2nd Amendement Definition to be redefined!

[Z]

Supreme Court Gun Ban Ruling Expected Tomorrow
The U.S. Supreme Court today did not release its long-awaited ruling on whether the District's handgun ban violates the Second Amendment. That means the potentially landmark decision will almost certainly come tomorrow morning when the court is planning to issue the last of its rulings for the term. The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, which was argued nearly four months ago, could settle the decades-old debate over whether the Second Amendment grants individuals the right to own firearms.
Mayor Adrain M. Fenty is planning to hold a news conference at the John A. Wilson Building after the decision is announced.


http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dc/2008/06/supreme_court_gun_ban_ruling_p.html?hpid=topnews

This will be fun. I have always thought the 2nd amendment has been misinterpreted for so long so it will be interesting to see how this court rules.



The actual 2nd Amendment text:

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.

A lone, private citizen does not constitute a well regulated militia.



mi?li?tia [mi-lish-uh]
–noun
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.



I'm not saying I am for gun bans or anything (really, I'm against the bans) but what this court decides might shake a lot of cages. The NRA is very politically influential organization and every presidential candidate, no matter what party, has been forced to cater to them one way or another so their reaction will be extremely interesting as well.

[Bloodcinder]

It's not like they're going to know about any guns I may or may not have, and it's not like I'm going to not shoot them if they try to seize my property.

Z, although your view has merit, I believe the way the amendment was followed during the early decades of the United States is a fairly obvious precedent. I hope something unfortunate doesn't happen.

[Z]

Yeah, like I said, I would definitely be against a gun ban but if this case got all the way to the supreme court and they're going to take extra time to make a final decision, you've gotta assume that this one, whatever the decision may be, was a very close call and could potentially open a massive can of worms, not to mention political reactions and consequences that would follow.

I don't expect a government gun-seizing raid party any time soon, either, but I'm kinda excited to see what tomorrow brings.

[deathofcheese]

The End Times are a-coming! Git yer amm-yu-nition stockpile soon and sleep next to it every night! Them gov'ment buffoons gon' try take yer 2nd Amendment rights away, sayin' yew cain't have a gun. Well, *spits* dey can have my gun when dey pry it from mah cold, dead fingers. But not before I take some o' dem sons-a-bitches with me!

Seriously though, gun control = bad. Crime rates have been shown to grow in countries that have banned guns, largely because the law-abiding citizens that don't have guns anymore go largely unprotected while the non-law-abiding creeps that gun control is obviously aimed at will still have their guns and can still use them to threaten the lives of anyone who doesn't put a gun back in their face. Before any kind of gun control is enacted, why not do more to crack down on illegal/potential illegal use of firearms and illegal trade of firearms? That's the real problem, not the general populace being able to buy their weapons unless they've got a major taint on their record or because they can't get cash.

Even though this only looks like a decision for the DC area, I'm still against it.

[Z]

Yeah, it's definitely a decision that is only immediately effecting D.C. but, since it's a supreme court ruling, it is also a defining precedent in the interpretation of the law and could therefore cause an outbreak of gun control cases.

[RonDo]

Ruling is in.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Washington D.C.'s sweeping ban on handguns is unconstitutional.
The justices voted 5-4 against the ban with Justice Antonin Scalia writing the opinion for the majority.


At issue in District of Columbia v. Heller was whether the city's ban violated the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" by preventing individuals -- as opposed to state militias -- from having guns in their homes.


District of Columbia officials argued they had the responsibility to impose "reasonable" weapons restrictions to reduce violent crime, but several Washingtonians challenged the 32-year-old law. Some said they had been constant victims of crimes and needed guns for protection.


In March, two women went before the justices with starkly different opinions on the handgun ban.


Shelly Parker told the court she is a single woman who has been threatened by drug dealers in her Washington neighborhood.


"In the event that someone does get in my home, I would have no defense, except maybe throw my paper towels at them," she said, explaining she told police she had an alarm, bars on her windows and a dog.


"What more am I supposed to do?" Parker recalled asking authorities. "The police turned to me and said, 'Get a gun.' "

Elilta "Lily" Habtu, however, told the high court that she supports the handgun ban, and tighter gun control (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Gun_Control) in general. Habtu was in a Virginia Tech classroom in April 2007 when fellow student Seung-Hui Cho burst in and began shooting. She survived bullets to the head and arm.


"There has to be tighter gun control; we can't let another Virginia Tech to happen," she told the court. "And we're just not doing it; we're sitting around; we're doing nothing. We let the opportunity arise for more massacres."


In March 2007, a federal appeals court overturned the ban, which keeps most private citizens from owning handguns and keeping them in their homes.


It was the first time a federal appeals court ruled a gun law unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds.


City attorneys urged the high court to intervene, warning, "The District of Columbia -- a densely populated urban locality where the violence caused by handguns is well-documented -- will be unable to enforce a law that its elected officials have sensibly concluded saves lives."


There were 143 gun-related murders in Washington (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Washington_DC) last year, compared with 135 in 1976, when the handgun ban was enacted.


The Second Amendment says, "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 wording repeatedly has raised the question of whether gun ownership is an individual right, or a collective one pertaining to state militias and therefore subject to regulation.


The Supreme Court has avoided the question since the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. The high court (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/U_S_Supreme_Court) last examined the issue in 1939 but stayed away from the broad constitutional question.


Only Chicago, Illinois, has a handgun ban as sweeping as Washington's, though Maryland, Massachusetts and San Francisco, California, joined the Windy City in issuing briefs supporting the district's ban.


The National Rifle Association, Disabled Veterans for Self-Defense and the transgender group Pink Pistols -- along with 31 states -- filed briefs supporting the District of Columbia's gun owners.


In February, a majority of U.S. congressmen -- 55 senators and 250 representatives -- filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to strike down Washington's ordinance.


"Our founders didn't intend for the laws to be applied to some folks and not to others," Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana, said at the time.


Washington's ban applies only to handguns. The city allows possession of rifles and shotguns, although it requires that they be kept in the home, unloaded and fitted with locks or dissembled.



Source (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html)

[Bloodcinder]

Good decision.

I'm sorry, but scaring people with Virginia Tech is silly. I get tired of people trying to cure symptoms instead of causes. Prevention of school shootings and violence itself is an entirely different matter than restricting guns.

More importantly, the right of the people to have weapons should not be reinterpreted by nine individuals, so I am glad that they did not do so.

[Gio Takahashi]

I'm glad that they declared it as unconstitutional. Gun does not kill people, people kills people.

[SpaceProg]

A person with a stick could kill people if he wanted to bad enough. Outlaw sticks? Heh... Yeah I had a feeling the ruling would go like it did.

[RonDo]

I don't know if thought process is correct..but it one that I have held and agreed to.

People who use guns for unlawful means will likely be willing to take unlawful measures to get a gun. People who would use a gun within the law would be unable to get a gun legally.

I just don't think making guns illegal to own is going to stop people who are determined to commit crimes with them.

[Seegtease]

I'm pretty sure the second amendment doesn't forbid outlawing of guns because we need to defend ourselves from criminals. Just the government.

So maybe it does say that after all...