From the Supreme Court of the United States, in a 5-4 ruling handed down today:
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s [District of Columbia, where this suit originated] total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.
SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.
I’m surprised the vote was so close, but I suppose I shouldn’t have been. It’s just that, to me, a plain reading of the Second Amendment to the Constitution shows that the right to bear arms is an individual right:
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.
It’s nice to see that the Supreme Court agrees. And if you’re looking for a gun that is perfect for concealed carry, check out https://ballachy.com/glock-37-review/
Shows you just how close to tyranny we are in this country. If just one vote had gone the other way, the new world order crowd would be planning to confiscate our guns as I write this (well, they have been planning it for years, but this is a big bump in the road). We need to get concealed carry in Illinois post haste. An armed citizenry is the best defense against crime and tyranny. They knew that when they drafted the Bill of Rights; it’s still true.
I agree. But we, as a people, are cowards and expect someone else to protect us and our families.
Mouse: And while some citizens voters will lament the choices for President as Tweedledum or Tweedledee, please remember that the President is the one who will advance names of individuals for Supreme Court Justices. Please remember this concept when voting for President.
Mouse, first off, you sound positively delusional. Sorry, CJ, if this is less than civil, but apparently nobody has mentioned the strong odor of crazy coming from his posts.
Second, until you and your fringe right-wing buddies sack the white house and put the current administration on trial for treason, you’re nothing but a bunch of paranoid, partisan hypocrites.
As for me, I support this decision. Unfortunately, many of the most ardent supporters of gun rights don’t even understand what the second amendment is around for: after coming off a long war with an oppressive government, the founders wanted a way to protect us not from each other, but from such a government, should our own become so corrupted.
postsimian: Yes, not civil, just agree to disagree without name calling. Takes away from your points to label and put people into boxes and discourages frank discussion.
At the end of your life, you may find out that you were the delusional person for not believing The Mouse. After all, anything is possible!:)
I just wanted to weigh in. I am one of those few who do see the Second Amendment as a collective right and not an individual right. I am not against gun ownership but I don’t think the Second Amendment confers that right either. My position would not have prevented states from allowing gun ownership as they currently do. It just wouldn’t be Constitutionally guaranteed.
The Supreme Court is the top court of the land and they reached their decision on the basis that they did. That it was a 5-4 decision suggests that there is the potential for their interpretation to be revisited and further clarified. One detail in the decision that stood out among many for rejecting DCs gun ban was that it was selective in nature. They banned hand guns but not rifles. If it had been a total ban, one justice might have seen things a little differently perhaps.
I am not saying that DCs ban or Chicago’s ban are good ideas. Just arguing interpretations that are foundation to their positions.
The Supreme Court made it’s decision. The Constitution’s interpretation does change over time. It changed today. I am sure there will be some more cases to follow that will change it further. That is the way this nation works and I respect that.
Cheers.
Mahkno I don’t agree that as nation changing the interpretation of the Constitution is how it works.That is how it breaks down.Knowing that special interest groups can buy anything they want,polititions,ceo’s corrupt to the core.Our rights as free people depends on our forefathers interpretation to the letter.Who judges the new interpretures?
Mahkno, that’s a pretty fair take on it, though I disagree with you. I think there are dangers inherent in leaving things to “interpretation” unless it is defined within certain non-variable parameters. I’d provide an example, but I think I’d be insulting your intelligence by doing it 😀
Karrie, not likely. Once a person gets to the point of conspiracy theories, reason is pretty much out the window.
What is also important to the country is the Senators elected, who will vote for or against the Supreme Court Nominees sent by the President. With all the opinions that Justice Kennedy has been the swing vote I wish the Senate in 1987 had been more forward thinking when they voted down Robert Bork, a brilliant legal jurist.
OMG… bow before the mighty altar of the Supreme Court!!!!
This is the same court that ruled runaway slaves are property to be returned, that Americans of Japanese descent could be interned in concentration camps, that abortion is a fundamental right, that corporations had the same rights as white citizens, that a tax on personal income was unconstitutional (oh yeah, we ignore that one), etc etc etc
Liberals prefer unarmed peasants.
mahnko: how can something be a collective right but not an individual right when it comes to “ownership” and “bearing” of … anything?
kcdad… the arms would be stowed in an armory that would be maintained by the local militia. When it was time to drill, the weapons would be taken out and practiced with. When done they would stowed. The arms would stay there until the militia was called for duty.
Soo… we would have a Constitutional rights to peaceably assemble and to form armed militias who presumably would act as militias (in the more English sense). These militias could conceivably act as either a military body or as a policing body in times of need.
One of the operating assumptions is that the area is ordinarily peaceful. This sort of practice was not unusual in 18th Century Britain. Remember, many of the settlers were British in origin and citizenship. Now obviously they come to America and the whole militia concept is challenged because we have a frontier with wild animals and oft times hostile natives. So in practice many folks had guns, at least those in the less settled parts. 18th Century Boston was pretty cosmopolitan and didn’t constitute a ‘frontier’. There were many areas of of New England that were quite settled and had no fear of dangerous wildlife or natives. Those old English notions would be more pronounced. In contrast, on the frontier, you would be sleeping with your gun. There is no frontier in Britain or mainland Europe. The whole notion of only prying a gun from one’s cold dead hands is understandable with that frontier experience. Fast forward to today and one can understand why people feel there is an individual right. In my interpretation, it isn’t that the founding fathers of the Constitution codified an individual right but rather our unique historical experience that shaped that concept.
But hey… what do I know… (Yeah some of you are gonna say not much)… the Supreme Court is the authority that matters not myself or the other readers here.
As a historical note… what was the destination that the British were marching for in Lexington and Concord? The militia’s armory.
The other concept I read into the second amendment is that it indirectly enshrines the right of rebellion, which is a collective act.
So our revolution would be preceded by storming the armory, which would be protected by Federal troops.
I don’t think that is what the founders had in mind. The purpose is to provide a real threat to the tyranny of government. Having the weapons conveniently locked up is NO threat at all.
Concealed Carry Weapons debate goes on, in 2012. Latest CAPtions broadcast today at 5 pm, Comcast Cable 22 features CCW: Yes Or No?, with
highlights of the NAACP Town Hall meeting. Otis McDonald was lead plaintiff in a case against Chicago to overturn their handgun ban. McDonald is black, was tired of the gangs and drugs in his neighborhood; but couldn’t buy a gun for protection in his home. In 2010, Supreme Court agreed he should be able to. Bill still pending in IL General Assembly. State Rep. Jehan Gordon-Booth voted for the bill. This town hall meeting was also attended by a Tea Party Activist. But opinions on CCW were split by those attending. This broadcast also available on YouTube: Here are the links;
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pm4mb-KOrqo
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9hN9YwGjAI