A divided U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-to-4 ruling, struck down the nation's strictest gun control law. Adopted by the District of Columbia 32 years ago to curb handgun violence, the statute banned the private possession of handguns, and required that any rifles or shotguns kept at home be unloaded and dissembled, or bound by a trigger lock mechanism.
The high court last reviewed the Second Amendment in a case 69 years ago, and for the first time answered the constitutional question as to whether an individual has the right to possess a gun, at least in one's home.
The Second Amendment states that, "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 ruling, which came on the last day of the court's 2007-08 term, affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.
The decision stemmed from a challenge filed by a security guard who worked in D.C., and believed that if he could use a handgun on the job, then he should be allowed a handgun at home.
Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote for the majority, said, "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to protect a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Undoubtedly, some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."
At the same time, Scalia noted that some gun laws will remain in place.
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." He added that nothing in the decision should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."
Justice John Paul Stevens, in the dissenting opinion, stated, "The opinion the court announces fails to identify any new evidence supporting the view that the amendment was intended to limit the power of Congress to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
In a separate dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer, said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas. The decision threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States."
President Bush praised the ruling.
"As a longstanding advocate of the rights of gun owners in America, I applaud the Supreme Court's historic decision confirming what has always been clear in the Constitution; the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear firearms. I also agree with the Supreme Court's conclusion that the D.C. firearm laws violate this fundamental constitutional right," the President stated.
National Rifle Association Vice President Wayne LaPierre hailed the decision.
"This is a great moment in American history. It vindicates individual Americans all over this country who have always known that this is their freedom worth protecting.
Our Founding Fathers wrote and intended the Second Amendment to be an individual right. The Supreme Court has now acknowledged it. The Second Amendment as an individual right now becomes a real permanent part of American Constitutional law," LaPierre said.
The American Center for Law and Justice filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, supporting the private right to keep and bear arms, and opposing D.C.'s gun ban.
It stated, in part, "The Founding Fathers believed that every human being is endowed with certain ‘inalienable rights' and that the establishment of good government was necessary to the preservation of such pre-existing rights. Based on this premise, American government, with this attendant Constitution and Bill of Rights, was established. Thus, by virtue of the Second Amendment's placement within the Bill of Rights, one must necessarily conclude that the Second Amendment was drafted with the purpose of preserving an individual right, namely the right to keep and bear arms."
Liberty Legal Institute also filed a brief in the case in support of an individual's right to own a gun. Institute Chief Counsel Kelly Shackelford said, "Every American has the right to defend his/her self. Our Founders believed that; now even anti-gun extremists must accept that truth."
In its brief, The Rutherford Institute argued that the Framers of the Constitution intended that the Second Amendment right to possess arms apply to individuals as a "guarantor against tyrannical government."
The brief, in part, stated, "To argue or insinuate that the Second Amendment is only a collective right is a grave misreading of the Framers' intentions, while subverting the very basis upon which our rights as a free people depends."
Liberty Counsel Founder Mathew Staver said, the best way to describe the high court's decision is, "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition."
Staver added, "The right to self-defense is a liberty at the core of the American Revolution. It was ordinary people who defended life and liberty against organized tyranny. The King of Great Britain sought to disarm the colonists because he, like any criminal, knew that a disarmed people are a weak people who can easily be overcome. The Second Amendment stands as an impenetrable wall between tyranny and freedom."
D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty expressed dismay over the ruling.
"I'm disappointed in the court's ruling, and believe introducing more handguns into the District will mean more handgun violence," Fenty said.
Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said, "Our fight to enact sensible gun laws will be undiminished by the Supreme Court's decision."
Helmke added, "While we disagree with the Supreme Court's ruling, which strips the citizens of the District of Columbia of a law they strongly support, the decision clearly suggests that other gun laws are entirely consistent with the Constitution.
For years, the gun lobby has used fear of government gun confiscations to thwart efforts to pass sensible gun laws, arguing that even modest gun laws will lead down the path to a complete ban on gun ownership. Now that the Court has struck down the District's ban on handguns, while making it clear that the Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions on access to dangerous weapons, this ‘slippery slope' argument is gone.
The Court has also rejected the absolutist misreading of the Second Amendment that some use to argue ‘any gun, any time for anyone,' which many politicians have used as an excuse to do nothing about the scourge of gun violence in our country and to block passage of common sense gun laws. Lifesaving proposals such as requiring Brady background checks on all gun sales, limiting bulk sales of handguns, and strengthening the power of federal authorities to shut down corrupt gun dealers can now be debated on their merits without distractions or fear of ideology," Helmke said.
The Rev. Rachel Smith, founder of the God Not Guns faith outreach project of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said the high court's ruling raises questions.
"What are the responsibilities that go along with this newly bestowed right? The Court's ruling does make room for sensible gun control. But as people of faith, we must ask deeper and more difficult questions: Where do we place our trust–in God or in guns? Who do we serve–God or the Second Amendment? Where do we find our sense of worth and purpose–from God or from guns? How do we bring about God's reign–with an open heart or with a gun in hand?" Smith asked.
Two United Methodist agencies at odds with the Supreme Court's decision, are urging church members to advocate for legislation that would tighten federal laws on gun control.
In a joint statement, the United Methodist Board of Church and Society and the Commission on Religion and Race, said, "The Supreme Court's decision stands in direct contrast to the stance of our denomination."
The United Methodist Church's top legislative assembly, the General Conference, condemned gun violence in a resolution at its recent gathering in Fort Worth, Texas.
The three editors of the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Jeffrey Drazen, Stephen Morrissey, Ph.D., and Dr. Gregory Curfman, wrote an editorial on the possible implications of the high court's ruling.
"In 2005, the last year with complete data, there were more than 30,000 deaths and 70,000 nonfatal injuries, from firearms.
In our opinion, there is little reason to expect an optimistic result; research has shown, and logic would dictate, that fewer restrictions on handguns will result in a substantial increase in injury and death," they wrote.
Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Commission's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, who agreed with the Supreme Court's decision, noted the implications the November general election will have on the high court itself.
"The stark reality is, the individual right to ‘keep and bear arms' rests currently on the fragile foundation of a single Supreme Court justice's vote.
The next president could quite possibly nominate judges who fill up to three Supreme Court vacancies–yet one more issue for American voters to ponder as they prepare to cast their ballots for the 44th president of the United States this November," Land said.
[Home] [Introducing UNI] [News Coverage] [Features Page][Publications]