[A-List] Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights

["Yoshie Furuhashi" <critical.montages@xxxxxxxxx>]

The Second Amendment is apparently the only one in the Bill of Rights
that the Supreme Court today regards as sacred, the other amendments
having been consigned to the dustbin of history by the "war on
terror," the "war on drugs," and other wars against citizens and
residents of the United States.  American liberalism these days
essentially boils down to the right to have a gun.  -- Yoshie

<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotuscnd.html>
June 27, 2008
Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights
By DAVID STOUT

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court declared for the first time on Thursday
that the Constitution protects an individual's right to have a gun,
not just the right of the states to maintain militias.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the 5-to-4
decision, said the Constitution does now allow "the absolute
prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."
In so declaring, the majority found that a gun-control law in the
nation's capital went too far in making it nearly impossible to own a
handgun.

The decision upheld a federal appeals court ruling that the District
of Columbia's gun law, one of the strictest in the country, went
beyond constitutional limits. Not only did the 1976 law make it
practically impossible for an individual to legally possess a handgun
in the District, but it spelled out rules for the storage of rifles
and shotguns.

But the long-awaited decision did not necessarily mean that gun laws
from coast to coast, many of them far less restrictive than
Washington's, would be swept aside.

Joining Justice Scalia were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and
Justices Clarence Thomas, Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

A dissent by Justice John Paul Stevens asserted 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." Joining him were Justices David H.
Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

The high court's ruling was the first since 1939 to deal with the
scope of the Second Amendment, and the first ever to directly address
the meaning of the amendment's ambiguous, comma-laden 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."

The court concluded that the amendment protects an individual right to
bear arms, but it also said that the right is not absolute, opening
the door for more fights in the future. Lawmakers across the country
may look to the decision as a blueprint for writing new legislation to
satisfy the demands of constituents who say there is too much
regulation of firearms now, or too little, depending on the sentiments
in their regions.

In March 2007, Washington city officials expressed disappointment and
outrage when the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit overturned the city ordinance. The Supreme Court
ruling is sure to prompt work on a new ordinance that can withstand
high court scrutiny.

The last time the Supreme Court weighed a case involving the Second
Amendment, in 1939, it decided a narrower question, finding that the
Constitution did not protect any right to possess a specific type of
firearm, the sawed-off shotgun.

By contrast, the issues in the District of Columbia case seemed much
more "mainstream," if that term can be used in reference to
gun-control issues. When the justices announced on Nov. 20 that they
were accepting the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290,
they indicated that they would go to the heart of the long debate.

The question, they said, is whether the district's restrictions on
firearms "violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are
not affiliated with any state-regulated militia but who wish to keep
handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes."

Dick Anthony Heller, a security guard who carries a handgun for his
job protecting federal judiciary offices, challenged the District of
Columbia's law after his request for a license to keep his gun at home
was rejected.

When the case was argued before the justices on March 18, Mr. Heller's
lawyer, Alan Gura, did not assert that the Second Amendment precluded
any kind of ban related to gun possession. He said that a ban on the
shipment of machine guns and sawed-off shotguns would be acceptable,
and in answer to a question from the justices, so, too, might be a
prohibition on guns in schools. Some of the justices signaled during
arguments that they thought the District's near-total ban on handguns
went too far.

A legislature "has a great deal of leeway in regulating firearms," Mr.
Gura argued, but not to the extent of virtually banning them in homes.

The Washington law not only established high barriers to the private
possession of handguns, it also required that rifles and shotguns be
kept either in a disassembled state or under a trigger lock.

Walter Dellinger, the lawyer who argued for the district on March 18,
asserted that "the people" and "the militia" were essentially the
same, and that the Second Amendment gave people the right to bear arms
only in connection with their militia service.

Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, representing the federal
government, argued on behalf of the individual-rights position, which
has been the Bush administration's policy. But he said that the
appeals court had also gone too far in overturning the ordinance and
that the right to bear arms was always subject to "reasonable
regulations."