The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense in their homes, 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 restrictions 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 good news is that five Supreme Court Justices can read a one-sentence Constitutional amendment. The bad news is that four Justices can’t.
I am a gun owner, and I don’t consider it unreasonable to require trigger guard locks on handguns. If criminals want guns, they’ll beg, borrow, steal, and almost NEVER buy them. We cannot keep them out of the hands of criminals, but we MUST control the possession of handguns. The Justices are wrong!
While I’m delighted with this ruling, it is disturbing that it was such a close decision. As Katherine has said above, the four dissenting justices are constitutionally challenged.
Sorry Cennydd, but you’re not making sense. Where is the logic in your statement that “we cannot keep (guns) out of the hands of criminals, but we MUST control possession of handguns.”? Trigger locks only serve to render guns ineffective as means of selfe-defense.
Kenneth, let me point out the important constitutionally correct part of your statement:
[blockquote]…but we([b]the people[/b]) MUST control the possession of handguns[/blockquote]
Kathaerine:
With all due Christian respect, your condescension is uncalled for and ill-informed. Have you read the decision? Are you aware of the genesis of the 2nd Amendment and similar Amendments to state constitutions written at the same time, or the specific definitions and use of language that prevailed at the time? Determining orignial intent is a great deal more complex than a simple reading of a rather oddly worded Amendment whose genesis, at the very least, had its roots in Antifederalist fears that Article I, Section 8 would be construed to prohibit states from raising their own militias. The relevant parallel in the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights (note that Virginia was the seat of Antifederalist sentiment) states:
XIII. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.
The Second Amendment is an extraordinarily difficult Amendment to read in its context, and I suspect that is part of why courts have not wanted to rule on it over the years! I personally disagree with the ruling, although I think Scalia made the best arguments that could be made. (Yes, I have read the entire text of the decision and the dissents by Stevens Breyer.)
For those of you who believe, by the way, that liberal always means judicial activism and conservative mean judicial restraint, this decision puts the lie to that opinion. Parts of this decision will lead to a great deal of litigation and put more decisions in the hands of the courts than would have been the case otherwise. Stevens refers to this in his dissent:
…Until today, it has been understood that legislatures
may regulate the civilian use and misuse of firearms so
long as they do not interfere with the preservation of a
well-regulated militia. The Court’s announcement of a
new constitutional right to own and use firearms for private
purposes upsets that settled understanding, but
leaves for future cases the formidable task of defining the
scope of permissible regulations. Today judicial craftsmen
have confidently asserted that a policy choice that denies a
“law-abiding, responsible citize[n]†the right to keep and
use weapons in the home for self-defense is “off the table.â€
Given the presumption that most citizens are
law abiding, and the reality that the need to defend oneself
may suddenly arise in a host of locations outside the
home, I fear that the District’s policy choice may well be
just the first of an unknown number of dominoes to be knocked off the table.
I do not know whether today’s decision will increase the
labor of federal judges to the “breaking point†envisioned
by Justice Cardozo, but it will surely give rise to a far
more active judicial role in making vitally important
national policy decisions than was envisioned at any time
in the 18th, 19th, or 20th centuries…
Again, this is a hard Amendment to read. Legitimate opinions abound on both sides. This is why, Katherine, your comments are so out of order.
Randall
End of Para. 3 typo: Stevens AND Breyer. They are separate dissents, and I do know that they are different people.
Randall
Stefano,
The only legitimate control on the possession of handguns is that which would not prohibit their possession and use by citizens with no criminal record or other disqualifying condition such as mental illness.
Good ruling.
All in all this was a reasoned and well balanced decision that says…
1. There is a right own and posses firearms however…
2. That right is not unrestricted and reasonable regulations for the public safety may be applied.
Could I quibble with some of the details? Yes. But broadly speaking this is a good decision that strikes a sensible balance between the right of individuals to the means for self protection and the right of the public to be safe from irresponsible or lawless individuals. As is often the case there is no silver bullet. No decision was going to be perfect. The SCOTUS has been dodging this issue for decades. I am pleased they finally tackled it and relived at a moderate decision that is unlikely to please the hard liners on either side of the gun debate.
