The Supreme Court has declared for the first time that the Constitution protects an individual’s right to have a gun, not just the right of the states to maintain militias.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the landmark 5-to-4 decision, said the Constitution does not allow “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.” In so declaring, the majority found that a gun-control law in the nation’s capital went too far in making it nearly impossible to own a handgun.
But the court held that the individual right to possess a gun “for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home” is not unlimited. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,” Justice Scalia wrote.
I doubt if this will be a long-standing decision – in the sense of carrying forward for decades. Not at 5 to 4.
Sooner or later, a more broadly-based court will decide thoroughly to support or revise today’s opinion.
Wow, liberal communism loses again.
Their ruling didn’t go far enough, IMHO. Should have struck down a good majority of the wacko gun laws that currently exist. This is still just limited freedom.
A dissent by Justice John Paul Stevens asserted 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.”
If they had actually bothered to read any of the letters and other correspondence produced by the framers, they would know that is the exact purpose. Government is supposed to be afraid of the People, not the other way around.
A simple reading of the other amendments clearly shows there is a difference between land forces, naval forces, militia, and the people.
Sorry, John Paul Stevens, but it sure is a shame you spent all that money on law school and never learned to read.
Great to see the court ruled that the 2nd Amendment, like all from the Bill of Rights, protects individual rights. As Scalia wrote in the majority opinion, the militia clause recognizes that the intent is to prevent the government from disarming it, not to limit arms to only those participating in state organized military service.
So why are government offices excluded from this right? Aren’t government employees full citizens as well?
The 4 dissenters do need to improve their literacy. Or, maybe they just like tyrannical governments? Ginsberg after all did work for an organization that was founded by a guy who wanted to destroy the U.S.
It is just that the Supreme Court ruled to support an individuals right to own a weapon. They should, however, have explicitly struck down any kind of “regulation.”
A right is something you have. There is no higher authority. You have the right. You don’t have to ask the state, or get a permit, or license.
A privilege is something you have to ask a higher authority for permission for. You must get a permit. “Mommy can I go to the bathroom…”
Right vs. Privilege’s are like light vs. dark – polar opposites. I wish people could understand that. Especially since the 2nd amendment is there to protect us from the state, to secure our rights. So why should we have to ask permission, or get a permit, from the State for our right? It makes no sense, is egregious, and needs to end.
In all reality, this is a quasi-win. The court needed to explicitly strike down any “permits” or regulation that changes the whole purpose of this right into a privilege- a privilege granted by the very entity (the government) that this right is supposed to protect us from.
#7, um, they ruled that the DC ban was unconstitutional and that the requirement for trigger locks is as well.
It’s most important that they finally addressed the individual/collective right debate, and stated definitely that it protects a pre-existing individual right.
“It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,” Justice Scalia wrote.
See, even those who voted against the DC gun ban don’t get it. What part of “bare arms” and “infringed” doesn’t Scalia understand?
This should be interesting for Omama. In Feb.? when asked by a reporter he said that he supported
the D.C. type of gun ban. Wait for his statement and let’ see if he remembers that interview…
#9, in the same way that the 1st Amendment doesn’t protect you for asking somebody to kill your wife.
#1: No, the constitution wins again. The founders realized that forcefully unarmed people are hard-pressed to defend themselves… either from other citizens or oppressive governments (including their own.)
The idea of being able to protect yourself from your own government probably didn’t get much thought a few years ago…. now, I’m not so sure.
#8 here it is from the Supreme Court Themselves:
“2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those ‘in common use at the time’ finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.”
Just read it.
A fucking joke man.
It’s getting ignored in the wake of this decision, but the Supreme Court also strengthened the First Amendment today, and Stevens had an even more idiotic dissent in that one.
They threw out the millionaire’s amendment to McCain’s precious campaign finance reform which said that if you have a really rich guy as your opponent, you are allowed to collect even bigger checks from contributors.
So apparently McCain decided that limiting to $2300 contributions is necessary to combat corruption, but if your opponent is rich, then larger contributions of $6000 are no longer corrupting.
Guns _don’t_ kill people.
It’s that G** D***
leading 1/8th inch edge of the bullets.
If ammo makers would trim that part off,
think of how many lives could be saved!
#14, can’t see the forest for the trees.
“I doubt if this will be a long-standing decision – in the sense of carrying forward for decades. Not at 5 to 4.”
Miranda rights was a 5-4 vote.
#14 I believe Miller decided that a sawed off shot gun wasn’t in use by the “militia” read military so wasn’t covered by the 2nd. That reading would allow (today) civilians to carry rifles & side arms that are in common use in todays military.
see http://tinyurl.com/38a4a
“Sooner or later, a more broadly-based court will decide thoroughly to support or revise today’s opinion.” – What broader representation one can imagine but the one clearly split near the middle? Except if it is “1984” interpretation of broader which means more people thinking exactly alike,…
If they support the decision, then that makes it long-standing!
#7 Ian
Regarding licenses, the Supreme Court can only rule about what is before them. The Heller in the case didn’t challenge the license part of the rule.
I’m against guns but this ruling is correct. I was near the fence until about a year ago in this blog posted something like “Imagine firearms are ladders and read it this way:
“A well-regulated fire fighting service, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear ladders, shall not be infringed.”
I think what we have here is another Plessey v Fergusen (sp?) where the Sup Ct correctly ruled the Constitution allowed slavery.
Whats needed here is an amendment—and chaos ensues. How many expressed rights do you think would survive a modern convention? Scary.
Yay !!! Machine Guns for EVERYONE !!! Just keep your heads down !!!
Could be more trouble at the Post Office.
It’s amusing that the article describes the decision as being split down liberal/conservative lines.
As if there are 2 (only 2) possible political positions.
I know plenty of liberals who don’t want more gun control. They actually believe liberty means freedom.
I also know conservatives who think that guns should only be in the hands of the police or the military.
Damn, If I had a gun I’d shoot every Pro-Gun activist!
#14 I think your quote of the decision is exactly the way it should be. Personally I support this 5-4 decision as much as I support the 5-4 decision two weeks ago to allow guantanamo detainees to file for habeus corpus, even though the justices on the winning side were very different. The constitution won in both cases.
Call me a “radical moderate”, but I hate the black and white thinking of #7. People shoud have a right to protect themselves in their own home with guns if they choose, but people and businesses have a right to protect themselves by keep guns off their property as well. There is also a difference between self protection weapons, like .22s and weapons of mass destruction like fully automatic uzis. Cities, counties and states should be allowed to divide the line as they see fit.
#29 – “like .22s and weapons of mass destruction like fully automatic uzis. Cities, counties and states should be allowed to divide the line as they see fit.”
According to US v Miller you can posses what is common for the military soldier as the “militia” is the citizen who keeps his weapon at his home…
Also, a hand held weapon that shoots pistol ammo is not an ANY way a WMD. LOL
I surprisingly agree with Scalia on this. The Constitution does protect the right of an individual to keep and bear arms but it does not say that people can own any type of arm they want or carry arms anywhere they want.
Obama Invokes Chicago In Wake of D.C.Gun Ruling
http://tinyurl.com/65dhtm
What a mealy mouthed pol. Afraid to state his actual belief’s for fear he’ll lose.