Heavy Hitters!

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.


The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The court had 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 was 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.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks.

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.

Dick Anthony Heller, 66, 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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.

The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.

Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.

Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

I guess it hasn't occurred to that silly homosexual that law-abiding people in crime-ridden urban areas should have an untouchable constitutional - and human - right to protect themselves from the type of lowlife criminal his idiotic rulings try to protect.

In light of the court's ruling yesterday against the death penalty for those who rape children, this is a surprising victory for common sense.

Is it a "victory" when 4 of these jackasses voted the other way?

I am glad the ruling turned out like it did but, it is a sad thing that 4 of the 9 Justices voted the way they did. It is an American right to keep and bear arms but a minority of our country wants to, and will continue, to try and remove our firearms.

this was simply a common sense decision, which only happens about once every 10 years. The intent of the ban was to reduce gun violence in the district, however the violence increased after the ban. Laws are designed only for the honest people that obey them. If they wanted to address the gun violence they should have targeted the criminals.

it would b ery interesting to know if the 4 that voted against, if they owned guns

Funny, when the Supreme Court ruled last week that the right to habeas corpus was a human right (even to terrorists and even to someone like you who might be viewed as a terrorist because you googled bomb making material one time) it didn't make hardly a bit of news.

Yet tonight, all top cable news stations thought this was *THE* landmark ruling. Hey, keep your machine gun. I have one too. But when the FBI come raiding your house, your gun won't do you a bit of good. It will either get you put in jail or killed. Now which RIGHT is really more important?

P.E.,

I agree with your statement completely.


[quote="P.E."]this was simply a common sense decision, which only happens about once every 10 years. The intent of the ban was to reduce gun violence in the district, however the violence increased after the ban. Laws are designed only for the honest people that obey them. If they wanted to address the gun violence they should have targeted the criminals.[/quote]

dmb wrote: Hey, keep your machine gun. I have one too. But when the FBI come raiding your house, your gun won't do you a bit of good. It will either get you put in jail or killed. Now which RIGHT is really more important?

The right to bear arms to keep yourself safe from the terrorists and criminals that are coddled by liberals.

stoney1 wrote:it would b ery interesting to know if the 4 that voted against, if they owned guns

Reminds me of that pig Rosie O'Donnell, who was so militantly anti-gun at those "Million Moms" protests, but whose bodyguards are armed to the teeth.

Hounddog wrote:
The right to bear arms to keep yourself safe from the terrorists and criminals that are coddled by liberals.

Nothing about coddling terrorists but that is a common yet dumb argument. Again, is the right to bear arms even of any use if you don't have habeas corpus? Does that gun protect you from the U.S. government putting you in jail with no representation? No I don't think so. And you, like every news agency in America, don't think that constitutional right (habeas corpus) is even worth mentioning. Just your machine guns.

Thank God for Floridians! If Gorey had been elected, the vote would have been 6 to 3; and today the Brady Bunch and their ilk would be at our doors demanding we surrender our guns. It is vitally important that conservatives hold their noses and vote for McCain. He may not be much, but 2 or more of the Justices will leave the bench in the next four years. Do you want Obamassiah to appoint replacements?

America has 4 Justices that believe the First Amendment is "a right of the people"; that the Fifth Amendment is "a right of the people" that abortion is "a right of the people" but the Second Amendment is NOT "a right of the people" only of militias which they consider do not exist in our enlightened society.

If one bothers to read what the founding fathers wrote about the Second Amendment, there is no doubt they ment citizens have a right to keep and bear arms! Seventy percent of Americans understand this. No where does their writing or the Second Amendment refer to hunting, or sporting, or collecting, or any other false idea of the leftists.

oh yes, things are soooo much better today thanks to Gore losing. Stupendous economy, record gas prices, and you get to keep your machine gun too!!! whoohooo!!!

p.s. Floridians did not decide who won. The count was stopped by the Supreme Court. So now you have two things to thank them for.

If you read the entire dissents, it is VERY clear that the liberal justices were trying to amend the Constitution from the bench. Which by the very nature is prohibited by the Constitution. Scary

2 words: Sig Sauer

IIRC the votes were counted six times, and Gorey and his ilk lost every time!

Now, Gorey and his ilk are trying to fleece the taxpayers with the Global Warming Hoax. First campaign financing; now the GWH. What a guy!