Home › Opinion › Opinion
Gun rights argued before Supreme Court justices
STORY TOOLS 
More from OpinionThe U.S. Supreme Court should allow Dick Heller to keep a handgun in his home.
Heller is a 66-year-old security guard who carries a handgun to protect the employees and property at the federal building where he works in Washington, D.C. Because Heller also is a resident of the District of Columbia, he is prohibited from having a handgun in his home for self-protection.
He sued to overturn Washington's 1976 gun-control law that also requires all rifles or shotguns in D.C. homes to be disassembled or kept under trigger lock claiming that the D.C. law violated his Second Amendment rights.
That amendment states: "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 meaning of those 27 words, including how they are punctuated, has been argued, debated, cussed and discussed since the Bill of Rights was ratified on Dec. 15, 1791.
To the surprise of many observers, Heller won his lawsuit before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit when it struck down the district's gun law. Previous decisions of a similar nature around the country had gone the other way.
Now it is up to the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether Heller has a constitutional right to keep a handgun in his home, located only a mile away from the court.
No one knows what the justices will rule when the decision is announced a few months from now, but Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who now is watched as the deciding swing vote on the divided court, appeared to side with Heller's argument in saying, "In my view, there's a general right to bear arms, quite without reference to the militia either way."
Over the years, gun-control advocates, gun-owner groups and constitutional scholars have debated the meaning'of "militia," "the People," "keep and bear arms," "bear arms," "shall not be infringed" and the significance of the two clauses along with the many changes the amendment went through before it was adopted.
During the arguments involving Heller's case, Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito Jr. appeared to support Kennedy's assertion that there is a general right for the people to own guns aside from the reference to a well-regulated militia. Although Justice Clarence Thomas didn't tip his hand, he has previously indicated support for the idea that the Second Amendment protects individual rights to own guns.
Even if the court does decide that the amendment protects the individual rights of gun ownership, lawyers in support of the D.C. law still hope to prevail on the argument that the district has the right to ban "uniquely dangerous" weapons such as handguns that are used in much gun violence and criminal activity and can easily be taken into schools, on buses and to other public gathering places.
The 1934 National Firearms Act attempted to control such "uniquely dangerous" firearms as automatic-fire machine guns, short-barreled shotguns and rifles, silencers and other "gadget-type" firearms and accessories.
If the D.C. council can decide its own definition of "uniquely dangerous" weapons, so could every other city and state, which could restrict gun ownership to the point that all guns could be rendered useless for personal defense.
In essence, the D.C. law prevents citizens from using guns for self-defense. This is fine with many gun-control advocates. Personally, I think Heller should be able to keep a handgun in his home for his protection.
— Rowland Nethaway writes for the Waco Tribune-Herald.
Posted by shaver_one on March 24, 2008 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If the Second Amendment is overturned, there will be millions of people who will automatically become federal criminals, simply because they/we choose to keep our fire arms.
The age-old questions still remain. Will the crooks, drug dealers, predators, and wannabes give up their guns? Will Americans be safer, when forced to relinquish a proven deterrent to crime? What else will Big Brother Government decide to take away from us?
"When a man gives up his rights, for the sake of security, he deserves neither and loses both." Benjamin Franklin (paraphrased)
Posted by shaver_one on March 24, 2008 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The Second Amendment IS Homeland Security.
Posted by ravensnest13 on March 24, 2008 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
My sentiments exactly. I just heard about that lady who was shot to death in her home while on the phone with 911; maybe if she was armed, she'd still be alive. It also proves that it just impossible for cops to be present in the (often short) time the crimes occur. And there's something seriously wrong when the crimal or his/her family can sue someone who killed injured them while they were committing a crime! I don't get it... Watching this case intently...
Posted by sslocal on March 24, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am sure that the court will rule in favor of Heller. The problem is, how broad will the ruling be?
Very interesting case that will have a huge impact on America. (I hope)
Posted by jmcgaw3046 on March 24, 2008 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If you start with a restriction on the sale of hand guns then after a time the crooks and others will have more and more of a hard time to get them. No they will not give them up but if caught with one they can then go to jail. We have too many guns in this country. Maybe the lady might have been able to shoot the guy, but than that is maybe, because we don't know how well she would be with the gun, and if he would take it way from her and shoot her.
We get these kind of arguments from those who have the guns, but all in all it is again what might have happened.
Countries which have very strict gun laws don't have the shooting that we have here. Not a day goes by in most big cities that when you pick up a morning new paper there is not another shooting. Far too many so there need to be a change.
Posted by ravensnest13 on March 24, 2008 at 11:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Criminals get guns, regardless of any laws in force. They do not register them or buy them from gun shops, so they will not be affected by another new law. The laws only end up affecting law-abiding citizens trying to follow the rules. I do not advocate that buying a gun will, by default, make you safe. One does take driving lessons to get a car/license, and the same goes for gun ownership. Instruction in proper handling is essential, as is proper storage. But DC's ban, and subsequent skyrocketing violent crime should be an indication that banning the public from a means of defense only creates a ripe atmosphere for crime/criminals to run amok.
Posted by ravensnest13 on March 24, 2008 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And countries with restrictive gun laws, like G.Britain, have horrendous crime rates, and actually actively persecute anyone who "dares" defend themselves. As I've said before in another posting, Japan's crime is about as high as the US, and they have NO private gun ownership. Instead they use whatever else is at hand. From the begining of mankind, humans have been killing humans, and it will continue to happen no matter how many laws go into effect, unfortunately.
Posted by sslocal on March 24, 2008 at 12:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If you start with a restriction on the sale of handguns then after a time - they will restrict your shotgun, then your hunting rifle, then your bb gun and so on until you are simply a subject, not a citizen.
