The groundbreaking lawsuit challenging Washington DC's strict gun-control laws will go before the US Supreme Court this week. District of Columbia v. Heller, funded by a rich libertarian lawyer, is a shot in the dark for Second Amendment activists. The Supreme Court will have the extremely rare opportunity to rule on a provision of the Constitution that never has gone directly before the Supreme Court — the Second Amendment.
DC has the nation's strictest gun-control law, and effectively bans the private possession of handguns. The law states that rifles and shotguns must be kept unloaded and disassembled, or trigger locked, at home. DC argues that the law is a logical decision to make in a dangerous city, although the other party maintains that crime and homicide rates have not been reduced. To see how the Bush administration is making a case for the restrictions, read more.
The Constitutional question is whether the Second Amendment provides an individual right, or whether it only extends to militias as a collective right. In fact the Bush Administration has helped the district, arguing that while the Second Amendment conveys an individual right, such a right is subject to reasonable government restrictions. The government's official position has infuriated gun activists, including Dick Cheney. Check out some exerpts from the briefs filed with the court by interested parties.
We'll have to wait a while to get the court's decision on one of the most important cases in American history. The opinion should be released this summer. And here's an extra twist — liberals who favor expansive interpretations of other amendments, like those protecting the rights of criminal defendants, logically should embrace a broad reading of the Second Amendment, a blow to liberal gun control.
Do you think gun rights belong to the individual? If so, when do restrictions stop being reasonable?
Antik Batik
heck yes it belongs to an individual
1that emoticon makes me think of the cartoons "bring it on coppers, you'll never get my gun see"
2I've been watching this lightly and I really hope that the Supreme Court doesn't start "re-interpreting" the Constitution on this issue......
3Um... Yes it is the right of the individual. I wish people had a better understanding of why we have the second amendment. It is to keep our government at bay. To make sure we can take control back if they get too powerful. Stricter gun laws do nothing but put the guns in the hands of the criminals, and allow the government to not fear its people. And the government, in my opinion should have a mutual respect for its citizens!
4This is going to be interesting. I absolutely hate guns and would never stand for having one in my house, but that's my house. The Constitution gives the right to bear arms to individuals.
The problem with violent crime and homicide is that gang violence and other gun-related crimes often aren't carried out with firearms bought legally in the first place. Stricter gun control might help reduce "crimes of passion" carried out by gun owners, as well as accidental deaths caused by the mishandling of firearms, but it is not going to solve violent crime.
5*On that last line, I meant "gang-related crime," not "violent crime."
6I read a quote the other day on a story about gun control where this fella said "the people who oppose gun control the strongest, are probably the people i'd like to shoot the most... in that case, i completely understand their position"
7According to Freakenomics, guns don't kill people, swimming pools do!
8Interestingly enough, strict-construction of the constitution, a typically conservative position, should render the amendment a collective right, allowing for gun control (a typically liberal position). Seems like this issue gets typical positions mixed up!
Here is the second amendment:
9I liken it to cars. People drive drunk and kill people with the car. The car is a deadly weapon. When used properly it is safe, but you do have some risks. Used improperly it causes harm and death. DO we outlaw cars?
10Cine - Not yet!
11Guns don't kill people, people with mustaches kill people!
I'm really interested to see what the Supreme Court decides in this case. I think that if you look at the amendment literally it does not protect an individual's right, but if you look at original intent as Cine mentioned it does. Whichever way they decide, I think it is so incredibly stupid to ban guns.
Banning guns increases crime. Period. There has been study after study after study backing that up. Look up the effects of Australia's gun control laws if you don't believe me.
12I agree with cine_lover, people should not fear their government, government should fear their people. This is one secret that Washington is more than happy to keep. I also believe that the amendment refers to individuals in general, but I think the government may be able to tell us in what condition we can keep and bare those arms. I'll leave that for the judiciary to decide.
