Supreme Court Leaning To Interpret 2nd Amendment For Individuals Over Militias
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court has heard arguments about the meaning of the Second Amendment and the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns.
A majority appears to support the view that the amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns, rather than somehow linking right to service in a state militia.
But it is less clear what that means for the District’s 32-year-old ban on handguns, perhaps the strictest gun control law in the nation.
“Does that make it unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate…to say no handguns here?” Justice Stephen Breyer said.
On the other side, Chief Justice John Roberts asked at one point: “What is reasonable about a ban on possession” of handguns?
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP’s earlier story is below.
WASHINGTON (AP)—Advocates of gun rights and opponents of gun violence demonstrated outside the Supreme Court Tuesday while inside, justices heard arguments over the meaning of the Second Amendment’s “right to keep and bear arms.”
Dozens of protesters mingled with tourists and waved signs saying “Ban the Washington elitists, not our guns” or “The NRA helps criminals and terrorist 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.”
A line to get into the court for the historic arguments began forming two days earlier and extended more than a block by early Tuesday.
The high court’s first extensive examination of the Second Amendment since 1939 grew out of challenge to the District of Columbia’s ban on ownership of handguns.
Anise Jenkins, president of a coalition called Stand Up for Democracy in D.C., defended the district’s 32-year-old ban on handgun ownership.
“We feel our local council knows what we need for a good standard of life and to keep us safe,” Jenkins said.
Genie Jennings, a resident of South Perwick, Maine, and national spokewoman for Second Amendment Sisters, said the law banning handguns in Washington “is denying individuals the right to defend themselves.”
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.
Even if the court determines there is an individual right, the justices still will have to decide whether the District’s ban can stand and how to evaluate other gun control laws. This issue has caused division within the Bush administration, with Vice President Dick Cheney taking a harder line than the administration’s official position at the court.
The local Washington government argues that its law should be allowed to remain in force whether or not the amendment applies to individuals, although it reads the amendment as intended to allow states to have armed forces.
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. His lawyers say the amendment plainly protects an individual’s right.
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 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.
Chief Justice John Roberts said at his confirmation hearing that the correct reading of the Second Amendment was “still very much an open issue.”
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.
They had better maintain our right to own guns. they need to understand that the criminals will get them either way and that will leave us unprotected.
And not to mention that will screw up deer hunting and just shooting in general
March 18th, 2008 at 8:56 amThe phrase “the right of the people” is also used in the 1st and 4th amendments. Can any lefty please explain to me that those rights are “group” rights and not individual rights? I think not.
The 2nd amendment is an individual right and it better damn well be interpreted that way.
March 18th, 2008 at 9:42 amLive-bloggin can be found here -
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/
March 18th, 2008 at 10:13 amMilitia and individual rights are not mutually exclusive. As I see it, this is not an “either , or” decision. It’s as pointless as the evolution “verus” creation argument. Neither is exclusive of the other. Logically, there’s nothing to do but read the text.
DocumentaryPat Dollard | Young AmericansPrepare to have your opinion of this war changed forever.Main Archives About Videos Press Support Contact
Supreme Court Leaning To Interpret 2nd Amendment For Individuals Over Militias
March 18th, 2008 Posted By Pat Dollard.
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court has heard arguments about the meaning of the Second Amendment and the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns.
A majority appears to support the view that the amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns, rather than somehow linking right to service in a state militia.
But it is less clear what that means for the District’s 32-year-old ban on handguns, perhaps the strictest gun control law in the nation.
See Video Here
“Does that make it unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate…to say no handguns here?” Justice Stephen Breyer said.
On the other side, Chief Justice John Roberts asked at one point: “What is reasonable about a ban on possession” of handguns?
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP’s earlier story is below.
WASHINGTON (AP)—Advocates of gun rights and opponents of gun violence demonstrated outside the Supreme Court Tuesday while inside, justices heard arguments over the meaning of the Second Amendment’s “right to keep and bear arms.”
Dozens of protesters mingled with tourists and waved signs saying “Ban the Washington elitists, not our guns” or “The NRA helps criminals and terrorist 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.”
A line to get into the court for the historic arguments began forming two days earlier and extended more than a block by early Tuesday.
The high court’s first extensive examination of the Second Amendment since 1939 grew out of challenge to the District of Columbia’s ban on ownership of handguns.
Anise Jenkins, president of a coalition called Stand Up for Democracy in D.C., defended the district’s 32-year-old ban on handgun ownership.
“We feel our local council knows what we need for a good standard of life and to keep us safe,” Jenkins said.
This quote, for me, sums it up. The empty shell of a citizen otherwise known as Ms. Jenkins, has chosen to live as a ward of the state from cradle to grave. She thinks that the state knows what’s best for her. That may be fine for her. She’s free to choose that option and go ahead and check herself into an institution. (I’d bet my last buck that she’s also against wiretapping enemy phone as an erosion of her freedom!! hehe) But I think it’s a little presumptious for her to think that, in a free society, she can inflict her choices on the rest of the population.
March 18th, 2008 at 10:28 amI could go on but I won’t. Their arguments are hollow.
Thankfully I live in Texas where our Constitution explicitly states that gun ownership is a PERSONAL right and does anyone think were gonna allow them to come down here and take ‘em from us?
HELL NO!!!!
March 18th, 2008 at 10:30 amMilitia and individual rights are not mutually exclusive. As I see it, this is not an “either , or” decision. It’s as pointless as the evolution “verus” creation argument. Neither is exclusive of the other. Logically, there’s nothing to do but read the text.
“We feel our local council knows what we need for a good standard of life and to keep us safe,” Jenkins said.
This quote, for me, sums it up. The empty shell of a citizen otherwise known as Ms. Jenkins, has chosen to live as a ward of the state from cradle to grave. She thinks that the state knows what’s best for her. That may be fine for her. She’s free to choose that option and go ahead and check herself into an institution. (I’d bet my last buck that she’s also against wiretapping enemy phone as an erosion of her freedom!! hehe) But I think it’s a little presumptious for her to think that, in a free society, she can inflict her choices on the rest of the population.
March 18th, 2008 at 10:31 amI could go on but I won’t. Their arguments are hollow.
March 18th, 2008 at 3:27 pm