A Key Case on Gun Control
In a landmark case, the Supreme Court considers just how far the Second Amendment's freedoms go
Dick Heller, a longtime resident of the District of Columbia, carries a handgun for his job as a private security guard. But at the end of his shift, he packs up the .38 revolver and stashes it in a vault. He would like to keep a gun for protection at his Capitol Hill home, where he has endured the sound of gunfire for years. But he can't, because D.C. law forbids it. "They give me a gun to protect them," he says of the government, "but I'm a second-class citizen when I finish work."
One of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, the D.C. statute is the focus of a March 18 U.S. Supreme Court hearing that marks the most significant case on gun control in decades. With Heller as plaintiff, it is the first test since 1939 of whether the Second Amendment supports an individual's right to bear arms and not just a state's right to form a militia. It is a crucial distinction. A ruling in favor of the individual right could trigger a wave of constitutional challenges to gun control laws nationwide. And it could suddenly bring a volatile issue—one particularly uncomfortable for Democrats—into play during a presidential election year.
"It's significant because either it's going to fuel attempts to restrict gun ownership or it could put a constitutional wet blanket on any effort to control gun ownership," says Martin Redish, a constitutional law professor at Northwestern University.
For all the passion on both sides of the Second Amendment debate, the Supreme Court has said remarkably little over the years about to whom the right applies. Specifically, the amendment states that "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."
For most of American history, courts have interpreted the Second Amendment to apply to the collective right of states to assemble groups of armed citizens, such as the National Guard. Nine federal circuit courts have upheld that position, and the Supreme Court favored it when it last considered the issue in the 1939 case. (While that decision upheld the federal regulation of an individual's use of sawed-off shotguns, it didn't directly address the scope of the Second Amendment.)
Individual freedom. But in the past few decades, more and more legal experts have supported the position that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to have guns. Although they remain in the minority, proponents include some noted liberal scholars, including Harvard University law Prof. Laurence Tribe and Yale University law Prof. Akhil Reed Amar. At the core, their reasoning is simple: Most other freedoms granted by the Bill of Rights, such as free speech, have been widely interpreted as protecting an individual right; therefore, the Second Amendment should be treated no differently.
After a federal appeals court upheld the individual-right argument in 2001 (even as it did not strike down the law in question), the Justice Department, under then Attorney General John Ashcroft, shifted its policy in favor of the individual right. Emboldened, millionaire legal activist Robert Levy, a scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute, bank-rolled a group of lawyers to target the D.C. handgun ban in court. They lined up half a dozen residents as plaintiffs, including Heller, and sued. (Heller's claim is the only one that has survived.)
The D.C. law, like laws in Chicago and New York City, doesn't explicitly bar handguns; it requires that all residents register them with the city. Since the city stopped registering handguns in 1976, no one who hadn't registered by then can have a handgun at home. The result, effectively, is a ban. D.C.'s law also bars residents from keeping any other firearm, such as a rifle or a shotgun, loaded or assembled.
It is the combination of these restrictions, among the most severe in the nation, that has made the D.C. law vulnerable to challenges by individuals claiming a right to self-defense. Wrote the National Rifle Association in a court brief: "Had Americans in 1787 been told that the federal government could ban the frontiersman in his log cabin, or the city merchant living above his store, from keeping firearms to provide for and protect himself and his family, it is hard to imagine that the Constitution would have been ratified."
- 1
- 2
- Next Page >
Reader Comments
Putting the 2nd FIRST!
As a Jewess in the US, I want to remind everyone that America wasn't won with a registered gun. Furthermore, criminals are stopped not by talk, but by FIREARMS. That is why all REAL americans put our 2nd Amendment FIRST!
Gun control-Second Amendment
Two words, "THE PEOPLE" should mean the same thing in each of the rights of citizens enumerated in our Bill Of Rights. It is foolishness to think that only members of the national guard have rights of free speech, or of freedom of the press, or of assembly. or any other stated right.
The definition of MILITIA in the days of the writing of our Bill of Rights meant and means adult males who were expected to furnish their personal arms to come to the defense of their neighbors and country when this nation couldn't field an effective military force.
militia defined
We should all stay focused on the defined militia in colonial times which included the UNREGULATED private citizens of the times. The right to self defense with arms predates the establishment of the National Guard.
2nd Ammendment
If it is not an individual right, then the 2nd Amendment is actually saying a Militia has the right to be armed. That sounds very stupid saying an Army has the right to be armed???? Redundant !!!
2nd amendment
The 2nd amendment ensures us of the right to have BOTH a state militia AND the individuals' right to be able to protect ones' self. Unless we are rich and can afford personal bodyguards it is up to each of us to take responsibility and protect ourselves & our families & homes. The police cannot be omnipresent and take care of us and, yes, God helps those who help themselves.
Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment
Bottom line, the 2nd Amendment affects the FREEDOM of an American citizen to own and use firearms. It is a tenet of freedom for each American, which is why it is such a hotbed issue. The interpretation of the 2nd Amendment by the Supreme Court will be the defining principle for the direction our governments, federal, state, and local, will go in interpreting the remaining freedoms we enjoy now. If the freedom of owning and using firearms is taken away by law, then which freedom is next?
2nd in Supreme Court history
I agree 100% with Mr. Blackmon; the “collective right of the states to form a militia” argument is something that gun banners “invented” in the 1960’s.
The right to own firearms
Although I'm pretty sure that:
1) Most guns are owned by people who don't know how to use them.
2) Most gun owners don't have the emotional or mental stability to be entrusted with firearms.
3) Most guns in private hands are a greater danger to the owners and their families than a protection.
4) The purpose of private gun ownership is mostly to benefit the gun manufacturers and dealers: very little benefit to the gun purchasers.
