Court says individuals have right to own guns

[Flashermac]

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

 

The court's 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes 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.

 

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

 

In dissent, 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".

 

 

 

 

Link

[Bangkoktraveler]

Good! We do have a right to defend ourselves. Maybe the government might do the right thing and now spend their time going after criminals instead of harrassing innocent citizens.

[Flashermac]

Quotes from the opinion:

 

â??Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command.â?Â

 

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

 

â??the most natural reading of â??keep Armsâ?? in the Second Amendment is to â??have weapons.â?Â

 

â??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.â?Â

 

â??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.â?Â

 

â??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.â?Â

 

â??Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.â?Â

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

[Faustian]

Rogueyam, your thoughts?

[rchapstick]

Surely RY will not see this as judicial activism ...

[Flashermac]

Certain types of firearms are indeed prohibited. But this puts a crimp in the plans of the anti-gun fanatics who simply want to ban everything.

 

 

[Barry]

So I take it these 5 judges who voted in favour of gun ownership are the same liberals who voted against the death penalty yesterday and were running roughshod over the will of the people?

[chelseafan]

Doesn't matter to me as I live in the UK and most liekly wont be shot by some insane gun fanatic....knived yes, shot probably not.

 

Its a vicious circle, people wont get rid of their guns until they feel safe and they wont feel safe until the guns are off the street.

 

But it's safe to assume that the amount of gun crime in americia is propotional to the amount of people who own guns for private use.

 

 

 

[Barry]

If I had to pick one thing that put me off visiting the States, it's the level of gun ownership/crime.

[Guest lazyphil]

thailand is far more violent than the usa. i've never felt threatend in america, ever, from south central los angeles to northwoods minnesota and many many places in between.