Supreme Court Upholds Right to Own Guns

[NewsHound]

Supreme Court Upholds Right to Own Guns


WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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.

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

**** 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 **** 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.

Source (http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/jun/26/supreme-court-upholds-americans-right-own-guns/?news-breaking)

Thats nice after refusing to allow baby rapists to be executed I was not sure how this was going to come out. Guess you can never predict their decisions.

wait till all the morons start bringing them to work in their cars.... unsecured.. 21's will spike and they all be armed now... oh well

The Decision was a good one though not as complete as I had hoped but it now leaves the way for Law abiding Citizens to reclaim this fundamental God given right by bringing litigations against the local governments and challenging their unlawful Statutes and regulations.

How can we say these rights are God given?

Quote from the Declaration of Independence

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain UNALIENABLE Rights, that among these are Life, LIBERTY and the pursuit of Happiness." (CAPS MINE)

An UNalienable RIGHT is a natural, GOD given right that no government can lawfully grant or take away. Just like the right of FREE SPEECH and Religious freedoms. They are protected. They are inviolate! You cannot say that the right to own and carry a gun can be regulated and then in the same breath say that our right to freedom of speech and right to our religious beliefs cannot be. That is hypocracy. If one goes then the others will follow suit. It is the 2nd Amendment that is the "Liberty Teeth" which ultimately guards all the others.

Quotes from several Founding Fathers.

“The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” —Samuel Adams

"[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are
left in full possession of them." --Zacharia Johnson


"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon, and citizen's firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land owns firearms, and more than 99-99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference -- they deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes -- we need them every hour."
-- President George Washington's address to the second session of the first Congress

"...[A]rms...discourage and keep the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were [the law-abiding] deprived of the use of them"
-- Thomas Paine (1775)

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
-- Thomas Jefferson (1764)

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
-- Richard Lee, Letters from the Federal Farmer, 169-170

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force you are ruined... The great object is that every man be armed... Everyone who is able may have a gun."
-- Patrick Henry

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."
-- Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (1787)

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the Body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
-- Thomas Jefferson

There are many more supporting quotes from the very men who wrote the Constitution but these should suffice.

Listen guys and gals, every Law Enforcement Officer has sworn an OATH which was signed by the officer and it was notarized, to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State Constitution. Is it too much to ask that you honor your oaths?

Have a Blessed day!
Former TPD

Listen guys and gals, every Law Enforcement Officer has sworn an OATH which was signed by the officer and it was notarized, to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State Constitution. Is it too much to ask that you honor your oaths?

where does it say in the constitution that you have a right to bring your gun on private property if the owner does not want it there. Is you gun right more important than my property rights. The constitution has been a living debate on interperation for a 100 years. Besides I don't recall signing this document you speak of.

The Decision was a good one though not as complete as I had hoped but it now leaves the way for Law abiding Citizens to reclaim this fundamental God given right by bringing litigations against the local governments and challenging their unlawful Statutes and regulations.

How can we say these rights are God given?

Quote from the Declaration of Independence

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain UNALIENABLE Rights, that among these are Life, LIBERTY and the pursuit of Happiness." (CAPS MINE)

An UNalienable RIGHT is a natural, GOD given right that no government can lawfully grant or take away. Just like the right of FREE SPEECH and Religious freedoms. They are protected. They are inviolate! You cannot say that the right to own and carry a gun can be regulated and then in the same breath say that our right to freedom of speech and right to our religious beliefs cannot be. That is hypocracy. If one goes then the others will follow suit. It is the 2nd Amendment that is the "Liberty Teeth" which ultimately guards all the others.

Quotes from several Founding Fathers.

