns in late June. ... 54_pf.html
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  2. #2
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)

    Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns

    Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns

    Mar 18 07:19 PM US/Eastern
    Associated Press Writer

    WASHINGTON (AP) - 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.
    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.

    Gun rights proponents were encouraged.

    "What I heard from the court was the view that the D.C. law, which prohibits good people from having a firearm ... to defend themselves against bad people is not reasonable and unconstitutional," National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre said after leaving the court.

    Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty said he hoped the court would leave the ban in place and not vote for a compromise that would, for example, allow handguns in homes but not in public places. "More guns anywhere in the District of Columbia is going to lead to more crime. And that is why we stand so steadfastly against any repeal of our handgun ban," the mayor said after attending the arguments.

    A decision that defines the amendment's meaning would be significant by itself. But the court also has to decide whether Washington's ban can stand and how to evaluate other gun control laws.

    The justices have many options, including upholding a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban.

    Solicitor General Paul Clement, the Bush administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, supported the individual right but urged the justices not to decide the other question. Instead, Clement said the court should say that governments may impose reasonable restrictions, including federal laws that ban certain types of weapons.

    Clement wants the justices to order the appeals court to re-evaluate the Washington law. He did not take a position on it.

    This issue has caused division within the administration, with Vice President Dick Cheney taking a harder line than the official position at the court.

    In addition to the handgun ban, Washington also has a trigger lock requirement for other guns that raised some concerns Tuesday.

    "When you hear somebody crawling in your bedroom window, you can run to your gun, unlock it, load it and then fire?" Justice Antonin Scalia said.

    Roberts, who has two young children, suggested at one point that trigger locks might be reasonable.

    "There is always a risk that the children will get up and grab the firearm and use it for some purpose other than what the Second Amendment was designed to protect," he said.

    On the other hand, he, too, wondered about the practical effect of removing a lock in an emergency. "So then you turn on the lamp, you pick up your reading glasses," Roberts said to laughter.

    Dellinger said he opened the lock in three seconds, although he conceded that was in daylight.

    While the arguments raged inside, 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."

    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 in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.

    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." ... _article=1
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts