We can breath a sigh of relief...

[Flycasting]

[url "http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns"]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns[/url]

[size 2]By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer [/size]1 minute ago


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 or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.
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.
Gun rights supporters hailed the decision. "I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.
The NRA will file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several of its suburbs challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a leading gun control advocate in Congress, criticized the ruling. "I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it," she said.
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." In a concluding paragraph to the his 64-page opinion, Scalia said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns." 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. 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. Forty-four state constitutions contain some form of gun rights, which are not affected by the court's consideration of Washington's restrictions. The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.
[signature]

[BEARCLAW]

Thanks for posting this Flycasting. Even though it's a ruling for DC law it has long reaching ramifications in the world of hunting and shooting in every state.
[signature]

[Flycasting]

Yep. I really liked the 1st paragraph... haha
[cool]
[signature]

[BEARCLAW]

I agree whole heartedly, first paragraph was the best. I've also just read that pelosi is acting rather defiant in regards to the Supreme Court decision. Claiming that DC can and will continue to regulate firearms.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says that despite the Supreme Court decision to strike down its gun ban, the District of Columbia will still be able to regulate firearms.
"I think it still allows the District of Columbia to come forward with a law that’s less pervasive," Pelosi said at her weekly briefing Thursday. "I think the court left a lot of room to run in terms of concealed weapons and guns near schools."
[signature]

[Wyobraz]

What a great day to be an AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is about time our SCOTUS upheld the actual meaning of the Constitution. It is scary as hell though that this decision was a 5-4 vote. One can only imagine where we would be today if it were not for Bush nominating the Originalist judges he did during his term.


[signature]

[Wyobraz]

I haven't read the entire opinions yet but here is some interesting quotes from the Majority Opinion,

[size 2]Relavant Quotes from the Majority.
[/size][url "http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/heller-quotes-from-the-majority/"][#3f702e][size 2]http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/heller-quotes-from-the-majority/[/size][/#3f702e][/url][size 2]

“Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command.”

“We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.”

“the most natural reading of ‘keep Arms’ in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”

“The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.”

“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”

“Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.”

“The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.”

“It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense.”

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

“Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U. S., at 179.”

“Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.”

“In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.”

On the question of the Second Amendment’s application to the States: “23 With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.”[/size]
[signature]

[Wyobraz]

Chad, I don't want to bring politcs to your board but I think it is important to hear what our Presidential candidates regarding this decision I hope you do not mind.

Obama's Response.

"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.
"As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe."

McCain's Response

[b]"Today's decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States. For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers. I applaud this decision as well as the overturning of the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and limitations on the ability to use firearms for self-defense.
"Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right -- sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.
"This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms. But today, the Supreme Court ended forever the specious argument that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to keep and bear arms."


[/b]
[signature]

[BEARCLAW]

I have no problem whatsoever with this being posted here. It is of the utmost importance that we as sportsmen/women
understand exactly where each candidate stands. I appreciate you bringing it to everyone's attention.
[signature]

[Saberfish]

I have made it a point to not make religious or political postings on the forum, and will only now that I feel it's more important that it has been before.

Everyone has great interest in the Presidential elections, and fail to realize that the last two Presidents have done nothing remotely related to their pre-election promises. Like all other elected officials in Washington DC, they are interested only in party politics, re-election, and filling their bank accounts.

The important point of the election, is who will set up shop in the oval office, and have the power to nominate judges for the Supreme Court.

This decision today, was a 4-5, and anyone who has interest in retaining personal rights in this country should consider the above.
[signature]

[Wyobraz]

Saberfish, your are exactly right when it comes to the nomination of Supreme Court Judges and the Presidential election. I just got done reading the disenting opinion, and I am plum sickened by the Liberal way of thinking in our Supreme Court.

We came one vote away from loosing all of our gun rights as individuals yesterday, just not handguns. The four disenting judges did not vote against hand guns, they actually voted that they felt the 2nd Amendment was intended for a State Militia and not individual rights therefore hand guns should not be allowed.

Barack Obama has went on the record many times stating that he would nominate judges with similar beleifs and values that the four disenting judges from yesterday have. Now that is scary.

Here is some highlights of the Minority Opinion.

Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.


-The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a "collective right" or an "individual right." Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.


-The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature's authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.


- This reading is confirmed by the fact that the clause protects only one right, rather than two. It does not describe a right "to keep arms" and a separate right "to bear arms." Rather, the single right that it does describe is both a duty and a right to have arms available and ready for military service, and to use them for military purposes when necessary.13 Different language surely would have been used to protect nonmilitary use and possession of weapons from regulation if such an intent had played any role in the drafting of the Amendment.


-The majority's conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by Justice Stevens--namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th-century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment's concern.


- Although I adopt for present purposes the majority's position that the Second Amendment embodies a general concern about self-defense, I shall not assume that the Amendment contains a specific untouchable right to keep guns in the house to shoot burglars. The majority, which presents evidence in favor of the former proposition, does not, because it cannot, convincingly show that the Second Amendment seeks to maintain the latter in pristine, unregulated form.


-The reason there is no clearly superior, less restrictive alternative to the District's handgun ban is that the ban's very objective is to reduce significantly the number of handguns in the District, say, for example, by allowing a law enforcement officer immediately to assume that any handgun he sees is an illegal handgun. And there is no plausible way to achieve that objective other than to ban the guns.
[signature]

[Saberfish]

Few people know or remember that having a armed population kept the Japanese from making a landing attack on the US during world war II.

They were afraid of the number of weapons in all the houses on the west coast.

They did however, attack US forces on the Aleution Island chain, and many lives were lost on both sides before it was over.

Remember, the first thing that a government will do, to take over the population, is register and remove all fire arms from the population.
[signature]

[TS30]

Bravo to the 5 that have a brain. Good thing Stevens is old and will likely be out soon. Well, only if someone who is not equally as intent on pushing a liberal agenda is not put in.
[signature]

[Flycasting]

That'll all depend on who gets elected in November. If Obama gets ut, he'll just get replaced by someone as liberal, if not more.
[signature]

[BEARCLAW]

More liberal than Obama? Is that even possible?[]
[signature]

[Flycasting]

Haha... I meant the justice will be replaced by someone as or more liberal and he is. [cool]
[signature]