Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns

WASHINGTON (AP) - 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 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.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.

Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans' preferred weapon of self-defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, 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."

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

Gun rights supporters hailed the decision. "I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.

The NRA will file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several of its suburbs challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a leading gun control advocate in Congress, criticized the ruling. "I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it," she said.

The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.

Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.

The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.

White House reaction was restrained. "We're pleased that the Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment protects the right of Americans to keep and bear arms," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said.

Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

In a concluding paragraph to the his 64-page opinion, Scalia said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."

The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.

Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.

The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights.

Forty-four state constitutions contain some form of gun rights, which are not affected by the court's consideration of Washington's restrictions.

The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9...;show_article=1

[phee]

I heard about that....

I think I better get some additional armor and bullet proof vests.... this is going to be icky

[phee]

[machine]

Take that Pelosi, you say-anything-to-get-elected-yet-do-nothing-all-talk CUNT!

God I fucking hate ignorant people that vote for someone just because they are either a women or a different race...

Trendy fgts

[torn asunder]

re:the article...

[ttogreh]

Phee...

The State of Michigan claims complete preemption of laws in regards to ownership and the carrying of firearms. Generally, Federal, State and Local Law Enforcement agencies, and agents thereof acting in an official capacity, are exempt from Michigan's firearms regulations. The Constitution of the State of Michigan of 1963[2] Article 1, Section 6 reads:

Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

A complete listing of Michigan's firearms laws can be found in the publication "Firearms Laws of Michigan"[3]

Firearm Defined

The word “firearm”, except as otherwise specifically defined in the statutes, shall be construed to include any weapon from which a dangerous projectile may be propelled by using explosives, gas or air as a means of propulsion, except any smooth bore rifle or handgun designed and manufactured exclusively for propelling BB’s not exceeding .177 calibre by means of spring, gas or air.[4]

Purchasing Firearms in Michigan

In Michigan, rifles and shotguns may be purchased by anyone 18 or over who is not subject to restrictions that are usually based on criminal or mental health history, no licensing or permit to purchase is required for long guns. A License to Purchase is required to purchase a handgun, anyone purchasing a handgun must be 21 years of age or more to purchase from a federally licensed firearms dealer; however, in the case of a private sale the purchaser need only be 18 or older[55].

In Michigan, a person “shall not purchase, carry, or transport a pistol in this state without first having obtained a license for the pistol,” as prescribed in MCL 28.422.

An individual must apply to their local police or sheriff's department for a License to Purchase a Pistol prior to obtaining a pistol. A license to purchase is not needed for an individual with a CPL (Concealed Pistol License). However, a NICS check must be completed by the FFL (Federal Firearms Licensee) prior to the transfer of the firearm, unless your CPL was issued after November 22, 2005. [5] The police authority will check for any criminal record at both the state and national level. The applicant must answer gun related questions on a Basic Pistol Safety Questionnaire, with at least 70% correct, and swear before a notary that they meet the statutory requirements to own a pistol. The License to Purchase a Pistol form must be completed even though the applicant may already have possession of a pistol, such as through an inheritance. Federal firearms licensed dealers are not exempt from this section of the law and must also get a license any time they purchase/acquire a pistol from an individual or another gun dealer. There is an exemption only for dealers purchasing pistols directly from the manufacturer or wholesaler. A License to Purchase a Pistol is valid for 10 days to purchase a pistol. The seller must sign the license and keep one copy for his/her records. An individual must return to the local police department within 10 days of purchasing the pistol, return the two remaining copies of the license, and present the pistol for a Safety Inspection Certificate. Dealers are exempt from the safety inspection requirements on pistols kept solely for the purpose of resale. Some agencies require all unused license to purchase forms be returned to them for record keeping purposes. These forms are licenses to purchase a pistol and the purpose is not to circumvent the required NICS (National Instant Check System) check when buying a shotgun or rifle from an FFL dealer.[6]

Concealed Carry in Michigan

Michigan's concealed carry law is "shall issue," meaning that anyone over 21 may obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun if they are not prohibited from owning firearms, have not been found guilty or been accused of certain felonies or misdemeanors within a certain time period, and have completed state approved firearms training. Concealed Pistol License (CPL) holders are exempt from the obtaining a license to purchase a handgun; however, they must fulfill the registration requirement.

Individuals licensed to carry a concealed pistol by Michigan or another state are prohibited from carrying a concealed pistol on the following premises: Schools or school property, public or private day care center, public or private child caring agency, or public or private child placing agency, sports arena or stadium, a tavern where the primary source of income is the sale of alcoholic liquor by the glass consumed on the premises, any property or facility owned or operated by a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of worship, unless the presiding official allows concealed weapons, an entertainment facility that the individual knows or should know has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more, a hospital, a dormitory or classroom of a community college, college, or university, and casinos. "Premises" does not include the parking areas of the places listed above, excluding casino parking. A pistol is subject to immediate seizure if the CPL permit holder is carrying a pistol in a "pistol free" area. [7]

An individual licensed to carry a concealed pistol who is stopped by a police officer (traffic stop or otherwise) while in possession of a pistol shall immediately disclose to the police officer that he or she is carrying a concealed pistol either on their person or in their motor vehicle.[8]

On March 29, 2001, per Administrative Order 2001-1 of the Michigan Supreme Court: "Weapons are not permitted in any courtroom, office, or other space used for official court business or by judicial employees unless the chief judge or other person designated by the chief judge has given prior approval consistent with the court's written policy."[9]

Open carry is legal in Michigan, although some people think that it is socially unacceptable without good reason (security/police officers, hunting, etc.), and choosing to do so in populated areas may result in being charged with disturbing the peace or even brandishing.[10]

Michigan used to not allow ownership of NFA firearms, though Attorney General Mike Cox has written an Attorney General's Opinion [11] that allows for fully automatic machine guns to be legally transferable to Michigan residents who comply with federal laws. Suppressors (silencers) however are still illegal and non-transferable in Michigan.