“The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” —Samuel Adams

"[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are
left in full possession of them." --Zacharia Johnson


"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon, and citizen's firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land owns firearms, and more than 99-99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference -- they deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes -- we need them every hour."
-- President George Washington's address to the second session of the first Congress

"...[A]rms...discourage and keep the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were [the law-abiding] deprived of the use of them"
-- Thomas Paine (1775)

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
-- Thomas Jefferson (1764)

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
-- Richard Lee, Letters from the Federal Farmer, 169-170

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force you are ruined... The great object is that every man be armed... Everyone who is able may have a gun."
-- Patrick Henry

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."
-- Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (1787)

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the Body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
-- Thomas Jefferson

There are many more supporting quotes from the very men who wrote the Constitution but these should suffice.

Listen guys and gals, every Law Enforcement Officer has sworn an OATH which was signed by the officer and it was notarized, to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State Constitution. Is it too much to ask that you honor your oaths?

Have a Blessed day!
Former TPD


NOT THIS GUY AGAIN!!! :x

Listen guys and gals, every Law Enforcement Officer has sworn an OATH which was signed by the officer and it was notarized, to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State Constitution. Is it too much to ask that you honor your oaths?

where does it say in the constitution that you have a right to bring your gun on private property if the owner does not want it there. Is you gun right more important than my property rights. The constitution has been a living debate on interperation for a 100 years. Besides I don't recall signing this document you speak of.

Well try re-reading the Bill of Rights, 2nd amendment. Let me quote it for you.

"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."

Carefully note the large letters where it says..."shall not be infringed".

"Shall not" means that it something that CANNOT be done. What cannot be done? Our RIGHT to own and carry a firearm cannot be infringed upon by...anyone. This means that no one can restrict, limit, hinder, prohibit, etc., in any capacity whatsoever,... anyone from owning or CARRYING a firearm. This means without any permits, without any license. The caveat is of course assuming they are of course people who are US Citizens and not convicted felons who have lost their rights. There are provisions in the Constitution for this.

Since there are no limitations made on our rights here, then a private business cannot restrict you either. In fact the higher courts have recently ruled on this as well and "We The People" have prevailed.


Regarding your Oath of Loyalty/office. Call the City or County administrator depending where you are employeed or formerly employed and they will send you a copy. It is a matter of public record. Every Law Enforcement Officer and every elected official is required to sign one by Statute and it is required to be notarized in most states.

Yes there has been debates for many years on various issues in the constitution but that doesn't mean the truth was not in front of them. All we need do is read what the AUTHORS of the Constitution had to say about an issue and then we can know what specifically what their intenet was. By the way....here is an interesting quote or two.

In Federalist No. 81 Alexander Hamilton writes, “[T]here is not a syllable in the [Constitution] which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution...”

But, Thomas Jefferson feared, “The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”

Jefferson clearly understood human nature, and though our Founders never intended the courts to amend our Constitution by judicial diktat, he foresaw what British historian Lord John Acton affirmed in 1887, a hundred years after the adoption of our Constitution: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Fortunately, the Supreme Court can still occasionally produce a simple majority of constitutional constructionists who rule on the basis of that venerable document’s original intent.

That certainly describes Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom the Constitution has long been an unerring compass.

Justice Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, aptly noted in 2005: “As long as judges tinker with the Constitution to ‘do what the people want,’ instead of what the document actually commands, politicians who pick and confirm new federal judges will naturally want only those who agree with them politically.”

In the Heller case, Justice Scalia wrote, “Nowhere else in the Constitution does a ”right“ attributed to ”the people“ refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention ”the people,“ the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset... The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms... The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed’.”

Justice Scalia continued in defense of original intent: “We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad... Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”


If we are going to say that the Second Amendment does not mean what it says it means, then by what right can we claim rights under the other Amendments? How can we claim the right of Free Speech or Freedom OF Religion, or the right to secure from UNlawful warrants and seizures?

To forfeit our rights either voluntarily or involuntarily, or to allow them to be twisted and perverted to the views of some liberal whackos is the slippery slope towards Facism, which of course we should realize that we are sadly headed that way.

