Supreme Court rules that all Americans have fundamental right to bear arms

[lugnutz]

Gun rights case: Supreme Court rules that all Americans have fundamental right to bear arms
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 28, 2010; 2:40 PM


The Supreme Court ruled for the first time Monday that the Second Amendment provides all Americans a fundamental right to bear arms, a long-sought victory for gun rights advocates who have chafed at federal, state and local efforts to restrict gun ownership.
The court was considering a restrictive handgun law in Chicago and one of its suburbs that was similar to the District law that it ruled against in 2008. The 5 to 4 decision does not strike any other gun control measures currently in place, but it provides a legal basis for challenges across the country where gun owners think that government has been too restrictive.
"It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty," Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the conservatives on the court.
The victory might be more symbolic than substantive, at least initially. Few cities have laws as restrictive as those in Chicago and Washington.
Alito said government can restrict gun ownership in certain instances but did not elaborate on what those would be. That will be determined in future litigation.
Alito said the court had made clear in its 2008 decision that it was not casting doubt on such long-standing measures as keeping felons and the mentally ill from possessing guns or keeping guns out of "sensitive places" such as schools and government buildings.
"We repeat those assurances here," Alito wrote. "Despite municipal respondents' doomsday proclamations, [the decision] does not imperil every law regulating firearms."
The decision came on the final day of the term and at a time of great change for the court. Justice John Paul Stevens sat at the mahogany bench for the last time, and will end more than 34 years on the court when his retirement becomes official Tuesday. Confirmation hearings for Solicitor General Elena Kagan, President Obama's choice to replace Stevens, were scheduled to begin Monday afternoon.
And Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 77, was with the court despite the death of her husband of 56 years, Martin D. Ginsburg, on Sunday.
Besides the decision in McDonald v. Chicago, the court completed its work by issuing opinions in its final cases of the term:
-- It ruled that the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, an independent board set up by the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act in the aftermath of the huge corporate failures of Enron, WorldCom and others, is unconstitutional. The board was designed to provide much tougher regulation of the auditing of public companies than under previous regimes, but the court said that because it was insulated from direct control of the president, it violated the separation of powers.
It also said, however, that the problem could be corrected by allowing the Securities and Exchange Commission, which oversees the board and is more accountable to the president, to remove the board's members at will.
The case is Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board.
-- By a vote of 5 to 4, the justices said that a public university does not have to recognize a student religious group that wants to exclude gays and others who do not share its core beliefs. The University of California's Hastings College of the Law said its anti-discrimination policy required officially recognized student groups to include all who wanted to join. The Christian Legal Society argued that being forced to include those who did not share its beliefs violated constitutional protections of freedom of association and exercise of religion.
The majority included the court's liberal wing plus Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.
The case is Christian Legal Society v. Martinez.
-- The court rejected a claim from inventors who wanted to have their business method patented. A majority of the court said such a claim would be possible in some cases, but not in this one, where a patent was sought for a strategy for hedging risk in buying energy.
The case is Bilski v. Kappos.
The guns case was the logical sequel to the court's 5 to 4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. That decision established for the first time that the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms" referred to an individual right, not one related to military service. But the decision that there is a right to keep a gun in one's home did not extend beyond the federal government and its enclaves such as Washington.
Gun rights activists immediately filed suit against the handgun restrictions in Chicago and the suburb of Oak Park.
"Today marks a great moment in American history," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, in a statement. "This is a landmark decision. It is a vindication for the great majority of American citizens who have always believed the Second Amendment was an individual right and freedom worth defending."
The court's decision means that the enigmatically worded Second 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" -- identifies an individual right to gun ownership, like the freedom of speech, that cannot be unduly restricted by Congress, state laws or city ordinances.
Also voting in the majority were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer objected to the majority decision, and read his dissent from the bench. He disagreed with the majority that it is a fundamental right, and said the court was restricting state and local efforts from designing gun control laws that fit their particular circumstances, and turning over all decisions to federal judges. Joining him with dissenting votes were John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor. Stevens wrote his own dissent and did not join Breyer's.
"Given the empirical and local value-laden nature of the questions that lie at the heart of the issue, why, in a nation whose constitution foresees democratic decision-making, is it so fundamental a matter as to require taking that power from the people?" Breyer wrote. "What is it here that the people did not know? What is it that a judge knows better?"

[Scott Card]

Don't get too excited folks. This is a 5 to 4 decision. This could flip flop with the right case and a different judge or two.

[fourtycal]

I thought this was all made clear back on December 15, 1791 . It sucks that 4 of the supreme court would vote against our fundamental rights

[IntrepidXJ]

The scary part to me is that 4 justices were against this. It proves to me they are their to further their agenda, not interpret the constitution....

I used to live a few miles outside of Chicago. If I had lived just a few miles further east, it would have been illegal for me to own a handgun....

[ilanimaka]

As disturbing as it is to have almost half the Supreme Court against this, it's still a win and something we can build on.