5) Most guns in private hands are used for criminal activity, very little for protection of innocent people.
Having said all that, the constitution gives us the right to bear arms, and like the rest of the constitution, it depends on us citizens to exercise our rights responsibly and to protect ourselves from those among us who would improperly exploit those rights or violate them, without us abridging those constitutional rights.
Protecting ourselves against those who use guns to hurt their fellow citizens is just a part of living in the real world, like protecting ourselves against every other kind of violence, druggies, sexual predators, abusers, thieves, swindlers, road rage, etc etc ad infinitum. Like it or not, we just have to let everyone have their guns, and to the best of our abilities stay alert and on guard in case some are used to threaten and hurt innocent citizens.
Gun control
If the government should decide they want to restrict us from owning guns, they will probably invent some alternative structure to guarantee our safety. Just remember their success rate on past promises and ask what recourse there is in the event of their failure.
The role of militia and arms
A reading of Federalist #46, authored by James Madison in support of ratification of the Constitution, makes it clear that "militia" are comprised of common citizens already possessing of arms. It is an individual right to own firearms and an individual right to gather together as a militia and choose militia leaders.
"To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence."
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation..."
A Key Case on Gun Control
Ms. Emma Schwartz does US News and World Report a great disservice. Her article: "A Key Case on Gun Control", March 6, 2008, contains numerous assumptions and factual errors which are not well researched at all. One example:
"...For most of American history, courts have interpreted the Second Amendment to apply to the collective right of states to assemble groups of armed citizens, such as the National Guard..."
The U.S. Constitution - including the first ten amendments - was adopted September 17, 1787. The National Guard was created via the Militia Act of 1903. There is a *slight* difference of 116 years between the two.
The other error contained in Ms. Schwartz's quote is the assumption that the Second Amendment has always been considered a collective power of government: governments have powers - not rights. For some light reading, try the Supreme Court decision most referenced: U.S vs Miller 1939, among others.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court= US&vol=307&invol=174
Read *all* of it, Ms. Schwartz.
USNEWS used to be more balanced
This is sadly slanted for an article from U.S.News, and full of factual errors and misleading statements.
The 1939 Supreme Court decision assumed the individual right, and affirmed that it guaranteed private ownership of military-type weapons. So they ruled that it was lawful to restrict private ownership of sawed-off shotguns--because they were not used by the military! This is equivalent to saying you can legally restrict airguns, but never assault rifles.
ALL of the pertinent Circuit Court decisions over the past decade have strongly affirmed the individual right position and denounced the collective right argument. And those Circuit Court decisions produced massive historical supporting evidence, including that "the right of the people..." always pertains to to the rights of all citizens, never to special classes.
A Key Case on Gun Control
Generally, there is little doubt that gun control proponents advocate stronger laws based on emotions. A parent who loses a child or sibling responds to this in an emotional manner. I can understand this response. My question would be, if their loved one is a lamb and the person who killed the loved one was a wolf, would their loved one had been able to protect themselves if they had sharp teeth? The only way this can happen is to make it possible for honest people to protect themselves.
Criminals, by their very nature, could care less how many laws we create, they will still possess and use their guns for the purpose of committing a crime. Where does this leave our loved ones, and each one of us? I for one would not like to be a lamb without sharp teeth.
In addition to this thought in a nutshell, I believe as most of those responding here, that the right to bear arms is the same as the right to free press, and right to assemble, for example, is provided by the Bill of Rights (2nd. Amendment).
Hopefully, we will not become a nation like pre-WWII Germany and some other countries where guns were taken away from the people, leaving people at the mercy of the wolves, and in the case of Germany, the Nazis. We all know what happened in Germany to the people who could not protect themselves against a government who engaged in killing its own citizens.
I once read a passage by Thomas Jefferson where the people have a right to protect itself against a government that becomes an enemy of the people. A well armed society will always make such an occurrence from occurring, and to safeguard the U.S. Constitution.
There is obvious that there are other reasons for the Second Amendment, and these reasons are either unknown, or they are being avoided by the individuals involved in this controversy. The right to keep and bear arms makes it difficult for foreign nations to just walk in and take over our country.
These are three (3) important reasons to make certain that the honest people of this nation be allowed to keep and bear arms. It is essential to our freedom not to abridge this right.
Gun Control
World history has time & again proved what happens when an armed government is left in charge of an unarmed population,---- some form of enslavement follows.....i.e., Hitler's Germany, Castro's Cuba, Josef Stalan's Soviet Union, Mao's Red China----the list goes on and on. When any government does not trust an individual citizen with a gun, then that government is not to be trusted. "911" is, after all, government sponsored "dial a prayer!" The 2nd Amendment must be preserved at all cost. Our Constitution is stained with the blood of my American brothers in arms who have made the ultimate sacrifice to preserve it. in its entireity, as it is written, throughout the history of our Republic.
gun control
"the freedom of speech, for instance, does not extend to shouting "fire" in a crowded theater."
Actually, it does. IN 1969 in Brandenburg v Ohio, the Court reversed the crowded-theater case. Schenk, from 1917, had upheld the conviction of anti-war pamphleteers who claimed the draft was unconstitutional under the 13th A. Our current understanding is that that is exactly the kind of thing the First Amendment protects. Otherwise good article. Not sure I agree with your characterization of US v Miller.
Gun Control
Lets say that you are at any place you have a legal right to be.A person walks up to you and asks for directions; you politely give them.As you turn to walk away he orders you to hand over your money; as you turn around not really believeing you heard that ; your eyes focus on a pistol pointed at your head. The man tells you to be quick or he will shoot you. My question is this------Would You rather someone dial 911 on thier cell phone and ask for law enforcement to come help you; or would you rather a law-abiding citizen lawfully armed put a bullet in him before he can pull the trigger?
Gun control
Just one thought -Isn't DC the safest place in America?
Gun Control
Those who are for gun control are not fully aware of what they are demanding. Let's face it, the criminals will always have access to guns one way or the other, whereas non-criminals will have no such access without first committing a crime to get their hands on a gun. As it has been said, guns don't kill, people do. That means that non-criminals will have no way of defending themselves and the criminals will rule. Not a pleasant scenario. But, as always the far left loonies don't think through things. Let the criminals take a few shots at them and see what will happen. They will have guns to defend themselves in no time. Americans have the right to bear arms and don't forget it!
gun control
The NRA says: "Had Americans in 1787 been told that the federal government could ban the frontiersman in his log cabin, or the city merchant living above his store, from keeping firearms to provide for and protect himself and his family, it is hard to imagine that the Constitution would have been ratified."
Perhaps the NRA would be happier if only 1787-vintage flintlock muskets were allowed by law, and automatic pistols and assault rifles banned? I'm sure urban firefights would be much less of a problem if everybody had to reload with a powder-horn and a ramrod instead of rock'n'rolling from a forty-round banana magazine.
As an Englishman, however, I would suggest winding the clock back even further to 1775. By the NRA's logic the government then must have been even better than it was in 1787. If you guys want to do that retro-style thing we could spare a couple of regiments of redcoats to help keep order over there, as it would give Prince Harry something to do. The native American Indians would welcome such a project, too, as the British North America Act of 1768 would then still be in force so their ownership of their own lands would be protected under British law.
A key case on gun control
There is so much misinformation here it makes the head spin. Most Supreme Court cases have NOT held the 2nd to be a collective right. The 1939 case to which you refer actually did address the 2nd. It questioned the defendant's right to a sawn-off shotgun because the court QUESTIONED THAT WEAPON'S POSSIBLE USE AS AN INFANTRY WEAPON, notwithstanding that short shotguns (trench guns) were in common use during WWI. The National Guard certainly wasn't envisioned by the Founding Fathers, as it didn't become an entity until the 20th Century. The Bill of Rights would not have been ratified if the 2nd wasn't included. Read Jefferson's comments. Why would all the other amendments in the Bill of Rights define these rights as being pre-existing, not granted, and applying to all citizens, with the exception of the 2nd, then suddenly switch to giving the states a right? The Founding Fathers clearly recognized the individual's right to self-defense and the right to rebel against an oppressive government, and that is why the citizenry can never be disarmed. No petty despot can control an armed citizenry.
2nd vs. 1st.
If the 2nd amendment wasn't meant for the individuals, why would our fore fathers have listed it after the first. I firmly believe that the only reason Americans still have the 1st amendment is because the citizens still have the right to bear arms. If the government takes away the 2nd amendment, how will the citizens be able to protect the 1st amendment?
Gun control
The greatest safety is when our gov't will encourage law abiding citizens in good standing (Not felons, the mentally ill, or people who get DUI''s) to have what ever guns they desire.
Our future is not as secure as before and to think our governments, Fed and State, would have the capacity to protect citizens in an emergency is just plain silly.
Weapons and freedom go together.
Arms
while the government courts should'nt have the to ban arms, they can determine limits on them. If you think about it they say the right to bear (take) arms, which can mean any weapon to defend themselves. As silly as it may sound, If you look at it as individuals right own arms that would mean they can own any weapon not just specific models of guns, which is a dangerous. So it should be looked at in a collective way.
Mr. Sears ignorant statements about gun owners
So Charles Sears from Oregon comments:
"Although I'm pretty sure that:
1) Most guns are owned by people who don't know how to use them.
2) Most gun owners don't have the emotional or mental stability to be entrusted with firearms.
3) Most guns in private hands are a greater danger to the owners and their families than a protection.
4) The purpose of private gun ownership is mostly to benefit the gun manufacturers and dealers: very little benefit to the gun purchasers.
5) Most guns in private hands are used for criminal activity, very little for protection of innocent people."
Are you serious??? These are probably some of the most ignorant statements I have heard in my entire life, Charles. So you're saying that the 100 million gun owners in the US are all criminals? And we're all emotionally immature? Guess we better build more prisons then, huh? And there's no benefit to the private ownership of a firearm? Well Charles, the next time you have to call the police to your fantasy world when someone is breaking into your house, you let me know how long you have to wait. I'm sure it'll seem like an eternity. In my area, you get put on hold when you call 911. Maybe you need to wake up to reality, Charles. But I do appreciate you calling me, many of my friends, all of my family members, as well as police officers, and members of the military, emotionally unstable idiots. You think about that next time you need help from the police.
Anti-Gun Rights Bias
"When the framers wrote the amendment, the historians argue, 'Americans were hardly shy about identifying and discussing such fundamental rights as representation, trial by jury or freedom of conscience. The fact that references to the keeping of firearms are so few and terse...is itself an indicator of how minor a question this was at the time. The same cannot be said about the role of the militia in the constitutional order.'" A minor question? You can see discussion of the importance of the individual right to keep and bear arms everywhere from the Federalist Papers, to the writings of Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, James Madison, and most of the Founding Fathers. Seriously Ms. Schwartz, are you that biased that you just wrote your personal feelings in this article, or did you do any actual research?
Most Private guns NOT used for crime
Reader Sears lists a number of things he is pretty sure of. But, respectfully, his beliefs don't match the facts. While his concluding paragraphs are quite good, I suggest a thought experiment for his numbered list. Replace "gun" with "car" and see if this set of beliefs even makes logical sense. I will specifically address only his final point:
5) Most guns in private hands are used for criminal activity, very little for protection of innocent people.