ICXC NIKA
John
I agree with Katherine, #1. The majority decision demolished the dissenters’ conclusion of a “collective right.” This is a good, not great, decision.
Whoda thought law-abiding Americans would actually have enforceable rights against the State…I thought you had to be a terrorist or child rapist to get this kind of deference from the USSC.
Northwest Bob lives in Washington State. I used to live in Cleveland. There are many handgun laws in Cleveland. It is virtually impossible to get a handgun permit there. There also used to be a murder a day there–365 per year. The rate is down now but still substantial. I have only lived in the West for about 5 years. I previously looked at Westerners as vigilanties. I moved here because of employment. Washington is at the same time a blue state and freewheeling. I was surprised, and somewhat concerned, to find that 26% of adults in Washington State have handgun carry permits. Anyone can get a permit after a proper background investigation. I was also surprised to hear that Seattle had a whopping 26 murders last year. Seattle is way bigger than Cleveland and also very liberal. So maybe there is something to the notion that if people have the known right and propensity to defend themselves, low-lifes tend to lie low. Think about it.
In the Faith,
Northwest Bob
#6
Insofar as I’ve read the federal definition of what constitutes a militia, Katherine’s comments are way more informed than yours are.
#10
You tell ’em Jeffersonian!
#11
Th correlation between armed citizens and decline in viloent crime is well documented.
Let me re-iterate: control of arms is the right of the people not the state. States can often define mental illnes as disagreeing with the state. As far as a criminal record goes, do you lose your right to free speech? Due process? I think not! Katherine is right, the bad news is four out of nine Justices fail in their duty.
I’m going to ignore Randalls condescension and air of superiority. It’s like arguing with an astrologer.
Stefano,
My apologies. I had misunderstood your earlier comment. We are in agreement.
The Washington D.C. law was a joke anyway. It said that all guns must be registered and then said that no handgun could be registered. That is just plain stupid. Criminals do not register guns. The only purpose of the law was to keep handguns out the hands of law abiding citizens.
the snarkster
Randall – questions similar to yours have been addressed in the recent past, and the scholarship – left and right – has come down overwhelmingly just where the court did today, and just where Americans in 1790 would have understood it. Your comments might have made sense in 1970; they don’t in 2008.
Trigger locks are meant to ensure that the wrong people…….children included……don’t use your gun without your permisssion. And yes, we THE PEOPLE must control the possession of handguns.
Want to outlaw handguns? The we might as well outlaw knives, baseball bats, rocks, axes, hammers………..
BCP28
Justice Stevens makes the same mistake that you accuse Katherine of making:
The Court’s announcement of a new constitutional right to own and use firearms for private purposes upsets that settled understanding
He claims that there has always been a clear understanding of the Second Amendment and that is simply not true.
And you make the same mistake bu citing Virginia as a relevant parallel. Even Justive Stevens cites the fact that 2 States (a definite minority) had enacted an individual right to bear arms.
[blockquote]Trigger locks are meant to ensure that the wrong people…….children included……don’t use your gun without your permisssion. And yes, we THE PEOPLE must control the possession of handguns. [/blockquote]
Unfortunately, trigger locks are not attuned to who is “right” and “wrong.” They also can make the firearm more dangerous during installation and removal.
I agree that guns need to be kept out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill, however. Putting police on that duty should be considerably simpler than putting them on the trail of the law-abiding.
i am not as learned in the constitution as most of the commenters here. all i know is that my 16 year old cousin in law was shot and murdered by her 17 year old jealous boyfriend who had no previous record, people who have a fit of road rage, whilst displaying no obvious type of mental illness, kill other people with ‘legal’ guns, disgruntled workers shoot their bosses and innocent coworkers over paranoid fantasies. how many people have to die at the hands of other ‘legally’ sane people? how can these type situations be avoided? do i have to carry a weapon now to protect myself from normal looking kooks even though i am against it? if you think that most people are sane then i invite you to work in retail or wait tables, or work animal control; anything that brings you contact with many many different people.
in my humble observations the court only becomes activist when you don’t agree with their rulings; no matter which side you are on.
