In DC v. Heller, US Supreme Court Gives Gun Owners & the Second Amendment a Victory
Thursday June 26, 2008
In a landmark decision, the US Supreme Court struck down a 32-year-old handgun ban in the District of Columbia Thursday, reinforcing the wishes of America's founding fathers and giving gun owners everywhere a reason to breathe easy about their Second Amendment rights.
In its 5-4 ruling, the High Court unambiguously returned the rights of gun ownership to individuals rather than granting individual states the "collective" right to form armed militias. The highly-detailed, 67-page order examines the Second Amendment in-depth and provides clear and convincing support that while gun violence may be a problem, gun ownership shouldn't be.
From the ruling:
We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution ... But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in 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.
Related:
Comments
An excellent decision from the Supreme Court, and it almost makes up for the atrocious Boumediene vs. Bush decision (I will never fully forgive Justice Kennedy for that). What really struck me was the dissent by Stevens. He basically argued that nowhere in the Constitution does it prohibit individual states from banning firearms, which is such a bizzare interpretation of the Bill of Rights that it really makes me wonder about liberal intellectuals.
This is just ludicrous, from Justice Stephen Breyer: “In my view,” Breyer writes, “there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.”
Ummm, as a woman, how does he suggest I defend myself INSIDE my own house? Out in suburbia or a wealthy gated community, the risk is less. But in a crime-ridden area, am I just supposed to let myself be killed like a docile lamb? If I am in fear of my life, I can only defend myself with a steak knife?
A woman in my area was coming out of her shower, buck naked, when she was accosted by an intruder who had broken in through a window. She grabbed the LOADED GUN kept on premises and killed the armed intruder, who had a history of violent rape. This woman is my hero. She lived in the area dubbed “Felony Flats” which is only slowly undergoing gentrification.
And it wouldn’t comfort me that it would be illegal in DC to have that weapon, but they MIGHT not prosecute her for having it and using it. I am thankful for her and for myself that our state accepts an absolute defense of “fear of your life” for killing an intruder in your own home, by any means necessary.