The best estimates are that there are well over 200 Million privately held firearms in the U.S., well under 1 million firearm crimes per year (closer to half a million) and over 2 million defensive uses of firearms per year. So guns are two to four times more likely to be used to defend the innocent than to be used in a crime. Also note that only 1/4 of a percent of guns are used each year for any kind of crime. For the studies, see:
http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html and
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/dgufreq.html
Shouting fire...sheesh
I've about had it with the comparison of every conceivable, before-the-fact restriction on gun ownership and use, with the after-the-fact punishment for shouting fire in a crowded theater. In the latter case, you're actually allowed the use of your mouth, and you actually get to shoot it off. THEN, they crack down on you.
If the government restricted shouting fire the same way it restricts the ownership and use of guns -- and the way the enemies of gun rights WANT it to be restricted -- we'd be required to have our mouths taped shut when we entered the theater...or worse, have our tongues removed, depending how draconian the gun law being compared. Or, before we could see a movie, we'd have to be licensed to speak in a theater and have our mouths registered -- or maybe our ideas, since that's really what freedom of speech and the press is supposed to protect.
And, what of the cases where there's really a fire? No one's allowed to let the other patrons know their lives are in danger? If that's allowed, then wouldn't protective use of a gun be allowed?
just like drivers license
this is how it is done in my country:
whoever wonts a gun needs a gun license
just as one needs a drivers license
1. as in alcohol consumption - bearing arm should have an age limit - lets say 21+ or maybe 25+
2. a mental exam should be held for everyone who ask for a gun permit every 3 years(or a proof from your doctor that you were never hospitalized for mental reasons)
3. a health/eye sight/drug use exam should be held for everyone who ask for a gun permit every 3 years
4.a gun firing course + firing exam should be held every 3 years
5.a limited number of models of guns/rifles is allowed - no missile projectors or H bombs ;-)
6.a limited amount of ammunition is allowed - lets say 60 bullets(4 magazines) you cant run around firing at anything you like - it is for life threatening emergencies situations only.
7.the license after acquiring it - must be carry at all times with the gun and must be presented to an officer of the law if asked (just as with drivers license)
thats it.
i own a smith&wesson SW99 double action
and i prey everyday that i will never have to use it.
so far so good.
Presidential Opinion
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
Thomas Jefferson President of the United States
Hummmm, his opinion seems fairly clear. Funny, he didn’t mention the National Guard, it sort of sounds like he means individuals should not be from prevented carrying arms or defending themselves.
Gun Control
Canada does not allow it's citizens to bear arms, and the crime rate is much lower in Canada than in the USA. The criminals are also much more violent in the US, because they know that many Americans have guns, so the criminal often shoots first, before the home owner can shoot them. In Canada, since the criminal knows that Canadians don't have guns, they often commit the crime without a gun at all. That is why Canadian criminals are usually less violent. Yes, you may be robbed in Canada, but at least your chances are much better than in the US, that you will still be alive. If a criminal really wants to get you, he will whether you are armed or not. Also, the number one killer of children in the US, is from accidental shootings from a home owners gun. Therefore, since so many individuals are careless with their guns, the US should be like Canada, and have gun control.
Amazing !!!
People are more concerned with guns then our country being taken over by illegal immigrants and their rights instead. maybe this is why anyone can move here and do what they want without obeying laws, most of you people aren't worried about anything except being able to keep a pistol under your pillow. Lets make this country ours again then worry about guns later.
How many of you want to actually have a gun and shoot someone in your house anyway ? If you are a sportsman (hunter) you can have a gun just follow the rules. Exactly where is the actual need for a handgun, and what part of the 2nd amendment does it say we have the right to bear Glocks ?
Seven Quotes Says It All
"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
Samuel Adams of Massachusetts -- U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
James Madison, The Federalist Number 46
"[Tyranny cannot be safe] without a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace."
James Madison, In his autobiography
"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense."
John Adams (1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large, is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
"The right of self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals."
President James Monroe (November 16, 1818)
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
George Washington
I truly do not need to say anything further. The Founding Fathers have spoken from the grave, through my diligent research and concern for the future of America.
I have had family in America since the Pilgrims landed off of Cape Cod in the fall of 1620. One of my own ancestors was a Minuteman in the Massachusetts Militia. Now it's my turn to hold high the torch of freedom.
Marc Richardson
www.SaveTheGuns.com
Chris of FL
You wrote:
"Also, the number one killer of children in the US, is from accidental shootings from a home owners gun."
That statistic is so far off base, that I actually laughed out loud when I read it. In my reality, more than 10,000 children are killed or severely injured in car accidents every year and for the last year in which I have solid statistics, only 183 children were accidentally killed through the mishandling of a loaded firearm.
I know, I'm not a mathematics major, but I will go out on a limb and say that 183 is a whole lot less than 10,000. Burying a child due to the mishandling of a loaded firearm is one of the worst things that can happen to a family. I have dedicated the last twenty years of my life to bringing this statistic down. Research and truth is very important when speaking about such a topic. Please have a great day!
Firearms
Nearly all European countries have very restrictive gun laws and much lower crime rates than the US...
Hmmm. Maybe this part...
@Confused ("Exactly where is the actual need for a handgun, and what part of the 2nd amendment does it say we have the right to bear Glocks".
I think its this part:
... the right of the <I>people</I> to keep and bear Arms, <I>shall not be infringed.</I>
(Emphasis mine)
Gun Control
Chris of Fla indicated that the nunmber one killer of children in America is accidental shootings from home owners guns. This is an outright falsehood. In actually it is the lowest killer of children behind drownings, bicycle accidents etc.
Yes It IS Amazing!