Thank you, but no thank you. You don't want to own a gun? Fine, then don't buy one. But, do not try to tell me I don't need one. The 2nd does not give us the right to own a gun but comfirms that the right was given to us by our creator, as it is to all free men.
Posted by shaver_one on March 24, 2008 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I will not give up my weapons, regardless of the law. The Second Amendment guarantees my rights. As long as the criminal has a gun, so will I.
Jmcgaw says "we get this kind of arguments from those who have the guns..." You betcha! And you will continue to get those same argument from us. We get the 'anti-gun' arguments from those who don't have the guns. I'm sorry, jmcgaw. The police can't be everywhere all the time. In most cases of violent crime, they can't be there at all...until afterwards. You must be prepared to defend yourself, by yourself. Taking guns away from lawful citizens, emboldens the criminal.
If, as a burgler, you had three choices...which one would you choose?
1. Break into a house where you know there are no guns.
2. Break into a house where you are not sure if there are guns.
3. Break into a house where you know there are guns...and the owner knows how to use them.
I do, however, agree that if you owns guns, you damn well better know how to use them...and be willing to use them, if the situation calls for it.
And, ss. I may be what you termed an 'amature', but my 1100 rounds will stop a "home-invasion" burgler from getting past my threshold.
Posted by sslocal on March 24, 2008 at 1:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What will you do when the zombie hoards start coming?
I'm kidding for those that don't know.
Posted by shaver_one on March 24, 2008 at 1:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wooden stakes and a hammer!
Posted by shaver_one on March 24, 2008 at 1:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
...unless they outlaw hammers.
Posted by ReadMyLipsNoNewTaxes on March 24, 2008 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sslocal - that is what they want, restrict your hand gun, then your shot gun, then your bb gun....
Posted by ravensnest13 on March 24, 2008 at 4:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
then glue and caulking guns....
Posted by Tom_Johnston on March 24, 2008 at 5:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't own a gun, and I don't think I need one. I think a lot of people who do think they need them..do not. I think there is a segment our there that views gun ownership as some sort of penis-enhancement.
All that aside, I don't think owning a "reasonable" firearm, like for instance a pistol either semi-auto or revolver should be a problem. I don't think that magazine capacities should be an issue with semi-auto handguns. I've used a 7 round .45 Colt Auto and I know I can drop a clip and slap in another in no time. I don't care if a shotgun has a pistol grip, or a forearm handle.
If owning a pistol, or shotgun, or a long rifle suitable for hunting were all that was at issue...I've got no problem with that.
I think Heller's right to own the pistol should be upheld.
I just hope it stops there and does not turn back positive controls on firearm ownership like prohibition of automatic weapons, limitations on military-specific assault rifles, and limitations on the need to register ALL firearm ownership and regulations on how they are sold.
Posted by nannyfo1 on March 24, 2008 at 5:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am really pleased to see that people from all political persuasions agree on this one. I own and will continue to own a gun. I really, really hope that I never have to use it to defend my home and family but would in a heart beat. We had an elderly couple in my town, who happened to be gun collectors, that were the recipients of an attempted strong arm burglary. The husband shot all three of them after they attacked his wife. He killed one of them. The other two are on trial for the death of their friend. They will both be serving serious prison time for 2nd degree murder. I can't imagine what the outcome would have been had the husband not been armed.
Posted by sslocal on March 24, 2008 at 7:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I had a big rant typed out Tom but the site screwed me up. So, I will sum it up with this:
GCA of 86 says no more full auto guns. What we have is all we get. (some 150,000 at last count)
Simiauto weapons are not assault weapons. This is hype from the anti crowd. All this is moot as they are not allowed in the PRK anyway.
No registration. All this does is give the Gov. a place to start. Since we are not doing anything why would they need to pick on us? Remember, "shall not be infringed"?
Given your past service, I am suprised you feel this way.
Posted by Tom_Johnston on March 24, 2008 at 10:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sslocal....yes, the site does seem to be messing up...but one thing, I, uhm, I don't know what you mean by my "past service" but I would wish to make it clear that I was never a member of the US Military, nor am I a Veteran of any war...other than as a civilian bystander.
My shooting experiences were with a work buddy, an ex-Marine...1 1/2 tours in Vietnam. He taught me to shoot..some at least, and what could be done with a 7 round .45. I apologize if any other impression was made.
Yes, semi-auto does not equal assault. AK-47 or M-15/16 equals assault, not Ruger 10/22 or most any semi-auto pistol.
I think there is a difference between "infringed" and "well-regulated" that we could debate until someting awful freezes over.
I don't fear guns, or legit gun owners, nor do I feel a need to have a gun. A gun is a tool I just don't need, and I suspect many people who own them..don't really need them either, once you get past the pro-gun hype. that whole so cool to pack a nine thing you know?
I think a lot of gun laws are just stupid, some more than others. I think having no laws regulating who owns them and what they can own is even stupider...if that's possible. I agree some people go too far, and the current state of affairs in DC may be too far.
I dont' think my thoughts on the subject will please anyone, pro or anti gun.
Posted by sslocal on March 25, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry about the service thing. A misunderstanding on my part.
You seem to be somewhere in the middle of the debate. Which is fine, at least by me. I think we should all be familiar with weapons, handguns and rifles. You can choose not to own one but we should all be able to pick one up and use it should the need arise. This seems like common sense to me.
In any event, the court will decide this for us come June.
(Requires free registration.)
Comments on this site are to be used for the discussion and/or debate of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Comments should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We don't allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete comments and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.