Supreme Court decides on DC gun laws today.

[Klash]

TweetWhich way you guys think this will go?
===============================


The nine justices have been considering whether a 32-year-old ban on handguns in Washington DC is unconstitutional.

It is the first time in nearly 70 years that Americans' right to keep and bear arms, set out in the US Constitution, has been considered by the court.

Debate over the exact meaning of the constitution has raged for years.

Authorities in Washington DC, which has some of the toughest gun control laws in the US, are challenging an appeal court's ruling that the ban on handguns is unconstitutional.

Since 1976, the private possession of handguns has been prohibited in the nation's capital, while rifles or shotguns are required to be locked or dismantled.


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.
Second Amendment of the US Constitution

Q&A: Washington's gun laws

DC city council argues that the ban is needed to help keep violence and murder rates down.

But the ban was challenged by a security guard, Dick Heller, who argued that if he was allowed to have a handgun at work, he also had a constitutional right to have one at home for self-defence.

In March last year, a federal appeals court agreed with Mr Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms and that the DC ban was unconstitutional.

The city appealed against that ruling, with the case going to the Supreme Court.

Opinions

The justices could now issue a landmark interpretation of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.

The debate is centred on whether the Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, protects an individual's right to possess guns, or simply a collective right for an armed militia.

The case has been closely watched, with dozens of outside groups filing opinions, known as "friends of the court" briefs, setting out their arguments for or against the DC ban.

If the court upholds the federal appeals court's ruling, that could spark challenges to gun control laws in other parts of the US, experts say.

The justices' wording in their ruling will also be closely scrutinised to see if they set out what they consider to be reasonable regulation of the possession of firearms.

Surveys estimate that there are 90 guns for every 100 citizens in the US, making the country one of the most heavily-armed nations in the world.

However, there are people who own more than one gun and many Americans do not possess firearms.

[firstenrgy]

TweetA 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.
Second Amendment of the US Constitution

"...who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country...? I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers."

- George Mason

What part of shall not be infringed could be misinterpreted?

[Klash]

Tweet

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.
Second Amendment of the US Constitution

"...who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country...? I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers."

- George Mason

What part of shall not be infringed could be misinterpreted?

Seems pretty self explanatory to me too but our Justices get confused easily.

This decision will be a turning point, for sure.

[daved150]

Tweetdont like the odds on this one!!! i think it'll be another brick in the wall!

[straydoglogic]

Tweetthey will not take my shyte!!!!!

[firstenrgy]

TweetSupreme Court Shoots Down D.C. Gun Law
Court Expected To Resolve Dispute On Campaign Finance Law

POSTED: 5:41 am PDT June 26, 2008
UPDATED: 9:00 am PDT June 26, 2008


The Supreme Court said Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws 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."

Justice Antonin Scalia writes in the majority opinion that the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

He said the ruling would not affect laws that ban felons and the mentally ill from owning guns or prohibit people from carrying guns in sensitive places like schools and government buildings.

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.

Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr was quick to praising the ruling.

"It will go down as one of the Supreme Court’s most important rulings on behalf of liberty," Barr said. "Today’s decision marks a new era for gun rights in America."

The challenge to the ban on handguns was the biggest case left on the court's docket. It also is expected to resolve disputes over a campaign finance law and contracts negotiated during the Western energy crisis in 2001.

The justices won't return to the bench until Oct. 6, the start of their next term.

[daved150]

Tweetsomething done right!!! i have new hope!

[Klash]

TweetThanks for the update firstenrgy..... That is great news....

[kite]

Tweetgood news

[straydoglogic]

Tweetshit yeah!!! though it was only about dc and i dont live there..but still...