Supreme Court shoots down D.C's Gun Ban

[02transam]

the article taken from the boston globe who apparently took it from the washington post

Supreme Court affirms gun rights
Decision strikes down Washington, D.C., ban
Email|Print|Single Page| Text size – + By Robert Barnes
Washington Post / June 27, 2008

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court struck down Washington, D.C.'s ban on handgun possession yesterday, and decided for the first time in the nation's history that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to own a gun for self-defense.

The court's landmark 5-to-4 decision split along ideological grounds and wiped away years of lower court decisions that had held the intent of the amendment, ratified more than 200 years ago, was to tie the right of gun possession to militia service.

While the decision left for another day the standards by which gun control laws across the nation will be evaluated, it was decisive about Washington, D.C.'s law, the strictest in the land. In addition to prohibiting ownership of handguns, the city also requires that shotguns and rifles be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by trigger lock.

"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," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia. He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.

The Second Amendment, Scalia said, "surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home." In concluding remarks, Scalia said. "Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of the nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. 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."

The opinion, the last and perhaps most-anticipated ruling of the court's 2007-2008 term, delivered a bold endorsement of the individual right for gun ownership. At the same time, it raised as many questions as it answered about ability of government to restrict gun ownership to promote public safety, a point made in detailed rebuttals from the liberals on the court, both from the bench and in two lengthy dissents.

Justice Stephen Breyer said the decision "threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States," and called that a "formidable and potentially dangerous" mission for the courts to undertake. He was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

"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," said Breyer.

Washington officials, who expressed disappointment with the court ruling, vowed to replace the now-voided gun ban with strict handgun regulations, raising the possibility of further litigation.Continued...

Page 2 of 2 --

Robert Levy, the libertarian attorney who had developed the strategy for challenging the city's law and recruited security guard Dick Heller and others as plaintiffs, said the court's ruling should be clear: "The District may not attempt to solve its crime problems by violating the rights of law-abiding citizens."

In Boston, the high court's ruling was not expected to have a major effect.

Mayor Thomas M. Menino, in a statement, said, "While I support our constitutional rights, I continue to fight for common sense regulations to prevent firearms from getting in the hands of criminals that seek to cause harm. . . . It is imperative that we continue to work together with our federal partners in adopting laws that will help mayors and law enforcement officials from across the country protect and serve their communities."

Citizens for Safety, a Boston gun violence prevention coalition, issued a statement saying, "Today's Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller won't reduce gun violence in Boston's neighborhoods. Most shootings on Boston's streets are committed with illegal handguns obtained by criminals and juveniles who do not have a Second Amendment right to possess guns."

Nancy Robinson, executive director of Citizens, said, "Criminals and youth get guns all too easily through a thriving underground market known as the 'Iron Pipeline.' We can restore peace to neighborhoods torn apart by gun violence by shutting down the Iron Pipeline at the source.

Scalia's broad, history-filled opinion went further than the Bush administration had asked for. The administration asked the court to recognize the individual right. But it wanted the case sent back to a lower court for a fuller hearing on whether the D.C. law violated such a right.

Still, the president seemed pleased with the result. "As a longstanding advocate of the rights of gun owners in America, I applaud the Supreme Court's historic decision today confirming what has always been clear in the Constitution: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear firearms," Bush said in a statement.

The reaction from the presidential campaign trail was supportive, if a bit more effusive on one side than the other.

Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, called it a "landmark victory" for Second Amendment rights, and took a shot at his rival's hometown. "Today's ruling . . . makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans," McCain said.

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the Democrats' all-but-certain nominee, issued a statement saying, "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."

It might not be surprising that both men would find something to like in the ruling, because Scalia concentrated his work on building a historical case for finding an individual right in the amendment's ambiguous 27 words. Setting standards for how courts and legislatures should decide the constitutional restrictions on gun control will evolve, Scalia said.

"Since this case represents this court's first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field," Scalia wrote.

One practical outcome of that strategy is that it probably kept Kennedy, who seemed at oral argument supportive of the individual right but worried about standards, with the majority.

Scalia spent 56 pages of the 64-page opinion analyzing the historical and grammatical underpinnings of the amendment: "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."

Stevens took 46 pages of his own to rebut Scalia, and the two engaged in a line by line battle over the meaning of the amendment. "When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia," Stevens wrote, adding that it meant "no more than that."

Scalia said the opinion should not be read to cast doubt on "longstanding prohibitions" on gun possession 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."
© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.

thoughts/feelings on this?