That's another thing does it really take decades to figure this out. I mean $#!+ or get off the pot all ready. Make a courageous definitive decision so we can move on.
13Cine, I don't like the car argument. A car's purpose is to get you from point A to point B. A gun's purpose is to kill. Whether or not it is used for that is up to the individual. Of course we use them to shoot holes in targets as well. Although there are some people who really shouldn't be allowed to drive cars!
14I don't think guns should be outlawed per se...but there are definitely people who have them that shouldn't. For example my dad decided he needed one at home and one at the office. He bought both guns without a license or any sort of gun safety class and keeps them loaded at all times...shudder. It terrifies me. I think sometimes guns can be more of a danger than a protection to people.
A while back I lived in a house where my roommates had a "gun room." (I was in the military) I made sure to take a gun safety class and a hunter's safety class even though I had no intention of using any of them. Guns are no joke. They have to be treated with respect. I do believe that there should at least be some sort of mandatory education if someone wants to own one.
15Good call, harmony. I'm gonna go with a quote from my dad on this one: I don't think the government should be the only ones with guns.
16I don't want one, they're dangerous and I wish we could un-invent them, I think there should be mental stability tests required before people can purchase them, but the government shouldn't be the only ones who have them.
Harmony, I would not be totally against a mandatory education, BUT all that would do is help with gun accidents, not illegal gun use.
Mariner, sorry you did not like my reference. Of course guns and cars have two different purposes, my point is simply that, there are many other things in this country that are just as dangerous when used improperly, and accidents happen even when used properly. We can't outlaw everything that has potential to be dangerous. But I will try to come up with something better just for you
Unfortunately, guns are a necessity, ESPECIALLY if our government has them.
17That's true cine, but if people are more educated on gun use and safety they'll be better prepared to protect themselves against that illegal gun use.
18I would not be standing that close to Cheney when is holding a gun but I guess being a moving a target is not that much better either.
While I believe that people should have the right to protect themselves there are way to many problems with people having guns. There needs to be a serious overhaul in the rules of gun owners. Licensing needs some serious enforcement. Also I do not think having the right to bear arms means owning any kind of gun. There are some really scary and dangerous guns out there. I think that EVERYONE who buys and owns a gun needs to go through an education course on proper use (physically and emotionally), storage, laws and so on.
Guns never solve anything and I do not think having the right to own one will be 100% good. Does that then mean that people in gangs (specially those without criminal records) have the right to own a gun? What about the mental stability of people owning guns? There was a woman who months after being fired from the Postal Service in my town traveled all the way from New Mexico back here, walked into the Postal building and shot and killed many people and herself. Or the recent college student in Illinois who had owned guns for years and then went off of his meds, walked into a lecture and killed students and a teacher before himself.
I do not think it is as simple as saying that you have the right to own a gun. There is a need for some deep deep reform
19What I found intersesting was the original case, which the district appealed.
The dissenting vote was worded as follows:
"To sum up, there is no dispute that the Constitution, case law and applicable statutes all establish that the District is not a State within the meaning of the Second Amendment. Under United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, the Second Amendment's declaration and guarantee that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" relates to the Militia of the States only. That the Second Amendment does not apply to the District, then, is, to me, an unavoidable conclusion."
I found this to be an insane interpretation... He doesn't deny the right to bear arms, but says that because DC isn't a state, we aren't protected. Just thought this was an interesting twist!
20"I would not be standing that close to Cheney when is holding a gun but I guess being a moving a target is not that much better either."
Brilliant!
21why thank you
22Ah, thanks cine, lol. If our lawmakers want to make gun laws that make sense then maybe we have a hope of reducing gun crime. Instead they pass feel good measures that ban weapons that have never been used in crimes because the weapon looks or sounds scary. It's ridiculous.
23And for my own selfish reasons, I love target shooting. You're going to face a big fight if you try to take my AR 15 away!