Michigan prohibits the possession of Tasers or stun guns by private citizens, regardless of CPL status.

Show me one... ONE study and its methodology that has shown an uptick in crime rates due to liberalized gun ownership laws in Michigan.

[phee]

Phee...

Show me one... ONE study and its methodology that has shown an uptick in crime rates due to liberalized gun ownership laws in Michigan.

All studies aside, since my uncle was murdered, I have had a thing against guns....

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Don't hold you breath ttgreh while you wait for that.

but I can show you a bunch of them that show gun related deaths going UP since they inacted strict hand gun laws in DC and Chicago.

[ttogreh]

I am sorry for your loss. I suppose if I died in a traffic accident, my loved ones would have a thing against motor scooters.

Do you understand my point?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Shouldn't you have "a thing" against whom ever was holding that gun?

[phee]

I am actuall not sure of any studies... just my feelings towards guns in general, so if he holds his breath, he will be waiting a long time...

[phee]

Shouldn't you have "a thing" against whom ever was holding that gun?

Or maybe the person he stole it from....

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

See, to me, that makes having "a thing" against guns even less logical. I'm not sure why you would have a thing against the person it was stolen from either.

The thieving murderer should be getting all your ill will. At least, it seems that way to me.

[phee]

You are correct that most studies do show a correlation between gun control and crime increase.... not debating that.... just knowing that more guns will be out there is what gets to me is all.... not saying that it is "rational fear" but then again, most fears aren't.

[n0Mad]

Or maybe the person he stole it from....

Many guns sold on the black market were stolen from law enforcement officials and facilities. An FBI cache once had over 300 guns turn up missing.

[n0Mad]

Oh ... version 5.0 of this book just came out. It is aptly titled "Gun Facts" and is chock full of facts and studies on firearms. For gun lovers and gun haters alike, this book is an excellent resource for some cold hard facts and I highly recommend all people read it. The best part is, the pdf is a FREE download.

http://www.gunfacts.info/

[Troy Spiral (13)]

I'd caution anyone from getting their info from any single source, or trying to focus on information that confirms their already decided upon opinion. Rather we should try to put our existing opinions in jeopardy and not be afraid if the evidence points against the existing opinions.

In terms of this specific ruling, i was looking forward to it but haven't had the time to do my homework on the final verdict here as yet.

[phee]

I'd caution anyone from getting their info from any single source, or trying to focus on information that confirms their already decided upon opinion. Rather we should try to put our existing opinions in jeopardy and not be afraid if the evidence points against the existing opinions.

In terms of this specific ruling, i was looking forward to it but haven't had the time to do my homework on the final verdict here as yet.

Exactly.... why I am willing to admit that my opinion may differ from what may be out there... I try not to preach to my own inner choir too much... heh

[Msterbeau]

Exactly.... why I am willing to admit that my opinion may differ from what may be out there... I try not to preach to my own inner choir too much... heh

You have a choir?

[phee]

You have a choir?

IN my keyboards....

[Shade Everdark]

I'm surprised, between this and the detainee case for the Gitmo prisoners. Pity they had to ruin the streak with their godawful decision in the old Exxon Valdez case.

In any event, the only time I'll enjoy seeing Scalia is when he hauls his arrogant, corpulent ass off that bench for the last time. Some of the other judges I disagree with, but Scalia is a special kind of arrogant and overbearing that makes me want to tear my hair out.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

Just as a general commentary on the right to bear arms issues, I'm most interested in the definition of the term "arms". Private cannon ownership was somewhat common at the time of the framers, for instance. I'm fairly convinced they intended cannons to be part of their definition of "arms". Extrapolated out to today, that could include all sorts of "arms" that didn't exist at the time, far beyond anything the framers would have imagined.

Militia, as they meant it, doesn't really exist today, thus further confusing the issue. The National Guard would be the closest thing to the modern "state militia" they were most likely referring to at the time.

But that is all more of a purely legal discussion. I think most people are more concerned about the actual effects of gun (or "arms") ownership, either on safety or on freedom to own or both, rather than the actual constitutionality of gun ownership.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

I'm surprised, between this and the detainee case for the Gitmo prisoners. Pity they had to ruin the streak with their godawful decision in the old Exxon Valdez case.

Not to derail the conversation but they ruled on that case sometime recently? I thought that was STILL going on.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Just as a general commentary on the right to bear arms issues, I'm most interested in the definition of the term "arms". Private cannon ownership was somewhat common at the time of the framers, for instance. I'm fairly convinced they intended cannons to be part of their definition of "arms". Extrapolated out to today, that could include all sorts of "arms" that didn't exist at the time, far beyond anything the framers would have imagined.

Militia, as they meant it, doesn't really exist today, thus further confusing the issue. The National Guard would be the closest thing to the modern "state militia" they were most likely referring to at the time.

But that is all more of a purely legal discussion. I think most people are more concerned about the actual effects of gun (or "arms") ownership, either on safety or on freedom to own or both, rather than the actual constitutionality of gun ownership.

The militia of the day, 1770s, was any force of men ready to defend their town. One only has to read about the Revolutionary war in a little detail to see that.

It was the everyday Man dropping his plow and picking up his rifle. Standing with his neighbors and countrymen to defend what was theirs and their way of life.

The National Guard is a trained government fighting force that didn't exist for another... 140 years?

[Fin]

Shouldn't you have "a thing" against whom ever was holding that gun?

I have nothing against guns. The more the merrier. They should be issued to everyone at birth as an American right to honor the 2nd Amendment.

I just say we make all ammunition illegal. See? Both sides happy.