That the anti-gun crowd totally ignores not only the 2nd Amendment, but the writings of the authors of the the Bill of Rights. Their intent is pretty plain if you bother to research what they had to say before and after. This article is obviously written by someone who is against this freedom and the right to protect ourselves. If you allow the restriction of one of the Bill of Rights, how long will it be before they are all restricted. But then again, the only totalitarian mindset that comes across so blatantly is coming from the left! You anti-gun people need to read more, more than just the leftist garbage and so-called statistics promulgated by the people who want you to be at the mercy of the criminal element. Do you actually think in your wildest imagination that a criminal cares if it's illegal for him to own a gun? What planet are you from? Call 911 for help? Well, they might identify the cause of death when they get there. I'd rather have a chance to defend my family when needed (but would hope that would never happen) than be totally defenseless. If it makes you feel safer to be unarmed, have at it.
Oh, and what part of the Second Amendment says we DON'T have the right to bear Glocks, or H & K's or any other? I don't hunt, but I enjoy shooting at the range. Don't like it, that's unfortunate, because I don't plan to stop based upon the histrionics of people who would like nothing better than to exercise an iron-fisted control over those who don't agree with them. If you are not anti-gun you need to be a member of the NRA and Gun Owners of America. They are the only organizations defending this fundamental right for you to protect your family.
As said by someone you should remember, 'from my cold dead hands'.
EU country crime rates are NOT better than the US
Angus,
Get your facts straight. There is very little data to support your comments, and the majority of data says just the opposite. Here is just one such source:
http://www.tinyvital.com/BlogArchives/000220.html
What lowers crime rates? Stiff penalties for criminals.
Also, thugs killing off thugs artificially inflates murder rates.
Canada is Stupid
If the Canadian who wrote that we should adopt their restrictive gun laws then I'd rather the U.S. just did away with all gun laws! Canada is a cowardly country formed by individuals who retreated (instead of fighting the British)......Canada is stupid.
Right to Own Firearms.
As reading this and readying the comments that are posted. Some of the people are living in a fictional world of their own making. Most Americans are "NOT CRIMINAL", Most Americans know how to use firearms. Just because some one owns a gun dose not make them a Criminal, EG, Tattoos do not make someone a criminal.
Guns do not kill people, people kill people. Hence the logic off Gun control activist saying that guns kill people is not logical. How can a inanimate object kill? Well with this logic Cars kill people, so there should be a ban on cars. Dose not makes sense. More people are killed every year by cars then by guns.
Gun Laws only help the Criminals since the Criminals do not fallow, care, about laws. They only effect the Law abiding citizens.
The Second Amendment is in-place to protect the people from a Dictatorship Government that might take the freedoms of the people away from the people, IF we loose the Second Amendment then we LOOSE all the Amendments that our Forefathers set-forth to protect this United States.
If some one dose not like these amendments that are in place by the Constitution of the United States, please leave! No one is holding a GUN to you and telling you to stay, if you do not like the Military that protects you from the Osama Binlodins of the world please leave. IF you do not like the FREEDOMS, “First Amendment Right Freedom of Speech” that you have PLEASE LEAVE! ! ! !
The Right to Bear Arms!!!!
You're kidding me right?
I cannot believe that this article tries to argue the 2nd Amendment is a about a State's Militia’s right to bear arms. An obvious liberal mis-interpretation as per usual.
If one can argue that ridiculous debate. One can very easily argue that the 2nd amendment not only allows every individual the right to bear arms but the weapon should be supplied by each individual's state for militia purpose.
I'll be looking forward to the UPS box from the state with my free gun in it.
That is no different an argument then the liberal version.
gun control
All in all it was a very biased article, and not all that truthful. I am sure the fellow from OR (sears) thought highly of it all. But the simple truth is that more gun control laws will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals. They will only make it harder for law abiding citizens to protect themselves..
Do yourself a favor and find out just how often a gun that is never fired has prevented a crime from being committed. There was a study done not so long ago, a major university no less, and the results were not what they were looking for.
gun control
For a little proof of the bias of the article stating collective rights VS individual rights.
In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) the Supreme Court gutted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by holding that the Second Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, only operated as a restraint upon the federal government. In discussing the right to "bear arms for a lawful purpose" the Court stated that "the people" should look to localities (not the National Government) for protection against "their fellow citizens" of rights recognized by the Second Amendment. 92 U.S. at 553. Cruikshank affirmed an order arresting judgments of conviction for conspiracy to deprive freed blacks in Louisiana of their civil rights. The fact that the black citizens who were victimized were not affiliated with an organized state militia had no bearing on the case. The Court in Cruikshank also used the phrase "the people" in the same context as "their fellow citizens". 92 U.S. at 553. It obviously viewed "the people" referred to in the Second Amendment as meaning individuals. States, unlike individuals, do not have "fellow citizens".
In Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a man charged with parading a body of armed men through Chicago without a license. Illinois law prohibited bodies of men to associate together as military organizations or to drill or parade in cities and towns unless authorized by law. Presser challenged this law as violating the Second Amendment. The Court held that these provisions did not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Citing Cruikshank, Presser also held that the Second Amendment is a limitation only upon Congress and the federal government. Presser did, however, hold that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserve military force or reserve militia of the United States and of the States; and that even without the Second Amendment states may not prohibit people from keeping and bearing arms "so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining public security." 116 U.S. at 265. Presser thus drew a clear distinction between "the people" and "States". If the Second Amendment guaranteed only a collective right, the Court could easily have disposed of Presser's Second Amendment claim by holding that he lacked standing to assert it. Instead, it addressed Presser's Second Amendment claim on its merits.
In Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894) the Supreme Court declined to rule on the appellant's Second Amendment claim due to his failure to raise it in a timely fashion, stating, "[i]f the Fourteenth Amendment limited the power of the States as to such rights, as pertaining to citizens of the United States, we think it was fatal to this claim that it was not set up in the trial court." 153 U.S. at 538. Miller had been convicted of murder and on appeal argued that Texas law forbidding the carrying of weapons violated the Second Amendment. Once again, if the Second Amendment guaranteed only a collective right, such a claim could have been easily disposed of due to Miller's lack of standing. However, Miller's claim was not ruled upon because he, as an individual, lacked standing to assert it. The Court held that he had failed to assert it in a timely fashion.
Australia boy
Look, I'll be honest, Guns are a bad thing. Guns arent something you need to protect yourself with. The problem is people runnin around sayin "We need to protect ourselves from people with guns!! How? With bigger guns!" And now guns are so easy to get you've dug yourself into a very deep hole.
Please America, Guns are not toys, they kill people. It is not your right or anyone elses right to hold something that can cause so much destruction.
I place my email here if you disagree with me, but lets be honest, I live in a society without guns and can walk the streets at night and the worst thing that'll happen to me is a bunch of kids will say G'day to me.
zach_anderson@hotmail.com
I will lol at any flaring.
Guns Vs Cars
Although Mr Sears is definitely not in favor of the individual right to own firearms, I can respect his view that,"the constitution gives us the right to bear arms, and like the rest of the constitution, it depends on us citizens to exercise our rights responsibly and to protect ourselves from those among us who would improperly exploit those rights or violate them, without us abridging those constitutional rights.". I wish more of the anti-gun people in this country would at least respect the U.S. Constitution. I disagree with Mr. Sears' beliefs that most gun owners are not stable enough to own guns, but the bad apples who get all the media attention are unstable, and they make legal gun owners look bad. If we applied Mr. sears statements to cars, (and I do believe most of his statements about guns would be true, if applied to cars instead of guns), then cars would have been outlawed years ago. We would be driving horses and buggies again. Just because some people misuse firearms, that does not give government or anyone else a right to restrict the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens to own or use firearms.
Look at Mr. Sears' statements, with the word guns replaced with the word cars.
1) Most cars are owned by people who don't know how to use them.
(So true, look how many people drive dangerously and kill people in accidents every year)
2) Most car owners don't have the emotional or mental stability to be entrusted with automobiles.
(Look at all the road rage when people drive aggressively, get into fights over accidents, and generally let their anger control the way they drive)
3) Most cars in private hands are a greater danger to the owners and their families than a mode of travel.
(So true, think of how many people are just trying to travel from one place to another and get killed because either they, or someone else, caused an accident due to excessive speed and/or aggressive driving.)
4) The purpose of private car ownership is mostly to benefit the car manufacturers and dealers: very little benefit to the car purchasers.
(although cars have a lot of benefit to the people who own them, the auto industry makes billions of dollars a year selling cars to people who misuse them every day, and cause thousands of injuries and deaths with their products every year.)
5) Most cars in private hands are used for criminal activity, very little for protection of innocent people.
(I have no car parallel to this one, but cars are used in crimes quite frequently. Just watch shows like COPS and see how many accidents are caused by criminals illegally using cars to escape from the police.)
If people thought about cars the way they do about guns, then cars should be outlawed, period. However, that would be completely ridiculous, because people use cars every day for legitimate purposes. Cars are far more dangerous than guns, yet society understands that they are a necessary part of everyday life. The problem is, the media does not want people to understand that guns are just as much a necessary part of everyday life as cars.
2nd Amendment Rights
The thought which consistently comes to mind when considering 2nd Amendment Rights is the unattributed quote that the difference between citizens and subjects is the right to keep and bear arms.
If one reviews the statistics on violent crime among states which allow ownership/conceal-carry vs those which have such bans, one discerns disproportionate percentages; specifically, firearm ownership/conceal-carry is/are realistic deterents.
Intent to do bodily harm to another must be countered by an equal opposing force. From a criminal mindset and perspective, it seems one would be less likely to attempt a feloneous act if one knew that such a violent act would be met with equal and immediate, potentially deadly, opposing force. Firearm ownership is a criminal behavior modification technique.
2nd Amd to DC, PR, USVI, Guam
I support the second amendment right to be interpreted as an individual right, and consequently, it should be extended not only to DC but also to U.S. territories such as Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, Federated Statesof Micronesia, which are part of this nation.
Gun Control
The article wasn't as biased as many I have seen in the past but Ms Schwartz was incorrect in implying that most legal scholars support the discredited "States" rights approach. Indeed, the individual rights model is called "the standard model" in constitutional scholarship.
As to line drawing or regulations, I don't know where the limit is, but any municipal, state or federal government entity that issues a type of weapon to its civilian law enforcement employees for self defensive use in urban environments can not be taken seriously if that governmental unit claims similar weapons have no reasonable purpose in the hands of other civilians.
2d Amendment
To understand the 2d Amendment, one must fully read and understand the Declaration of Independence in which this Nation broke away from tyrany kept in power by standing armies and militias. Read also the Federalist Papers, especially number 25 and up. You will readily see that there was great concern about having a standing army during times of peace and the necessity of a militia, that may support elected officials not acting with the best interests of the citizens, the very reasons the Revolutionary War was fought and the Declaration of Independence written. In essance, since a well regulated militia was deemed necessary, it was also necessary that ordinary citizens be armed to protect themselves from the POSSIBILITY of freely elected tyranny. The LAW ABIDING citizen has a right, in this context, to KEEP and BEAR ARMS.
most disinformation in years
I am amazed that U.S news passed this off as journalism. Apparently the writer can write, but not read.
a few points,
first, If you are not from this country and do not like our constitution, too bad. Its ours. It says what it says. Our bill of rights is not a list of suggestions. They are our rights, we the people of the United States.
The 2nd ammendment is an individual right Period. As part of a well regulated militia, lets look at that first, the militia was composed of all able bodied males that were expected to bring their own ARMS with them and actually bear them.