24It is more punishment then stricter gun control. I mean when we have areas that are "gun free" it is like putting a bulls eye on a target saying, "no one will stop you here". But if we had tougher punishments for people who break gun laws, I believe it will help bring down the crime rate. We also need to increase our police presence in cities.
25It is more punishment then stricter gun control. I mean when we have areas that are "gun free" it is like putting a bulls eye on a target saying, "no one will stop you here". But if we had tougher punishments for people who break gun laws, I believe it will help bring down the crime rate. We also need to increase our police presence in cities.
26
double post!
27popgoestheworld: Thanks for that observation!
IMO this case is more about the extent of the District of Columbia's right to govern themselves than about gun control per se. That's an interesting and ongoing debate.
Did you catch the story about the suggested designs for the DC quarter? They were proposing one that said "Taxation without representation".
28I agree 100% Cine!
Whenever this debate comes up, I always picture a criminial getting ready to commit a crime thinking "Ski mask? Check. Bag marked 'LOOT'? Check. Gun? Oh darn, I forgot to get a permit, guess I won't be committing any crimes today!"
29I'm not liking quite a few turns our government is making these days. First the homeschooling issue in California, now the guns in DC? What's next, having the government approve the name of your child? Edited mail?
30Why even pretend that we're America anymore if we're going to dismantle the Constitution?
Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.
31In countries where handguns are banned, the homicide rate is much lower.
To me, it's absolutely crazy that you can walk into a Wal Mart and buy a gun.
32"In countries where handguns are banned, the homicide rate is much lower." - You're going to need to back up this comment with a link to some facts, miss, as there are many who would say other wise.
33If anyone is interested, CSPAN will be airing the arguments at 11:15 EST.
34mymellowman, all you have to do is look at a continent like Antartica to prove that statement is a fact.
35I also forgot to look at the moon and Mars.....
36In this country, Florida in 1987 adopted a right to carry law. Between 1987 and 1996 the crime stats were recorded as such:
- homicide rate -36%
- firearm homicide rate -37%
- handgun homicide rate -41%
Those are negative %, just to be sure we're on the same page.
This is just a small sampling and I'd love for someone to find some facts that guns cause more violence.. because I honestly can't find any.
37
pop! 
38Hmmm...janneth I would have disagree with this comment. If we are to compare ourselves to lets say, England, then lets get into it shall we.
England has had a much lower homicide rate then the U.S.A since before they outlawed guns (which outlawing guns, I believe is against their Constitution). In fact they had a very low violent crime rate in general before the outlaw of guns. Interestingly enough, between the years, I believe 1981-1995, while the American crime rate fell, crime rates in Britain were on the rise and now surpass the United States. These crimes include, Burglary, car theft, assault, and robbery.
We can also go into statistics of Australia. It is well known that their crime rate increased when they outlawed guns, but of course the government is trying to cover that up, by saying they are reporting crime differently now, so that is having the effect on the statistics. So for arguments sake we will take the government side. Prior to the gun Ban, Australia's crime rate was on a very steady decrease. After, even if the police are reporting crime differently, crime has still increased in most areas, and if they have not increased then they have stayed the same and are no longer decreasing.
Also, when a state enacts laws that allow concealed guns, the crime rate drops. If you need an example of this look no further then Florida. In 1987 Florida enacted concealed gun legislation. Homicide rates dropped faster then the national average. And in fact only one homicide was committed by a permit holder out of 350,000.
So, yes, in a sense you are correct that SOME countries with gun bans have a lower homicide rate, but they always have compared to the USA, even when they had liberal gun laws.
39cabaker I was writing about Floridia too! Great example!
40Good job you two!
41Florida is a great example. Like you mentioned, cine, you can't necessarily look at other countries and compare them to the U.S. because the culture in other places is completely different. I do think it's interesting to look at how things changed in the other countries after stricter gun control laws were enacted.
