A
AnAmericanCitizen
Guest
Justices agree on right to own guns
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
Americans have a right to own guns, Supreme Court justices declared Tuesday
in a historic and lively debate that could lead to the most significant
interpretation of the Second Amendment since its ratification two centuries
ago.
Governments have a right to regulate those firearms, a majority of justices
seemed to agree. But there was less apparent agreement on the case they were
arguing: whether Washington's ban on handguns goes too far.
The justices dug deeply into arguments on one of the Constitution's most
hotly debated provisions as demonstrators shouted slogans outside. Guns are
an American right, argued one side. "Guns kill," responded the other.
Inside the court, at the end of a session extended long past the normal one
hour, a majority of justices appeared ready to say that Americans have a
"right to keep and bear arms" that goes beyond the amendment's reference to
service in a militia.
Several justices were openly skeptical that the District of Columbia's
32-year-old handgun ban, perhaps the strictest in the nation, could survive
under that reading of the Constitution.
"What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?" Chief Justice John
Roberts asked.
Walter Dellinger, representing the district, replied that Washington
residents could own rifles and shotguns and could use them for protection at
home.
"What is reasonable about a total ban on possession is that it's a ban only
on the possession of one kind of weapon, of handguns, that's considered
especially dangerous," Dellinger said.
Justice Stephen Breyer appeared reluctant to second-guess local officials.
Is it "unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate ... to say no
handguns here?" Breyer asked.
Alan Gura, representing a Washington resident who challenged ban, said,
"It's unreasonable and it fails any standard of review."
The court has 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."
The basic issue for the justices is 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.
A key justice, Anthony Kennedy, seemed to settle that question early on when
he said the Second Amendment gives "a general right to bear arms." He is
likely to be joined by Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and
Clarence Thomas
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
Americans have a right to own guns, Supreme Court justices declared Tuesday
in a historic and lively debate that could lead to the most significant
interpretation of the Second Amendment since its ratification two centuries
ago.
Governments have a right to regulate those firearms, a majority of justices
seemed to agree. But there was less apparent agreement on the case they were
arguing: whether Washington's ban on handguns goes too far.
The justices dug deeply into arguments on one of the Constitution's most
hotly debated provisions as demonstrators shouted slogans outside. Guns are
an American right, argued one side. "Guns kill," responded the other.
Inside the court, at the end of a session extended long past the normal one
hour, a majority of justices appeared ready to say that Americans have a
"right to keep and bear arms" that goes beyond the amendment's reference to
service in a militia.
Several justices were openly skeptical that the District of Columbia's
32-year-old handgun ban, perhaps the strictest in the nation, could survive
under that reading of the Constitution.
"What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?" Chief Justice John
Roberts asked.
Walter Dellinger, representing the district, replied that Washington
residents could own rifles and shotguns and could use them for protection at
home.
"What is reasonable about a total ban on possession is that it's a ban only
on the possession of one kind of weapon, of handguns, that's considered
especially dangerous," Dellinger said.
Justice Stephen Breyer appeared reluctant to second-guess local officials.
Is it "unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate ... to say no
handguns here?" Breyer asked.
Alan Gura, representing a Washington resident who challenged ban, said,
"It's unreasonable and it fails any standard of review."
The court has 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."
The basic issue for the justices is 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.
A key justice, Anthony Kennedy, seemed to settle that question early on when
he said the Second Amendment gives "a general right to bear arms." He is
likely to be joined by Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and
Clarence Thomas
