Do You Have A Legal Right To Own A Gun?
I have one thing to say regarding gun ownership and the second amendment. You want my guns? Come try and get them…
WASHINGTON — Guns, and questions about how much power the government has to keep people from owning them, are at the core of one of the most divisive topics in American politics.
Nowhere is that divide more pronounced than in the gap between Americans’ beliefs about their rights under the Second Amendment, and how courts have interpreted the law.
Nearly three out of four Americans — 73% — believe the Second Amendment spells out an individual right to own a firearm, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll of 1,016 adults taken Feb. 8-10.
Yet for decades, federal judges have seen the Constitution differently, allowing a range of gun-control measures imposed by governments seeking to curb gun violence.
Lower court judges overwhelmingly have ruled that the right “to keep and bear arms” isn’t for individuals, but instead applies to state militias, such as National Guard units. The U.S. Supreme Court repeatedly declined to hear appeals of those rulings, fueling the debate over gun control and tension between the law and public opinion.
Now, in a benchmark case that arises against a backdrop of election-year politics, the high court will take its first definitive look at the Second Amendment. However the nine justices rule in the case, their decision will reshape the national debate over guns, a conflict that pits images of America’s history of frontier liberty against concerns about public safety.
“A Supreme Court decision has a moral, political and cultural meaning as well as a legal meaning,” says Temple University law professor David Kairys, who has long been in the thick of the debate over gun rights and firearms violence as a defender of gun restrictions. “I think it is going to have a huge impact.”
The case tests the constitutionality of a handgun ban in Washington, D.C., where in 1976 officials imposed one of the nation’s strictest gun-control laws in response to alarming levels of gun violence. The justices will hear arguments on March 18; a ruling is likely by the end of June.
POLL EXCERPT
Do you believe the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the rights of Americans to own guns, or does it only guarantee members of state militias such as National Guard units the right to own guns?
Right of all Americans Only state militias
All adults 73% 20%
Gun owners 91% 6%
Non-Gun owners 63% 28%
Source: USA TODAY/Gallup Poll of 1,016 adults Feb. 8-10. Margin of error for all adults: �3 percentage points; for gun owners: +/-6 points; for non-gun owners: +/-4 points; Julie Snider, USA TODAY
If the court decides there is an individual right to bear arms, it will be a huge victory for gun-rights advocates. It would reverse years of legal precedent and embolden politicians and groups such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) that have touted gun rights. It also likely would discourage new gun regulations and inspire challenges to other gun restrictions.
The possibility that the D.C. dispute could jeopardize a range of federal firearms laws — including those banning individuals from owning machine guns and those establishing rules for transporting weapons — has led the Bush administration to take a step back from its strong support of gun rights.
In 2001, the administration reversed decades of Justice Department positions when then-attorney general John Ashcroft said the Second Amendment did cover an individual right to have guns.
Now, with the D.C. case before the Supreme Court, the administration isn’t taking such a hard line on an individual right to own and use guns, a stance pushed by the NRA and its allies. Instead, the White House is urging the justices to adopt a legal standard that would protect an individual right to own guns but protect federal firearms laws.
University of Texas law professor Sanford Levinson, who believes the Second Amendment provides a right to individual ownership, says the government’s new position might be easier for the court to adopt.
Many legal analysts predict that the court led by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts is ready to declare some individual right to own guns. Moderate conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy could be a key vote on the issue, as he has been for the past two years on the divided court.
“My assumption is that there are at least five votes for the proposition that the Second Amendment protects an individual right,” says Yale University law professor Jack Balkin. “But just because you say there is an individual right, you haven’t resolved the case. … Is it an individual right to keep and bear arms that might be useful in militia service, a right to keep and bear arms that might be useful for self-defense, or both?”
The shifting politics on guns
Gun control was a recurring issue in the 1990s and deeply divided Democrats and Republicans, as Democrats typically favored strict controls on guns and Republicans stressed that people would be safer if they were allowed to arm themselves.
That has changed somewhat. The Democratic and GOP candidates for president have differences on gun control, but Democrats are trying to appeal to those on each side of the debate. That’s likely a reflection of Democratic leaders’ attempts to move their party’s stance on guns closer to that of most voters.
Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama has focused on gun control in their campaigns for the Democratic nomination. When asked specifically about it in public forums, they voice modest support for new regulations and quickly add that the Second Amendment protects people’s gun rights.
“The Clinton and Obama campaigns know the public opinion data on the issue well,” says Karlyn Bowman, a senior fellow specializing in public opinion polls at the American Enterprise Institute. “Opinion is complex, but the right to be able to own a gun seems to be firmly held, and I think that’s why both candidates say what they say.”
At a debate in January, Clinton acknowledged that she had dropped her support for the licensing of new gun owners and registration of new guns, which she advocated in 2000 when she ran for the U.S. Senate in New York. She endorsed reinstating an assault-weapons ban, then added: “I believe in the Second Amendment. People have a right to bear arms. But I also believe that we can common-sensically approach this.”
Obama also said he no longer supported broad licensing and registering of firearms, as he did when he was in the Illinois Senate. “We essentially have two realities when it comes to guns in this country. You’ve got the tradition of lawful gun ownership. … And it is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot,” he said. “And then you’ve got the reality of public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago.”
Republican frontrunner Sen. John McCain has needed no such finessing of the issue.
He joined a congressional “friend of the court” brief in the D.C. case that vigorously endorses an individual right to have guns.
Courts at odds with public
The Second Amendment says, “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.” Until recently, judges seized on the first part, the collective “militia” right, rather than the second clause, “the right of the people.”
The last time the Supreme Court took up a major gun-rights case was in 1939. That dispute, United States v. Miller, involved two men who were caught transporting an illegal sawed-off shotgun across state lines. The court did not directly address the scope of the Second Amendment. Yet its decision rested on the notion that the Second Amendment protects a collective right to firearms, not an individual right.
In the years since, most lower federal courts interpreted the Miller decision to mean there was no individual right to have firearms.
Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia set the stage for the high court to weigh in when it ruled that the Second Amendment “protects an individual right to keep and bear arms … for such activities as hunting and self-defense.” The appeals court invalidated D.C.’s ban on handguns in the home.
Attorneys for Dick Anthony Heller, a security guard who wanted to keep a handgun in his Washington home for self-defense and who helped start the case, urged the justices to affirm that decision.
Heller’s attorneys note that in America’s early days, colonists were bitter about the British king’s disarmament of the English population. The attorneys say “the Second Amendment’s text thus … confirms the people’s right to arms.”
Lawyers for the D.C. government echo lower courts that have rejected such a notion: “The text and history of the Second Amendment conclusively refute the notion that it entitles individuals to have guns for their own private purposes.”
D.C. officials say they banned handguns because such weapons “are disproportionately linked to violent and deadly crime.”
The Bush administration’s shifting stance on gun control has added political drama to the case.
Ashcroft’s position seven years ago made him a hero to the 4 million-member NRA, which put him on the cover of its monthly magazine and called him a “breath of fresh air to freedom-loving gun owners.”
The next year, in 2002, Justice Department lawyers said that any government regulation of gun rights should be subject to the highest level of judicial scrutiny, which would make it harder to enact gun laws.
Now, the Bush administration is siding with Heller in a”friend of the court” brief — but with a large caveat. Justice Departmentlawyers have backed off their earlier position and now say gun regulation should be subjected to a lesser level of scrutiny that would allow far more regulation than the 2002 stance.
The reason is explained in the first line of the administration’s court brief: “Congress has enacted numerous laws regulating firearms.” Current laws ban private ownership of machine guns and limit possession of firearms that can go undetected by metal detectors or X-ray machines. Laws also regulate the manufacture, sale and importation of firearms.
Vice President Cheney, a hunting enthusiast, broke with the administration and signed a brief with a majority of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives urging a high threshold for gun regulation.
Levinson believes the Justice Department’s stance could appeal to most of the high court as well as the public. “I think laws that pass with genuine public support are likely to be upheld,” he says.
Kairys, who has helped cities sue gunmakers for the costs of firearms violence, says gun-control laws could be hurt by any court finding of an individual right. If the court does that, he says, “It’s going to be very hard to get any (gun control) legislation passed.”