[ratagonia]

I thought this was all made clear back on December 15, 1791 . It sucks that 4 of the supreme court would vote against our fundamental rights

From 1791 until yesterday, the law was fairly clear. There WAS no individual right to keep and bear arms, contrary to the NRA propoganda campaign. But, in the world without stare decisis, anything goes, and by effectively packing the Supreme Court, those darn activist neo-cons have created a new right from whole cloth.

I prefer the rule of law.

Tom

[jman]

From 1791 until yesterday, the law was fairly clear. There WAS no individual right to keep and bear arms, contrary to the NRA propoganda campaign. But, in the world without stare decisis, anything goes, and by effectively packing the Supreme Court, those darn activist neo-cons have created a new right from whole cloth.

I prefer the rule of law.

Tom

Eh?

"There was no individual right to keep and bear arms"

???



To quote verbatim Amendment 2:

"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."

[Wasatch Rebel]

From 1791 until yesterday, the law was fairly clear. There WAS no individual right to keep and bear arms, contrary to the NRA propoganda campaign. But, in the world without stare decisis, anything goes, and by effectively packing the Supreme Court, those darn activist neo-cons have created a new right from whole cloth.

I prefer the rule of law.

If you prefer the rule of law, you need to understand said law. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," is the law.

[Cirrus2000]

I'm just curious - how many of you gun owners are part of a well regulated militia? And not the creepy kind...

[Scott Card]

I think the militia I belong to is the Bogley Hunting and Shooting section...

[Don]

I'm just curious - how many of you gun owners are part of a well regulated militia? And not the creepy kind...

I've heard some argue that the National Guard, being the descendant of the early state militias, is the well regulated militia being referred to in the constitution. On the other hand the 2nd amendment also says the right of the people shall not be infringed. If read that way is a constitutional requirement to join the National Guard (militia) also an infringement? It says 'right of the people' is there really an individual right written in the amendment? Would a requirement to serve in the active military or National Guard as a prerequisite to owning a firearm be unconstitutional? Is continued service in order to keep your firearm unconstitutional?

[FONT=Verdana](I

[Sombeech]

The PEOPLE is not the MILITIA. The PEOPLE's right shall not be infringed.


Please pardon the F bomb at the end of this clip; And like he says, they can't find any other place where the framers messed up on the wording. ...so why here?

[Sombeech]

[MY T PIMP]

I personally feel lucky the vote went the way it did. Scary is the thought of the vote going the other way. Since the last presidential election. Gun owners of old and recently new gun owners have stocked up preparing themselves for a vote that may not go in favor of the right to bear arms. I wish I would have bought stock in Ammo companies before the election. Every gun store has a picture of Obama as a tribute to their success in the last 3 years. I see the 5-4 vote as a thread holding this country together. There is a massive population in this country who find the second ammendment as their most valuable of all freedoms. Having that freedom infringed upon or taken away could cut that very thin thread that is currently holding the United States together. I know many people who think that is a sarcastic at most notion. And all I'll say to that is; "You certainly have the right and freedom to feel that way"

[denaliguide]

The strongest reason for the
people to retain the right to keep and bear arms
is, as a last resort, to protect themselves
against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson


A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives 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 your constant companion of your walks.
Thomas Jefferson

One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.
Thomas Jefferson

[double moo]

Justice Sotamayor made comments that were similar in her confirmation hearings. She even noted that her god child was an NRA member and that all Americans had the right to bear arms. Somehow yesterday she voted contrary to her confirmation statements. It seems like it is common and even expected that the Justices will rule according to the wishes of the party that instates them. Can a new precedent be set at a future time when they rule on a somewhat similar case but have the votes to carry it to the liberal side... yes they can. Such new precedent does not have to overrule the current decision, simply be applied to a different scenario. Said new precedent will then be argued against future cases... though many will site past precedents.

The real question is will the people accept a law that bans individual gun ownership? I think not. Much like the current immigration laws, I think that local governments and law enforcement will refuse to enact the law. Folks won't give up their weapons and the government doesn't have the resources to enforce it. We have more privately owned firearms in the country than people!!! Which army thinks they can take down 300,000,000 arms? Our Army won't try!

[Wasatch Rebel]

http://billoreilly.com/site/rd?satyp...%3Fpid%3D29816

[hank moon]

[QUOTE=denaliguide;407097]The strongest reason for the
people to retain the right to keep and bear arms
is, as a last resort, to protect themselves
against tyranny in government.
[COLOR=black]Thomas Jefferson

and have we protected ourselves against tyranny in gov't? obviously NOT! the world is a different place now...new forms of tyranny against which guns are useless.

Most households in the 18th century probably owned at least one (long barrel) gun as a necessary tool for the lifestyle of the day...made perfect sense at the time to codify that reality in the constitution.

[stefan]

Most households in the 18th century probably owned at least one (long barrel) gun as a necessary tool for the lifestyle of the day...

a friend of mine can see that many fellow students carry guns in class on a regular basis. i'm sure it's a necessary tool for their lifestyle

[Wasatch Rebel]

a friend of mine at westminster college can see that many students carry guns in class on a regular basis. i'm sure it's a necessary tool for their lifestyle

If one of them was about to get raped, it could come in handy.