Americans have a constitutional right to own guns, the Supreme Court declared Thursday in a ruling that resoundingly endorsed the ability of an armed populace to resist tyranny but appeared to allow bans on military-style weapons and regulations on other firearms.

In a 5-4 ruling on the last day of the court's 2007-08 term, Justice Antonin Scalia said the Constitution's Second Amendment - whose meaning has been disputed for more than 200 years - guarantees "the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home." The court said a Washington, D.C., ordinance prohibiting residents from carrying handguns in their homes or anywhere else in the city violates that right.

The Second Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights that was added to the Constitution in 1791, 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."

In its first-ever interpretation of the amendment, the court settled one long-raging debate - whether the Constitution protects gun ownership by individuals or only by members of a state militia - but left a host of questions unanswered about the scope of gun-control laws.

The NRA said it would launch a new series of lawsuits around the nation as early as Friday. One target will be the gun ban in low-income housing managed by the San Francisco Housing Authority.

"We refuse to allow law-abiding Americans to be treated as second-class citizens when it comes to this constitutional right, which applies to poor people, too," said NRA lobbyist Chris Cox.

San Francisco voters approved a broader prohibition on handgun possession by city residents in 2005, but it was overturned by state courts, which said it conflicted with California law. ( Like the voters in CALIF have any power...)

The District of Columbia had a similar provision in its 32-year-old handgun ordinance that the Supreme Court overturned Thursday. In addition to prohibiting residents from carrying guns, the ordinance required owners to keep their weapons locked up or inoperable in their homes.

That restriction, the court said, "makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense." One advantage of having a loaded handgun available, Scalia observed, is that "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."

Scalia sketched out a few guidelines for future cases in his majority opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Although the government can't forbid gun possession in the home, Scalia said, it can continue to ban ownership by certain categories of people, such as felons and the mentally ill. It can also ban people from carrying guns in "sensitive places," such as schools and government buildings, Scalia said.

He also cited a historical tradition of prohibiting non-soldiers from carrying "dangerous and unusual weapons," such as military rifles, and noted 19th century rulings upholding bans on carrying concealed weapons in public.

The court may provide some specifics in its next term, which begins in October, when it rules on a challenge to a federal law banning gun possession by anyone convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor involving domestic violence. (Thats scary!)

Harris said the court seemed prepared to uphold gun-licensing laws, like a California law requiring a police permit to carry a loaded weapon in public. The court's reference to "dangerous and unusual weapons" suggested a defense for laws in California and other states that ban military-style semiautomatic rifles and pistols.

The state also limits gun purchases to one a month and prohibits ownership of the cheap handguns known as Saturday-night specials. Those laws are likely to survive, said attorney Juliet Leftwich of Legal Community Against Violence, a lawyers' group formed after a gunman with a grudge against attorneys entered a San Francisco law office in 1993 and killed nine people, including himself.

Other gun-control advocates lamented the ruling. Kristen Rand of the Violence Policy Center said the court "ignored our nation's history of mass shootings, assassinations and unparalleled gun violence," including 30,000 annual gun deaths. (SHOW ME THE FACTS AND I'LL SHOW YOU A PACK OF LAIRS!)

But the NRA's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, called it "a great moment in American history. ... Our founding fathers wrote and intended the Second Amendment to be an individual right. The Supreme Court has now acknowledged it."

The ruling reflected a relatively recent shift in the prevailing legal view of the Second Amendment, which had long been interpreted by most scholars and judges as protecting only a collective right to be part of a state or national militia. The Supreme Court seemed to accept that interpretation in a 1939 ruling upholding a federal machine gun ban, although it did not rule explicitly on the meaning of the amendment.

The competing individual-rights view has gained increasing acceptance in the last decade, culminating in Thursday's ruling overturning the Washington handgun ban.

Scalia's majority opinion delved into dictionaries and legal tracts from the 17th and 18th centuries for his assessment that the right to "keep and bear" arms meant the right to possess and carry them, and that the "well regulated militia" consisted of all able-bodied men in the community.

English history that influenced the Second Amendment's authors showed that "the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people's arms," Scalia said. "When the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny."

Dissenting Justice John Paul Stevens said the wording of the amendment and the history of its drafting compelled the opposite conclusion - that it was meant to protect the people's right to bear arms "in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia."

Breyer joined Stevens' dissent and also wrote separately that even if the Constitution protects individual gun ownership, a handgun ban in a city plagued by firearm violence should be upheld as a reasonable regulation. Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg also dissented.

So......anyone notice that this story was missed by the main stream media?

This is a great day! Hopefully this ruling will help those states that continue to refuse the right to carry with some trickle down effect. I lived in South Carolina for 14 years and always had a carry permit, but when I moved to Maryland four years ago, I essentially gave it all up, as they are pretty unfriendly up here to the gun culture I grew to love in the south.

Hey Coach,

I have always meant to say something to you but just never got around to it before; but that is a great thing you do with the kids and teaching shooting skills. I taught several NRA First Steps courses in the past during events at our shooting club in SC in the 90s. I taught basics at a couple of the "Women in the Outdoors" events and had the chance to teach some very young ladies how to handle small revolvers on the range. It was pretty cool to see how happy they were when they discovered that they were having fun and it wasn't as scary as they had originally thought!

Cheers!

Quote:

+ 11 billionty

This is a topic I have been watching, and to be honest, was scared shitless about the potential ruling.

I can't believe it was only 5 to 4 tho.

Was a close one.

~Rich
Gun Nut
CWL having and using
NRA Certified

I am glad this issue has been put to rest, for the moment.

It has been proven that islands where they outlaw these weapons, the outlaws, who don't care and respect for the law, will easily violate it.

The sad fact of the matter is that cops can't be everywhere... now, I don't beleive in vigilante justice, just self protection.

Quote:

It hasn't been put to rest nor will it ever be. Too hot of a topic. The first Chicago (illegal to own handguns in the city) lawsuit was filed hours after this decision. There will be many more lawsuits to follow. The court did leave some wiggle room in their decision regarding dangerous weapons, registration, etc, so cities and states will still be able to regulate things.

I support the decision and hope it changes things in Chicago. I, luckily, live outside the city and don't have to worry about the BS. I am 100% pro responsible gun ownership. There was a 3 year old (about 10 miles from me) who died 2 days ago playing with a loaded handgun. It's idiots like those parents who make gun laws necessary.

BTW - this is my gun safe - it's 543 lbs of "my kid's not getting in" along with a double manual key + electronic passcode lock.



Matthew

Biggriz

Thanks for the Thanks!

Its been a lot of fun working with the kids and making a difference in their lives. Takes lots of time and patience. Sometimes my own family feels left out. But they know.

This win for the 2nd amendment is a hole in the liberal sail. My hopes are that statics will make the difference.

Coach

Quote:

And how quickly can you get your gun out and loaded when someone is busting through your kitchen window?

The one on my hip? - about two seconds. If I have a gun out of my safe it is in my possession. Or I can use my other "instant" handgun safe that is finger code activated and has slots where my fingers go.

The case that happened the other day, which is tragic, could have been prevented. The 21 year old mother left the three year old in the other room. She said she had no idea the gun was there, which as it turns out is stolen on top of things. Draw your own conclusions.

Matthew