Adds Balkin, “There is no reason to believe the court’s decision will defuse the battle over guns. The court rarely has the last word in major social controversies. If the court rules for D.C., there will be continuing agitation by gun-rights advocates. If the court rules against D.C., there will be new waves of litigation” over what the ruling means.
(USA Today)
Nods to drillanwr.
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
Know what I take from this??!! Bush screwed conservtive gun owners again!!!! Just like his daddy!!
February 28th, 2008 at 7:42 am
You would have to rip my guns from “my cold dead hands” before I would give them up. 
February 28th, 2008 at 7:45 amMakes me want to go out and buy
or 
or 
February 28th, 2008 at 8:02 amMay I recommend the Sig Sauer P229 if you could only buy one. I love mine.
Any thoughts from anybody on what gun they would own if they could only have one?
February 28th, 2008 at 8:41 amDidn’t Marion Barry once say something to the effect of DC having a low crime rate other than THE HIGHEST MURDER RATE IN THE COUNTRY AT THE TIME? Criminals will always have guns, because by definition they break the laws of society and that is why they are criminals, hence the high possibility of a crime committed with a firearm.
The Second Amendment is fundamental and ensures all other rights are protected. It’s ironic how Bush’s administration is not supporting the pro 2nd Amendment argument heading to the Supreme Court, considering one of his first acts as Texas Governor was to sign into law a Concealed Carry piece of legislature in Texas.
Whenever there is a shooting all the gun grabbers come out and say see if we had no guns these problems wouldn’t exist, however, the overwhelming majority of felonies committed with a firearm are made with illegally procured weapons.
There are already punitive laws on the books that deal with committing a violent act with a firearm, and a screening process for getting them. No more laws are needed they need to be enforced and enough with gun grabbing.
February 28th, 2008 at 9:12 am
KBar: the P229 is my personal first choice. Reliability, power, and accuracy are its trademarks. That aside, an M1911A1 is fine with me for close-up work. Speaking of Sauers, if you can get your hands on a JP Sauer & Sohn 38H, they’re quite reliable too and advanced for when they were made (WWII). A Webley Mk VI is a nice revolver to own and should cause your target to shit his pants on draw - especially as its chambered for .455 (good luck getting any though). And for my grand finale, may I introduce the formidable, redoubtable Desert Eagle. Power and interchangeability are its trademarks. I’ll leave it to everyone else to mention the H&Ks, Brownings, Glocks, etc.
February 28th, 2008 at 9:17 amThanks for the recommendation … By choice, have never been a gun owner … Fired my Dad’s rifle once as a kid and it scared the hell out of me …
However, of late, I am feeling the “calling” to educate myself in gun safety and usage. Looking into classes, and my Father owns a couple hand guns that I hope he’ll take me out shooting with come Spring.
I feel the “need” to actually have [something] in my home to [show] “them” should “they” come to collect the guns … and our Second Amendment Right …
Light-weight female, so how much kick does it have? Pricey?
February 28th, 2008 at 9:17 amI’ve read the 35 page amicus brief and in no way does it support, defend nor uphold the D.C. laws. It only says a little about this case not raising questions re: federal law and therefore should not address that question because it had been previously answered in all these other situations. Subsequently, it does address the applicability of the Constitution to the separate States saying that while they do have the power to “reasonably regulate” Constitutional rights, any measure by the States to do so must be reviewed with the utmost scrutiny with a goal of preserving rights while still allowing the State to establish a safe and secure society. Oddly, the D.C attorneys say the Constitution and “incorporation” do not apply to the District because it is not a “State” (if this is true I say we bulldoze the whole place - Arlington is in Virginia so it’s ok - let Virginia or Maryland annex it and start all over again, maybe in New Orleans where we know we’ll get a clean slate every 20-30 years).
What the brief says is that the DOJ disagrees with the District Court’s ruling that the 2nd does not apply to private citizens not actively participating in a militia (1st decision upholding the laws) and spends a lot of time explaining what the term “people” means in regards to Constitutional Law, the Bill of Rights and Amendments 1 through 4. Then it goes on to say that the DOJ does agree with the Appellate court ruling that overturned the DC laws saying they were unconstitutional, but that they did it in a manner not supported by Supreme Court precedence. It then goes into a lot a legal mumbo-jumbo about how the case should be remanded to the Appellate court and about how the Appellate court did not properly address each of the individual questions put before it and that an answer to anyone one or two of these questions, as they are held to constitutional standards, separately may make it unnecessary to address the issue has a whole thereby “incorporating” the 2nd Amendment and ensuring that any State laws are provided with the same judicial and constitutional review as federal laws.