My point was that Katherine was out of line. I stand by that.
As I said, this is an extremely difficult case. I think the dissent is closer to -original- intent, and I note that relevant US code was not adopted until 1958, with its predecessor in 1916. No USC is listed before that. That hardly constitutes original intent, and in fact is closer to liberal “evolving standards” arguments. Now you can make that if you want, but you need to be honest about it and recognize there are decisions you may not like made on similar standards. (I am opposed to the death penalty, for instance, but I doubt it is unconstitutional in any meaningful way.) The fact that different states had different laws in the early federal period, to my thinking, only strengthens my view that the 2nd Amendment was not meant to address this issue.
I find Jeffersonian’s comments at the end of # 10 equally uncharitable, by the way, and will not comment further on this blog. Clearly discussion is not something to be had in abundance here, although I liked what John had to say.
Randall
Before you storm off in a huff, BCP28, you need to read the majority decision…the “liberals” have nary a leg to stand on. To suggest that, in a sea of individual rights, the Founders (and particular, the anti-Federalists) devised a way of allowing government to disarm the people while securing a monopoly of state power in the form of a regular militia is, in the word of the Heller decision, “grotesque.”
22, I must disagree. It’s kind of like modern Biblical interpretation where you make difficult what was once clear. The 2nd amendment is a check on government. The original regular army was small and both supplimented and checked by local militias armed in large part with their own privately owned arms. The militia was the people.
The militia, being the people, was different from a select militia which was closer to a regular army under the control and at the service of the state. Indeed you will find this concept in state and federal law.
The US Code defines the “unorganized militia” as all male citizens 45 years of age or younger. Under Florda state law this “unorganized militia” can be called up and formed into the State Guard to replace the National Guard (a select militia created in 1903). This state guard was used in WWII to patrol Florida beaches and they used their own privately owned arms.
The unpleasant fact is that the 2nd amendment empowers the people to resist govenment overreaching by force of arms, if necessary, by preventing the government from taking away the means of the people to resist. Don’t forget that governments have murdered more of their own citizens than private misuse of firearms ever has.
I am in the process of reading the opinion but I like what I see so far.
BCP28, you say: “I find Jeffersonian’s comments at the end of # 10 equally uncharitable, by the way, and will not comment further on this blog. Clearly discussion is not something to be had in abundance here, although I liked what John had to say.”
I don’t think you were at all charitable to Katherine when you called her condescending. I think you set the tone here yourself. I think Katherine’s point is well taken that historically some of these justices read what they want to into the constitution, and sometimes they look to foreign countries for precedent, and sometimes they look to current culture – all instead of interpreting what was written by the framers. Not condescension but fact.
The methodology of the four dissenting liberal justives in reading the Constitution, or in finding a way to ignore reading it, is the same methodology used by liberals in our church in reading Scripture. Apparently some clear texts just aren’t that clear to the illuminatti and their fellow travelers. That the right not to have soldiers, those professional armed servants of ther state, quartered in your house immediatelt follows the 2nd ammendment should tell any one with half a brain that what the 2nd ammendment is about is our right to defend ourselves even against the government. Therefore, no state rergulated militia can be imagined as the purpose of that ammendment. the people themselves, free and armed, would be that regulated militia. You can’t tyranize an armed people as easily. An unarmed people you can do with waht you like.
I admit to being somewhat conflicted on the handgun issue.
Obviously, I would prefer that criminals not have guns. I don’t think there’s any substantial dissent on that point.