Have a blessed day!
Former TPD

Listen guys and gals, every Law Enforcement Officer has sworn an OATH which was signed by the officer and it was notarized, to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State Constitution. Is it too much to ask that you honor your oaths?

where does it say in the constitution that you have a right to bring your gun on private property if the owner does not want it there. Is you gun right more important than my property rights. The constitution has been a living debate on interperation for a 100 years. Besides I don't recall signing this document you speak of.

Well try re-reading the Bill of Rights, 2nd amendment. Let me quote it for you.

"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."

Carefully note the large letters where it says..."shall not be infringed".

"Shall not" means that it something that CANNOT be done. What cannot be done? Our RIGHT to own and carry a firearm cannot be infringed upon by...anyone. This means that no one can restrict, limit, hinder, prohibit, etc., in any capacity whatsoever,... anyone from owning or CARRYING a firearm. This means without any permits, without any license. The caveat is of course assuming they are of course people who are US Citizens and not convicted felons who have lost their rights. There are provisions in the Constitution for this.

Since there are no limitations made on our rights here, then a private business cannot restrict you either. In fact the higher courts have recently ruled on this as well and "We The People" have prevailed.


Regarding your Oath of Loyalty/office. Call the City or County administrator depending where you are employeed or formerly employed and they will send you a copy. It is a matter of public record. Every Law Enforcement Officer and every elected official is required to sign one by Statute and it is required to be notarized in most states.

Yes there has been debates for many years on various issues in the constitution but that doesn't mean the truth was not in front of them. All we need do is read what the AUTHORS of the Constitution had to say about an issue and then we can know what specifically what their intenet was. By the way....here is an interesting quote or two.

In Federalist No. 81 Alexander Hamilton writes, “[T]here is not a syllable in the [Constitution] which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution...”

But, Thomas Jefferson feared, “The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”

Jefferson clearly understood human nature, and though our Founders never intended the courts to amend our Constitution by judicial diktat, he foresaw what British historian Lord John Acton affirmed in 1887, a hundred years after the adoption of our Constitution: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Fortunately, the Supreme Court can still occasionally produce a simple majority of constitutional constructionists who rule on the basis of that venerable document’s original intent.

That certainly describes Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom the Constitution has long been an unerring compass.

Justice Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, aptly noted in 2005: “As long as judges tinker with the Constitution to ‘do what the people want,’ instead of what the document actually commands, politicians who pick and confirm new federal judges will naturally want only those who agree with them politically.”

In the Heller case, Justice Scalia wrote, “Nowhere else in the Constitution does a ”right“ attributed to ”the people“ refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention ”the people,“ the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset... The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms... The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed’.”

Justice Scalia continued in defense of original intent: “We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad... Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”


If we are going to say that the Second Amendment does not mean what it says it means, then by what right can we claim rights under the other Amendments? How can we claim the right of Free Speech or Freedom OF Religion, or the right to secure from UNlawful warrants and seizures?

To forfeit our rights either voluntarily or involuntarily, or to allow them to be twisted and perverted to the views of some liberal whackos is the slippery slope towards Facism, which of course we should realize that we are sadly headed that way.

Have a blessed day!
Former TPD

Blah blah blah, I could type several pages of spelling correct bable and sound smart too.
:lol:

You left out the part where Justice Scalia wrote that their ruling still affirms the right of the government to restrict people like convicted felons and the mentally unstable from owning guns.

Isn't that infringing on a right? Do you think that criminals have a right to own guns as well??

This guy is obsessed with this gun thing.....did u get arrested for CCF

I think that Law Enforcement could be looked at as a "well regulated Militia" nowadays. Granted we wont be fighting the king or queen of england we will only be fighting the scum of our own to bring justice and protection to our people.

blah blah blah


Blah blah blah, I could type several pages of spelling correct bable and sound smart too.
:lol:
Type? I'd say the majority of his posts are copy and paste.