Just so you no, what the guy claimed in the lawsuit is that the combination of two D.C. laws (handgun ban PLUS trigger lock) violated his constitutional right to maintain a functioning “arm” for self protection. Essentially, that makes several questions: Is a handgun an “arm” under the constitution? (DOJ says yes) Is a handgun ban bad? (DOJ says this is answered if you answer the previous question first) Is a trigger lock ban bad? (DOJ doesn’t call this unconstitutional but says it may be if it fails the test) Are they only bad if both are present? (Answer the first question) Is one OK without the other? (Answer the first and third questions first). So basically what DOJ says is that they agree with the Handgun ban being overturned, just do it in a way that the Supreme Court has used before and address it separate than the other issues then address the “functionality” issue raised by the trigger lock requirement.
I know it’s a bunch of lawyer crap but what Clement is saying is “Do it this way and hopefully we won’t need to be answering this question every 2 years.”
February 28th, 2008 at 9:18 amThis type of case is another reason not to sit out the general Election if your guy doesn’t get the nomination.
Supreme Court Justice Ages -
Roberts - 52
Stevens - 87
Scalia - 71
Kennedy - 71
Souter - 68
Thomas - 59
Ginsberg - 74
Briar - 69
Alito - 57
It can be expected that the next Pres. will appoint 1 justice in their first term, a second justice in their second term and a possibility for a third depending on untimely death/severe medical condition.
Would it be preferred to have Clinton/Obama select one or more of them? Or would McCain be more trustworthy?
February 28th, 2008 at 9:20 amI’d like to say that I enjoyed the article, but I saw that picture and forgot how to read.
urg grunt grunt
February 28th, 2008 at 9:58 amI’d like to say that I enjoyed the article, but I saw that picture and forgot how to read.
urg grunt grunt
February 28th, 2008 at 9:58 amYES I have the right to own a gun
February 28th, 2008 at 9:59 amThat bullpup design is interesting to me. The thought of the barrel being longer, but the gun does not have to be by starting out way back in the stock sounds cool.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:13 amI can’t imagine NOT owning a gun - I’ve been around them all my life, both my grandfathers and my dad have always been gun owners, and firm believers in self-defense. Anti-gun nuts always say they’re not necessary, but the first time you need one and don’t have it you’re screwed.Two people in my family have had to scare off an intruder, and that alone makes the case for me.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:20 amThe founders use the word “people” throughout the Constitution when refering to individuals. The Second Amendment is no different and it says, “…prohibits infringement of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”
Ownership is 9/10ths of the law anyway so mine aren’t going anywhere.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:26 amUnfortunately, Juan McNasty is no friend of the Second Amendment and would never nominate another Alito, who he declared was too conservative, to the Supreme Court. He will nominate “Make it up as you go, Judges” to the Supreme Court. If you vote for McCain don’t expect him to be that much different from Clintoon and only marginally better than Obama the magic negro when it comes to judicial appointments.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:49 amThe P229 runs from about ~$800 to $1,200 depending on the features. It is a very easy gun to shoot, and very accurate, as Ivan has already mentioned. It is well engineered to “eat up” recoil, and thus does not kick as much as some other pistols of the same cal. An example is the H&K USP. It is an excellent gun, but you really feal that recoil in your hand. It is available in 9mm, .357 SIG, & .40 S&W. For you, I would recommend the 9mm (low recoil/ accurate/ effective in close). I have shot every weapon available, including pretty much everything the Marine Corps has to offer, and I have come to love the SIG. It is my personal choice. Depending on the state your in, you can go to a range, and with proper ID, you can rent pistols. I’d advise you to try out many different types to get a feel for their capabilities, comfort, etc. Also, take a course in shooting and safe gun handling. These are usually offered at local ranges, and many even have courses just for women.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:51 amBeen thinking lately of getting a pistol. Already have a shotgun and a .22, and a funny old percussion-cap musket from early-mid 1800’s - small bore, must have been a bird gun. Love the sound of the echo across the valley while practicing w/deer slugs. Sister in-law got offended once when my Bro’-in-law and I made a target for one of our nephews w/a pic of Hillary
February 28th, 2008 at 11:05 amYes, the unregulated militia has a right to bear arms as described by the Militia Act of 1903 (The Dick Act, I shit you not). All men over 17 and through age 45 are part of the unregulated militia in their state - bet you didn’t even know that - if they are not in the armed forces or National Guard. The sticky part is the constitution of the local state and how they wish to regulate arms of their unregulaed militia, yeah that sounds convoluted. So women, you’re SOL, unless your state has sufferage on the unregulated militia question.