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. lets look at the words in part then in whole,
Right: a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral
keep: to hold or retain in one's possession; hold as one's own
bear Definition: to carry; bring
arms: arms. weapons, esp. firearms
infringed: to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress
seems to me, that by definition of the words used in the 2nd ammendment, it belongs to the people NOT the government.
As for some of the posts above, Switzerland is a heavily armed country and has almost no crime.
The second ammendment gives me the right to have a handgun, I am an avid shooter just like some play golf, or boating or whatever, I enjoy my time at the range, If you don't like it, too bad. I do. I don't tell you how to run your boat, or how to ski or whatever else you may do. Most gun crimes are committed by guess what, CRIMINALS, most have already had run ins with the law. Enforce the laws we have, don't create new laws that punish law abiding citizens.
and finally to australia boy,
In a nut shell, Cars kill more people every year than guns come close to doing. Restrictive gun laws do nothing to prevent violent crime. Australia has seen its violent crime rates SOAR since it banned firearms, england has too.
yes guns can kill, so can a steak knife, and for that matter a ball point pen if used correctly.
In this country, we hold our rights dear, and many of us exercise our second ammendment right to keep and bear arms. We have people that enjoy hunting, competion shooting of all kinds, or just general fun going to the range. many from other nations come here just so they can compete in shooting sports events. Even some olympic teams can't practice in their own countries due to restrictive gun laws. You are entitle to you opinion, fortunately we don't have to follow your opinion in this matter.
perhaps you should gain a better understanding of how badly the gun laws of Australia have increased your crime rates esp violent crimes.
Armed America
This article was written by one taking the attitude typified by the "Drive By Media". Her research reminds me of "Armed America" By Belleseilles which was discredited upon peer review by the acedemic community for its shoddy research and analysis. She seems to have restricted her sources to such organizations as the Brady Campaign, Million Mom March and Violence Policy Center which are NOT known to present pro- RKBA facts.
Questionable statements is the article
I know this has been mentioned several times, I'm going to reiterate anyway. The statement "For most of American history, courts have interpreted the Second Amendment to apply to the collective right of states..." is totally and completely false and it didn't come about until the Gun Control Act of 1968.
Additionally and contrary to popular belief and what one Federal lawyer is saying, Machine Guns are not banned by law. If someone has the money to buy a Machine Gun, has the proper FFL (Federal Firearms License) and purchases a Tax Stamp, then they can own a Machine Gun!
The last thing I want to say, if you don't want to own a gun, fine! Don't try to tell me I can't!! If you have a problem with me owning a gun, you should look at why...and while you're doing that, ask yourself how you feel about giving your 16 yr old a 4000 pound weapon (AKA: an Automobile). Further, instead of going after the guns, why not go after the criminals who USE gun in illegal activities, because the guns can't commit illegal activities by themselves!!!!!
How will you respond?
Here is an interesting thought experiment:
If the Supremes should, against all better judgment, decide that the 2A protects only state/federal controlled militia "rights,"
or, say, that 2A applies only to the feds and not to the states as it's not appropriate to be included within the scope of the 14th, such that states can pass whatever onerous arms restrictions they want,
how will you respond?
It's been quite a long time since I've see a "...pry it from my cold dead fingers" bumper sticker. And Janet Reno showed us on television, from Texas, of all places, how that stance plays out. Randy Weaver paid with his wife and son.
Are we really prepared even for civil disobedience?
Would we really have the nuts to jury nullify a gun possession prosecution?
I am certain that there isn't popular support for a new constitutional amendment, nor is there enough support to significantly alter legislatures across the country. It bears keeping in mind the broadly forgotten fact that the American revolutionaries were quite in the minority at the start of the American Revolution. Most American colonists, all of whom were of course British subjects, were quite content not to become active traitors subject to the noose for treason. Which is what every last signer of the Declaration immediately became. Those men had principals, and guts.
So a fundamental, PRE-constitutional right (remember, the Bill o' Rights doesn't create or grant any rights at all, it merely enumerates existing rights which are to be explicitly protected from infringement by the newly created federal government) is extinguished.
So what? Then what happens?
"Shall Not be Infringed"
ofNY (that's all there was on your signature), you say that government can "determine limits on [guns]" How do you justify that in the light of the words "shall not be infringed"?
Knife Manufacturers and puppets in the National Cutlery Association
'This is crazy! How can we let these greedy monsters in the knife industry continue pushing these killing machines into the hands of children? Why do we let their puppets in the National Cutlery Association write our laws?' Just sort of paraphrasing a recent gun control argument I overheard.
Even if they win, I also won't be turning in my steak knives to Hillary's gestapo. Or my baseball bats, golf clubs or teeth.
The Second Amendment Battle
After reading the articles on the second amendment case I'm amazed at how the information is either false or both sides of the story are not presented. First point of error, machine guns are not banned from sale. A person must obtain a Federal permit and pay a transfer tax to own one. Second point, only stories presenting the horrific tragedies are printed. Not one mention was made of the brave lady in Colorado Springs that prevented another tragedy because she was carrying a legal concealed weapon. People that believe the police are going to defend and protect them from a violent crime are living in a fairy tale world. Unfortunately police cannot cover every citizen 24/7. They usually show up after the deed has been done. I for one believe in protecting my family and myself as well as any other citizens in harms way. Law-abiding gun owners and concealed weapon permit holders are not the problem, we are part of the solution.
A ban only hurts law abiding citizens
If the gun control proponents were in charge of nuclear arms then their argument would sound like this. The US, France, UK, China, and Russia must disable all nuclear weapons. Iran should also yet being a country that never complies with rules we all know they will not. This would leave Iran to be the lone nuclear power in the world. The only nation that will have nuclear weapons is the one that will use them to harm others. Law abiding nations should not protect themselves against nuclear weapons.