I have no problem with responsible adults, who have a reasonable level of proficiency in handling and firing their gun and who have a realistic understanding of when it is and is not appropriate to draw and/or fire, owning and carrying handguns. In fact, based on the statistics (alluded to by previous commenters) I positively welcome such citizens carrying.
I do have a problem with people who are not responsible, or who do not have a basic level of proficiency with their weapon, or whose understanding of appropriate gun use is based on Hollywood, carrying guns.
Personally, I’d like to see an exam system for handing out carry permits. (Not to purchase or own a gun, just to carry it.) The exam would test safe handling, a basic proficiency at hitting a target, and include questions on when to draw and fire and when not to. It would be much like the test for getting a drivers license; you need to demonstrate a minimum level of knowledge and practical skill.
I am aware that the counter-argument is that the government can rig the tests to keep guns out of the hands of those it people it doesn’t like, and there’s merit in that argument; but I think the benefits would be worth the risk.
By the way, I also live in Seattle, and I do have a carry permit; but I don’t actually carry because I don’t meet my own standards of proficiency. I keep meaning to correct that; there are plenty of ranges around that offer classes, but, alas, there are only so many hours in a day…
Just a few quotes from Jefferson here; how do they stack up against what was said today?
“None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important.” –Thomas Jefferson, 1803.
“It is more a subject of joy [than of regret] that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there can be no pauper hirelings.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813.
“A well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war till regulars may relieve them, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration.”
–Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.
T
BCP #22, perhaps you’re no longer commenting at this point, but re: “The fact that different states had different laws in the early federal period, to my thinking, only strengthens my view that the 2nd Amendment was not meant to address this issue.”
I wonder what you would make of the established state-level churches that continued to exist past the adoption of the Constitution? Prior to a 14th Amendment, there can be somewhat of a disconnect in what states did versus the federal government. Note, on that subject, the court did not decide today that the Second Amendment was incorporated against the states. This ruling would affect federal laws and D.C., essentially a federal subsidiary. Of course, we can expect the litigation to continue, and the question of this right vis-a-vis the states is no doubt going to reach the court at some point.
Amendment II: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right [b]of the people[/b] to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
“Regulated” in the 18th century often meant “trained.”
Amendment IV: The right [b]of the people[/b] to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated …
Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained [b]by the people.[/b]
Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or [b]to the people.[/b]
Three other of the ten Bill of Rights amendments are abundantly clear in their meaning … that in their use of “people” they pertain to the rights of [i]individuals.[/i] To claim, therefore, that functionally identical language elsewhere in the same body of amendments does [i]not[/i] pertain to individuals is a form of willful blindness.
30, I would add “or equiped”. We really need to do a word study on the 18th Century “regulated”, but it means what you have said.
You know, I think we really have diluted what the founders fought for in the revolution. In many cases we don’t even speak the same language.
As I note in the comments to the later posting on this subject, this is just one of a whole raft of decisions this week that represent a significant movement of the Court towards increased judicial activism. It will now be the federal courts, not the Congress or state legislatures, that get to determine which firearms regulations are reasonable and which are not. We are looking at years of litigation on this, with all of the decisions made by unelected judges. Nearly every decision handed down this week (again, listed in the later comment) represented a majority (often 5-4) of the Court substituting their judgment for that of some group of elected officials, from Congress and the state legislatures down to city councils and tribal courts. Whether one happens to agree with any of the judicial decisions or all of them, they clearly reflect exactly the sort of activism that all these judges rejected during their confirmation hearings.
Judicial activism is basically substituting your personal judgment for what the constitution says, or coming up with some justification for not following what the constitution says. I don’t think this majority ruling even remotely could be considered judicial activism, whereas the majority ruling against death for child rape used “evolving standards” and “national consensus” as some of the absurd bases for their majority opinion – EXACTLY the definition of judicial activism.
Dale, would you want the Supreme Court to keep its nose out of determining what restrictions on speech are reasonable and which are not? What role do you think the Court has vis a vis protecting our consitutional rights from government intrusion? Any?