The next question is why we are being denied the ability to buy automatic weapons while they are being sold to Iraqis ???
February 28th, 2008 at 11:18 am
I had the distinct privilege to speak a few times to the guy who is going to argue the case before the Supreme Court on March 16th or 18th on behalf of Heller. He’s a super sharp dude, and he has good odds. The DoJ/Solicitor General are out of control opposing the position of Heller. If you want more info, here’s their link: www.dcguncase.com
February 28th, 2008 at 11:27 amI got the message by just looking at the picture. It’s the old picture being worth…
February 28th, 2008 at 11:34 amBuy a 460–
As far as DC is concerned, “Congress has the exclusive right to legislate “in all cases whatsoever” for the nation’s capital, the District of Columbia.”
February 28th, 2008 at 11:46 amThe city council and mayor do not have final say on the matter.
Don’t tread on me.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:47 pmThanks for all the advice
February 28th, 2008 at 1:04 pmHell yeah I have the right to have a gun or guns.
We all have the right to own a firearm so as long as your aren’t a convicted fellon or mentally ill. There is a sound reason the founding fathers included the word ‘people’ in the right to bare arms. And if those rights are taken away, my State has broken it’s contract with every citizen of this state.
Plan and simple, be it a rock, stick, fist or firearm bad people do bad things. And no matter what you do to prevent bad people from doing bad things they will adjust, adapt and continue doing bad things.
There is only one reason to enact broad sweeping gun control laws and that is too silence the people and limit their ability to fend off corrupt governments.
February 28th, 2008 at 3:35 pmdrillanwr
I’ve just recently gotten into hand guns myself. Took a course “Women On Target”. It’s an NRA sponsored and subsidized course given by many gun ranges to familiarize women with hand guns. It was the greatest time ever- every woman had a personal shooting coach. Got to try all types of guns (semi-automatic and revolver types). Shot all day long until I thought my hand was going to fall off, plus lunch, all for the outlandish price of $20!!!(did I say it was subsidized?) Geez, I shot about $100 worth of ammunition that day. For me, it wasn’t so much about the kick, as it was that I was able to reach the magazine and slide release easily. Anyway, that experience has propelled me into tactical shooting games, i.e. IDPA and USPSA. Good luck!
February 28th, 2008 at 8:15 pmGun owners 91% 6%
My only question, who are the 6% of gun owners that think they don’t have the right to own a firearm. Talk about schizophrenic. They must be the anti-gun dems who carry a weapon for protection but tell others they can’t have one.
Crazy I tell ya.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:53 pmI’ve frequently heard it said that, with rights come responsibilities. It’s not gun ownership and griping that are necessary to the security of a free state. The responsibility that comes with the right to keep and bear arms is the opening phrase of the Second Amendment–a well regulated militia.
For any who are interested in taking seriously the responsibility that comes wtih the right to keep and bear arms, I’d like to invite you to check out the modern militia movement. Before you allow excuses to exit your lips pertaining to what kinds of people and activities comprise the modern militia, you might want to at least check it out FOR YOURSELF rather than taking the word of a mainstream media talking head who’s never met a militia member in their lives.
Feel FREE to check us out at http://www.awrm.org.
February 29th, 2008 at 5:07 am
TerryTate, thats not far off the mark. Sen. Ted Kennedy carries, but he is for strict gun control. He has said that “he is more qualified to carry a handgun”.
February 29th, 2008 at 7:30 am