As for the right to own guns, I think it has evolved in a way, because law-abiding citizens do often use guns for protection, but not necessarily to guarantee protection against the government, which seems to be the original intent of the law. Let's be honest, if the government wanted to wage a war on its citizens, hand guns, rifles, etc. would do little to protect us from the organized U.S. military and all of their tanks, etc.
42Well as John Stossel pointed out, victims without guns to protect themselves are at a disadvantage. Instances where people had a gun to bring to the gun fight, that person saved lives. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/guns_save_lives.html
43I know of plenty of instances where a person with a gun stopped someone else with a gun. The security gaurd for instance at a church (sorry, I forget how recently it happend) shot and killed a man who had already shot 2 people. But, she prevented him of killing more. My brother in law was sitting in his car at night, a guy tapped on his window with a gun. My brother in law picked up his gun and showed it to him. The guy left. I have had a gun and hunters safety course, so has my daughter. She took hers at 10 now she's 13. True, some gun owners shouldn't have them, my ex-husband and his friends come to mind. I remember one of my ex's friends put a hole in our wall while he was cleaning his gun. None of them were hunters or law enforcers. They just thought the guns made them look cool. I agree that a mandatory gun safety course taken for all gun owners might be a good idea. Then again, I remember another guy I knew, a very long time ago, was almost shot by another of his friends who made a gun out of a pipe and a potato. You know, there are no pipe and potato classes. Anyway, I'd rather be able to protect and provide for myself and my family, and not rely on the government. Let's keep them out of our personal lives as much as posible.
harts - THANK YOU! I totally forgot about that Stossel interview... I watched the video of it a while back, I think its on YouTube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA
And excellent point about that church too!
I was reading about concealed carry laws, and the stats say that only in about 3% of crimes where the victim has pulled out a gun, have the victims actually had to shoot their attacker.
44I highly encourage everyone to watch that Stossel piece, it is fascinating!
45"Let's be honest, if the government wanted to wage a war on its citizens, hand guns, rifles, etc. would do little to protect us from the organized U.S. military and all of their tanks, etc."
True. But who knows if part of the military would be on the side of the "rebels". Then it would be a great asset to have the population armed and loaded (and trained).
I sound sort of crazy now.
46I do agree with you, cine. I just think it's an interesting point to bring up.
Overall, though, I do think the need to bear arms has shifted from being a need to be able to protect oneself from the government to need to be able to protect oneself from other citizens.
Also, I think it's interesting that even the more liberal citizen posters are not for a complete gun ban. I just don't think it's something that citizens really support. Some people support different, stricter restrictions, but it really seems like people (on here at least) aren't really in support of a total ban.
I am thinking this is just the District's way of testing the theory that they should be allowed to have more self-governance. Any thoughts on that?
47Thanks cabaker. Sorry about the spelling errors.
48I wish I could have seen it on tv. I was glad to read it though. I can never get anything on You tube. I live in the middle of no-where and we still have dial up. Things either take forever to download or they don't come up at all. Anyway, b-t-w, I'm really glad to have found this site!
spelling errors now and forever, I try to proof read but don't a lot. Crazy baby near by and all have write really fast.
49As far as Constitutional right to bear arms, the second amendment can be interpreted as being iffy. But in the 4th Amendement it explicitly states that people have the right to be secure in their persons and possesions. Of course that was in regard to unreasonable searches and seizures, but nonetheless it does state that we have that right. And in order to be secure in our persons and possessions we need to have the right to defend those things reasonably.
Quite a few states require people to take classes in order to get a concealed carry permit (although Washington doesn't). Those with permits actually tend to be very responsible gun owners and in comand of their weapons. I believe that the shooter at the Tacoma Mall a few years ago was taken down by a guy with a permit. The fact is the police just can't get somewhere fast enough to stop a lot of damage, but private citizens can.
As for the comment about the liberal posters not advocating a complete gun ban, I would like to think that it's because the Citizen Sugar readers are smarter than that. If you look at the facts it just doesn't make sense.
50Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.