the right to bear arms vs society's safety

[Neil D]

It's the battle of gun control, that is, the right to bear arms and the safety of society. How will it turn out? We will find out in spring....

WASHINGTON, Nov 20 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court said on Tuesday it would decide whether handguns can be banned in Washington, D.C., a case that could produce a decisive ruling on whether individual Americans have a right to keep firearms.

The nation's highest court agreed to hear an appeal by the District of Columbia government arguing that the city's 31-year-old law banning private possession of handguns in the U.S. capital should be upheld as constitutional.

The justices said they would review a precedent-setting U.S. appeals court ruling, which held that individual Americans had a right to bear arms under the Constitution's Second Amendment and struck down Washington's law.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments most likely in March, with a ruling expected by the end of June. The decision could become an issue in 2008 elections in the United States, which is estimated to have the world's highest civilian gun ownership rate.

"The Supreme Court's decision in this case will be extremely significant -- the most important decision on guns in nearly 70 years and maybe the most important ever regarding the Second Amendment," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

The group said it hoped for a reversal of the "clearly erroneous" appeals ruling against the ban and warned that a failure to do so could put at risk laws such as bans on military-style assault weapons.

The politically powerful National Rifle Association, which opposes gun-control laws, denounced what it called Washington's "unconstitutional gun ban." Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president, predicted the Supreme Court court would overturn it and rule in favor of broad individual gun rights.

The Second Amendment says, "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."

City lawyers argued the amendment guaranteed the right to bear arms only in connection with service in a state-regulated militia, like today's National Guard, and not for individuals. Gun-control proponents have long held that view.

But the appeals court sided with a position also backed by the Bush administration and the NRA -- that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and carry arms.

FOUR STATES SUPPORT CITY

The high-court justices defined the issue as whether provisions of the Washington handgun ban 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."

The court has not ruled on the scope of the Second Amendment since a 1939 decision when it upheld a federal gun-control law but did not definitively resolve the constitutional issue.

District of Columbia Attorney General Linda Singer said in appealing to the Supreme Court that a "law that bans handguns but permits private ownership of rifles and shotguns does not deprive anyone of the right to keep and bear arms, however that right is construed."

The city's appeal was supported by the states of Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New York. They said allowing the appeals court ruling to stand would cloud all federal and state laws restricting access to firearms.

Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty said the law has saved many lives over its three decades. "We are committed to fighting for the safety of and welfare of the district's residents and are glad that the Supreme Court will allow us to present our arguments there," he said.

The challenge to the law is filed in the name of Dick Anthony Heller, who lives in a high-crime neighborhood and wants to keep a handgun for self-defense. Heller called the court's decision to hear the case "a small reward" but said, "We have a long way to go."

His attorney, Alan Gura, said a favorable ruling by the court would "guarantee that people have a right to arm themselves in their own homes, to defend their families from crime."

US Supreme Court and Gun Control

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

City lawyers argued the amendment guaranteed the right to bear arms only in connection with service in a state-regulated militia, like today's National Guard, and not for individuals. Gun-control proponents have long held that view.

It is odd how liberals want to interpret the Constitution literally when it is convenient to them to do so and allow for the Constitution to be a "living document' when a literal interpretation does not favor their positions.

I, favor a literal interpretation and when we want to change something, use the amendment process to do so. I do not see any clause in the Constitution itself or in the federalist letters that would cause one to believe the Constitution is to be a living document,

The "well-regulated militia" was a compulsory militia where each person owned their own gun. Such a thing does not even exist in American society today. It is not the same as the National Guard. The US had a standing army at the time the Constitution was written and ratified. The National Guard is part of the very same standing army that was founded in 1775, over ten years before the Constitution was written. "Each member of the militia was obligated to appear for training at his county or town seat a certain number of days each year, to provide himself with weapons, and to hold himself in readiness for call in case of Indian attack or other emergency." (Colonial Militia)

A pro-gun argument that can be made is that while militias do not exist today, individuals are still threated by looters, gangs, rioting mobs and other criminal elements. Militias were a mechanism used to protect communities primarily against indian attacks. Just as individual gun ownership was necessary to provide protection against indians 230 years ago, it is necessary to provide protection against the criminal elements of today. Case after case can be sited where police have failed to protect individuals in circumstances where personal gun ownership would have.

However the amendment allows for regulation. It does not say an unregulated militia. Quite to the contrary. It was a Well regulated militia. That seems to say the government does have authority to regulate the type and perhaps even the quantity of arms an individual can own.

So like so many political issues, I find myself in the middle. I don't agree with the anti-gun crowd that says the second amendment only gives a state the right to have a national guard. Nor do I agree with the pro-gun crowd that says the second amendment gives a person the right to own any kind of gun and as many guns as they want. I favor a required license to own a gun. I think that would fall into the "well regulated" clause.

[Bravus]

I'm a big supporter of the right to arm bears

[John317]

Yeah me too. I hate to think what it would be like when only the criminals and the police have weapons. Criminals will always get weapons, usually better ones than the police have.

If you want to see what that is like, look to Mexico. There it is illegal to bear arms. So who has the power? Criminals and the police, who are often working together against the ordinary citizen who is without any means of defense.

I think history shows that a government that does not have a healthy fear of its citizens won't respect them or pay much attention to their will.

[Neil D]

I'm a big supporter of the right to arm bears

I see you're fishing again, Bravus....and it looks like you caught one!

[Dr. Shane]

I am not so sure that we as Christians need to defend ourselves with arms. That would be a last resort for me. I would kill someone to defend my family but I would much rather flee than stay and fight.

That said, I still favor a policy which allows citizens to defend themselves with fire arms. In the US, I believe it a Constitutional right and in other nations, I think it just good policy. However, it should be well regulated.

[Neil D]

That said, I still favor a policy which allows citizens to defend themselves with fire arms. In the US, I believe it a Constitutional right and in other nations, I think it just good policy. However, it should be well regulated.

In what way? How should fire arms be regulated and regulated well?

Possibly you think that all people should be able to obtain any gun available with proof [certificate] of a fire arms class? If so, pity the poor deer that is shot with a Uzzi for 'hunting purposes'...or the federal officials who confuses friends with grouse... [ok, the last paragraph is a bit over the top...But the 'how' questions are truely valid....]

[Amelia]

I will always defend my arms. Without my arms I couldn't lift anything.

[Dr. Shane]

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL ROFL

[Dr. Shane]

The right to bear arms is not about the right to hunt deer or ducks. It is about being able to defend oneself, one's family and one's community. That was the purpose of militias. At the time the Constitution was written, Indians and pirates were real threats. Today the threats are looters, street gangs and rioters. People still have a right to bare arms in defense of these threats.

Of course civil government has the responsibility to regulate this right. I favor a license. Just like a diver's licenses, a gun licenses could have three classes. A class C would allow the person to buy shot guns and rifles. Class B allow the person to buy hand guns. Class A would allow the purchase of semi-automatic assault rifles. A person would have to compete some specified training and background check before being able to get any of these licenses. That is my opinion and I think the Constitution would allow for that.