Dubai Debt Issues Push Stocks Down
Family Gets Early Christmas Gift From Ellen DeGeneres
Photos of D Train Murder Depict Bloody Panic
Mayor: Sex Trafficking Victims, Please Speak Up
Stuy Pyro Leaves Notes In Hieroglyphics
Photograph of a pro-rights gun supporter holding up a banner outside the Supreme Court by Jose Luis Magana/AP
The Supreme Court ruled that Washington D.C.'s ban on handgun ownership is unconstitutional; per the Times, the five of the court's nine justices found "the Constitution protects an individual’s right to have a gun, not just the right of the states to maintain militias."
Majority opinion writer Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, "The enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.'' However, in one minority opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, said the majority opinion “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."
And another minority opinion, written by Justice Stephen Breyer, questioned what the Constitution's framers meant, "The self-defense interest in maintaining loaded handguns in the home to shoot intruders is not the primary interest, but at most a subsidiary interest. The Second Amendment's language, while speaking of a 'militia,' says nothing of 'self-defense.'"
The majority opinion did say laws regulating gun ownership (like not allowing felons to own them or prohibited concealed guns) could stand. Mayor Bloomberg, who has been an outspoken opponent of illegal hand guns, said:
"From the beginning, we have said that fighting illegal guns has nothing to do with the Second Amendment rights of Americans. Today's decision by the Supreme Court upholding those rights will benefit our coalition by finally putting to rest the ideological debates that have for too long obscured an obvious fact: criminals, who have no right to purchase or possess guns, nevertheless have easy access to them. Mayors and police chiefs have a responsibility to crack down on illegal guns and punish gun criminals, and it is encouraging that the Supreme Court recognizes the constitutionality of reasonable regulations that allow for us to carry out those responsibilities."Senator John McCain issued a statement praising the decision and referring back to Senator Barack Obama's bitter gun owner comment. Obama also reacted, supporting the decision because he too agrees that the Second Amendment allows gun ownership, but "Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe."
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
a minor setback for handgun control i'm sure, as there are plenty more interpretations available for those seeking to limit the amount of handguns in holsters. until there is a constitutional amendment, there will be ways around this (and preceding) decisions.
same applies for Roe--they can overturn the case and abortion can remain legal. don't flame me for saying this because i could back it up (at least somewhat satisfactorily), and i won't do it if someone calls me a retard or something like it!
why is there no link to obama's reaction?
guns don't kill people
sucking exit wounds do
guns dont kill people people kill people that is the reason that so many people get killed.people who murder people shouldnt get 10 to 15 years ,im a firm beliver in capatol punishment,their are so many people in the us federal and state prison system serving a few years instead of the death penelty ,there are to many libarals,who are against capitol punishmentit happes everywhere it used to be just blacks and hispanics and otherreegions and races now there are alot of whitesm my cousin who was on drugs and tried to trade a gun for drugs but my uncle said no then his wife who just raised his insurence policy to over 2 million and my uncle was planning on leaving her stood up and started yellin shoot him rock kill him my uncle was kept tranquilizerd up by his wife so ny cousin shot him with in 5 feet in head and supposedly tried to kill her but she ran by himhe could have grabed her and killed her but she got by and lived my cousin got 40 plus years,which shold have been death penalty ,because he is a waste of air.so kaputsayou and your theory guns dont kill people the exit wound does you are an idiot,likejacque mehoff who says gun controll laws are racist,and houboutthemcowboys blaming it on poverty,i myself have atleast 10 to 15 guns they are all registured and bottles are the only thing that i have shot and fruit
what was obama's reaction?
also, as much as my gut is against this decision, it is absolutely the right one. i believe in strong regulations on gun control and completely disagree with the minority statement which implies that the framers did not intend to limit regulation. they most certainly did want to put a limit on what the government could say regarding gun ownership and that is why it's in the Constitution to begin with.
further clarification: there is definitely room though, in what they said, for reasonable people to disagree as to just how much we are limited by the 2nd Amendment.
from Reuters.com:
In the majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia said the Second Amendment protected an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Although an individual now has a constitutional right to own guns, that new right is not unlimited, wrote Scalia, a hunter.
He said the ruling should not be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill or on laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in places like schools and government buildings or laws imposing conditions on gun sales.
@ missmess and Outer Burrougher, Obama's reaction was in the same link as McCain's, but I clarified it. thanks.
Agree or not, this is the right decision for the same reason that trying to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage is the wrong one. The constitution was designed to enable rights, not limit them.
These are very interesting times to be living in, this election cycle and the recent 5-4 splits.
*Sigh* As a native Washingtonian, I'm not happy with the decision. But this really won't change much. Most people who want guns in DC already have them, and I doubt many of the less savory types bother to register them, so...people will keep shooting each other in SE and NE, and cops will still be able to arrest them for illegal possession of a handgun.
I for one support as much gun control as we can get, but problems in DC run much deeper and wouldn't have changed one way or another based on this ruling.
"I for one support as much gun control as we can get, but problems in DC run much deeper and wouldn't have changed one way or another based on this ruling."
Once the government controls all guns, we the people will be fucked!
Correct decision based on the Constitution. Republican appointees can apparently read the text of the Constitution while Democratic ones can not.
thanks for the clarification, Jen.
this is great news. molon labe.
love it or hate it, a cool thing about the amendment allowing citizens to arm themselves is that it entitles (perhaps even places a responsibility on) american citizens to overthrow the government if they are threatened by it.
Of course, the government can fight back, but it's one of the interesting ambiguities of the constitution.
To second some comments above, this is important because how else are we to revolt if the government has all the weapons? Also, more guns doesn't necessarily equal more violence (see Canada). The issues in DC run far deeper than that.
Should make it easier to arm the cyclists. Gotta fly...
plk779: you said it!
JacqueMehoff: "molon labe" indeed.
(i can has gunz? pyoo! pyoo!)
#3: Entry wounds suck. But what really gets those fatalities soaring is the hydrostatic shock. So, my dear friends, if you feel like you're about to get shot, don't reach for that second can of soda.
In reality, the decision is essentially inconsequential. Both sides can cool down. The Supremes have basically stayed out of the 2nd arguements because of the States' rights interpretations. DC is not a State. It's kinda like PR, Guam, etc. Special case. While it's interesting that they have accepted and decided on a 2nd case (IANAL, god they have to come up with a better acronym!), I feel it will not affect fed or states' statutes.
What is the stance on a landlord banning guns from a rental building? Can an owner declare a gun-free zone?
i do not have a problem with hand gun ownership, i have a problem with the millions of illegal guns on the streets on america and the hands of the violent criminals who possess these weapons of mass destruction. perhaps the gun isn't the problem, perhaps we should be starting within the communities with education (enter stage left, al sharpton, oops sorry folks, mr sharpton is smarching today, please welcome his stand-in, the reverend jesse jackson.)
the issue isn't the gun, it isn't the ammo, it's a the douche bags who possess these arms and the law who hands out light sentences to the very people who abuse the system... we should be protesting felony sentences, not gun possession.
"we should be protesting felony sentences, not gun possession."
Amen! Plus, if legislators really cared about getting rid of crime, they would do something about poverty.
gun control laws are racist.
thankfully Pb is still cheap.