Of course they may say that a band of Martians is going to police the world; yet the Martians only visit earth every few months. As we all know there is never a Martian when you need one.
Lets face it criminals will not give up their guns if they are banned. It’s already illegal for criminals to have them! Only law abiding citizens would. Criminals would simply be given free reign to cause harm to helpless individuals.
Liberty
An armed citizenry is a free citizenry.
You cannot be free if all power for lethal force exists in the hands of government.
Patriots: Buy a gun and plenty of ammunition. We are at a crossroads in this nation. Will we be sheep or will we choose liberty?
Stay armed, stay free.
Keep your powder dry.
Europeans, Aussies, etc.
Please stop criticizing the gun rights of Americans because you have lost yours. Legal gun ownership is an important part of American culture, and gun rights have nothing to do with hunting or shooting at paper targets. Our right to arm ourselves with combat weapons is there to protect all of our other rights from being bulldozed by a tyrannical government and to protect against foreign invasion. Guns are also equalizers, putting a small person and a large person on a much more level playing field in a combat situation, and allowing a smaller person to defend himself or herself against a larger attacker. There is no more effective means of self-defense than a gun. You can call the cops if somebody breaks into your home, but I'll be waiting with my 870 Express. You can make up all the statistics that you want, but I suspect that not being armed would not make me feel any safer. While the need to use it may be unlikely, you will only know how valuable a firearm is when that critical moment comes.
To all my fellow Americans, please stay armed and teach others about responsible gun ownership.
Thank you Marc of ME for your seven quotes. I'm glad we have the founding fathers words to read and really understand their intent. Thank you Keith Doyon for posting tough questions to ask ourselves. Apathy has been the fall of many great nations in history, and like my grandfather did in Nazi occupied Denmark, I would like to think I will have the courage to refuse to surrender all my guns. At what cost though? Becoming a felon? Giving up my life? I'm sure no one doing this would be labeled a "Patriot"....just a criminal. That's how I see it going down, with apathy...."oh well, here you go, I don't wan't any trouble" BAAAHH, BAAHHH....Like the Australian and British Sheep. LEARN FROM THEM AMERICA!!! GET ACTIVE! WRITE LETTERS AND MAKE PHONE CALLS! VOTE! KNOW WHAT BILLS ARE BEING PASSED WHILE WE SLEEP!!
National Guard?
Militia doesn't mean National Guard which did not even exist at the time, in addition National Guardsmen and women only bear arms they don't keep them.
Euro-babble
"Nearly all European countries have very restrictive gun laws and much lower crime rates than the US..."
Sorry, Angus of XX, you are wrong. England, where handguns are banned, has a higher rate of violent crime than the US. As does Australia. All your governments have done is to provide easy targets for criminals.
It's amazing to me, what with all the comments from Europeans about our "cowboy" mentality, and vigilante justice, that so much of the world's population seeks to come here to live.
Gun Control Article - Emma Schwartz
- Biased, poor research
- Title is biased "uphill" battle for gun control" (We don't need to battle, we don't need gun control. The Framers notes, letters are very clear on their intent.)
- If we need gun control, maybe we need control on the press for freedom of speech for printing misleading information.
Guns Kill?
Anti-gun activist spew forth their pie-in-the-sky rhetoric about “no guns = no crime” and prove themselves fools and ignorant of human nature. The nature of human beings is toward self preservation, the very nature of self preservation is the willingness of a person to defend themselves when threatened with eminent bodily harm or death due to the act of a criminal or oppressor. How many parents would allow someone to walk up and beat, stab, or generally abuse or kill their child and not try to protect or defend their child? Most humans would defend to the death their little ones against such assault; this is the foundation of our will to live that makes us act in violent and aggressive ways to continue our race. Without this innate aggression we would never have made it out of the caves. Some in society use their protective/preservationist nature in a predatory way to do evil rather than good. Laws and Police are useful to punish criminals after the crime has been committed. The Police are not a proactive force by nature, but one that is reactionary. We the people must protect ourselves and our families by any means necessary. If that means carrying a concealed weapon so be it. As long as human nature is prone to violence then citizens will need to protect themselves and their families. When humans no longer have the capacity to respond with aggression to protect themselves, family or country then we will cease to exist. Self preservation and will to live are tied to our fight or flight response, all very basic stuff. If you outlaw guns people will attack each other with knives, outlaw knives, then sticks and stones, you see the problem. The common element is the intention to commit crime not the means that is used to accomplish the intention. Outlawing guns will not change the intent to commit violent crime; however, a gun or any other defensive weapon in the hands of a citizen no longer ensures them of being a potential victim. The real question is what do these antigun types really want to take from us next?
Biased article
When I picked up the magazine, I assumed the article would be biased but wanted to see what US News had to say on the subject.
That put of the way; I saw on the bottom of page 41 the opportunity to post my views and arriving here saw the preponderance of writers support the things I wanted to say. That is, that guns are not the problem, criminals are. It is my RIGHT to protect myself and my family. It is not a privelege to be granted by a governmental entity be it local, state or federal. Driving is a privelege and is licensed by every state. Even though drivers and cars are licensed, does that stop the carnage daily on the streets of America? Why would licensing guns stop the criminals from doing incredible harm daily? All that licensing and confiscation would accomplish is making it illegal for the law abiding to protect ourselves. Don't kid yoursel
"For most of American history, courts have interpreted the Second Amendment to apply to the collective right..."
That is a false statement, collective rights was not an issue until the turn of the century. For most of American history, courts have interpreted the Second Amendment to apply to the individual right to keep and bear arms.
Mar 07, 2008 11:33:31 AM [permalink] [report comment]