[blockquote]As I note in the comments to the later posting on this subject, this is just one of a whole raft of decisions this week that represent a significant movement of the Court towards increased judicial activism. It will now be the federal courts, not the Congress or state legislatures, that get to determine which firearms regulations are reasonable and which are not. We are looking at years of litigation on this, with all of the decisions made by unelected judges.[/blockquote]
This might surprise you, Dale, but I think there’s something to what you’re saying here. If I had to fault the Heller decision, it would be for failing to more adequately define the line where constitutional firearms regulation stops and unconstitutional abrogation of a fundamental begins. While Heller does mention some examples, it leaves a lot to be worked out, too. That’s the bad news.
The good news is that Scotus finally reclaimed the Second Amendment for the people of the US, ending the most flagrant violations of citizens’ rights to self defense. Wherever the line will be drawn (and I’m all for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and lunatics), it’s going to be drawn far north of confiscation and bans now, and that’s a very good thing.
Dale Raye, this decision upholds the original meaning of the Constitution. That you think this is activism is appalling! You know we may not like what the founders did or wrote or enacted into the law of the land. But the way to repeal it is through amending the Constitution. It’s slow and a pain in the you know what, but it is not though an infinitely malleable Constitution rewritten by the Supreme Court as a sitting Constitutional Convention.
The court did not go far enough. The 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms and that right requires the highest standard of constitutional review. That is, the state must show a compelling state interest and use the least restrictive means. This is legal speak for the individual wins.
The lowest standard is a legitimate state interest using reasonable (“reasonable†is legal code for whatever rational the the state uses and the court won’t second guess it) means. This means the state wins. And that is what Dale Raye wants.
I find Bart Hall’s analysis quite compelling.
I wouold also invite everyone to compare to compare this decision with those defining what is necessary to prevent “the establishment of religion”. I submit that they are often far more tenuously connected to the 1st Amendment than this is to the 2d. The dissent here attempts to read into the plain meaning of the 2d something that is not plainly there.
Well, thanks to all of you who defended me while I slept. This decision does not outlaw regulation of gun ownership, but rather defends the constitutionally enumerated right from being entirely taken away from individuals, as the DC law did. I don’t think that my comment was condescending. Five Justices joined in ruling that the Amendment means what it says in plain language, and I agree.
We should thank God for our U.S. Constitution. Our British cousins, without a written Constitution, have had their right to defend themselves in their homes taken away by Parliament, as D.C. residents did by their City Council.
Rights which are clearly enumerated in the Constitution cannot be taken away by legislatures or city councils. Other than those enumerated rights, laws are supposed to be written by legislatures. Thus, while I disagree with Louisiana’s law providing for the death penalty for the rape of children in cases where the child victim survives, the Court had no business overruling it. The job of changing that law belongs to the Louisiana legislature. I believe as a matter of wise policy that if the law punishes the rapist by death anyhow, he will be more likely to kill his victim to prevent her testimony against him. But this is a matter of judgment, not constitutional right.
I would also point out, as a matter of civics, that the Constitution does not grant rights. It prevents governmant encroachment on all ready existing rights. Because the governments cannot grant rights they can’t take them away. We have gotten into the very bad habit in calling legislative entitlements or privileges “rights” forgetting that what government gives it can take away.
To call a right “God given” is a short hand way of stating a critical principle that because fundamental rights derive from a higher authority than government, that government is limited in what it can do to them. The situation is different in other places where all right and privileges are granted by government. What the king gives the king can take away.
#27
The system you say you would like to see in place is exactly what is required to obtain a concealed carry license in Kentucky. There are hours of video presentations by attornies from the Attorney General’s office covering the laws relating to use of deadly force and discussion of sample situations. There is a written test afterwards. There is also range portion where applicants are given basic shooting instruction and then they have to fire a qualification course and demonstrate proper cleaning of their weapon. A background check is performed by the State Police. It is a good program ans to date, there have been no gun related crimes committed by concealed carry licensees in our state.