McCain or Obama? AOL Elections 2008. Get all your up to the minute results.

News Video

News Video
Find, view and share videos about news and entertainment from around the Web.
See Videos »

Blog Chatter

What are tags?
List

User-Submitted News

Top stories submitted and voted on from Propeller.

Most Popular Stories

Most Commented On

Most Recent Comments

NEWS ALERTS

Get the latest updates sent straight to your inbox.

Sign up to receive AOL News alerts by e-mail.

Supreme Court to Hear Gun Ban Case

By MARK SHERMAN,
AP
Posted: 2007-11-20 22:22:39
Filed Under: Law News, Politics News
WASHINGTON (Nov. 20) - The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the District of Columbia can ban handguns, a case that could produce the most in-depth examination of the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" in nearly 70 years.

The justices' decision to hear the case could make the divisive debate over guns an issue in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections.

City officials said the law is designed to reduce gun violence, noting that four out of every five homicides this year was committed with a gun. Opponents of the ban pointed to the level of violence to make their case that Washington residents should be allowed to have guns to protect themselves in their homes.

"This is clearly going to be one of the biggest ... cases decided this year,'for private uses, including self-defense.

Alan Gura, a lawyer for Washington residents who challenged the ban, said he was pleased that the justices were considering the case.

Guns be regulated but not banned, Gura said. "This isn't going to let crazy people have guns or felons have guns," he said at a news conference outside the court.

Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, noted that 44 state constitutions contain some form of gun rights, which are not affected by the court's consideration of Washington's restrictions. "The American people know this is an individual right the way they know that water quenches their thirst," LaPierre said. "The Second Amendment allows no line to be drawn between individuals and their firearms."

Washington Mayor Adrian M. Fenty said city officials were grateful the Supreme Court took the handguns case and believed they would ultimately prevail. Fenty, speaking at a news conference in a District office building, called it "the most important court case the District of Columbia has been involved in and possibly the most important decision a city or state has been involved in for decades."

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the Supreme Court should "reverse a clearly erroneous decision and make it clear that the Constitution does not prevent communities from having the gun laws they believe are needed to protect public safety."

Barnett, the Georgetown professor, said that even if the court decides there is an individual right to have guns, it still could determine that broad restrictions short of a ban are legal.

Such a decision won't "automatically determine the outcome of any challenge to any gun law," Barnett said.

Arguments probably will be in March, with a decision expected before the end of June. A ruling could energize people on both sides of the issue for the fall campaigns.

Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, who as New York mayor sued the gun industry for letting criminals get guns, said in a recent interview with The Associated Press that the case "is a very, very strong description of how important personal liberties are in this country and how we have to respect them."

Giuliani now says the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to own handguns and is not, as he previously argued, limited to the rights of states to maintain citizen militias.

The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. That decision supported the collective rights view, but it did not squarely answer the question in the view of many constitutional scholars. Chief Justice John Roberts said at his confirmation hearing that the correct reading of the Second Amendment was "still very much an open issue."

The Second 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."

Washington banned handguns in 1976, saying it was designed to reduce violent crime in the nation's capital.

The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because "handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia."

The District is making several arguments in defense of the restriction, including claiming that the Second Amendment involves militia service. It also said the ban is constitutional because it limits the choice of firearms but does not prohibit residents from owning any guns at all. Rifles and shotguns are legal, if kept under lock or disassembled. Businesses may have guns for protection.

Chicago has a similar handgun ban, but few other gun-control laws are as strict as the District's.

Four states - Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New York - urged the Supreme Court to take the case because broad application of the appeals court ruling would threaten "all federal and state laws restricting access to firearms."

Dick Anthony Heller, 65, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home - about a mile from the court - for protection.

The laws in question in the case do not "merely regulate the possession of firearms," Heller said. Instead, they "amount to a complete prohibition of the possession of all functional firearms within the home."

If the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to have guns, "the laws must yield," he said.

Opponents say the ban plainly has not worked because guns still are readily available, through legal and illegal means. Although the city's homicide rate has declined dramatically since peaking in the early 1990s, Washington still ranks among the nation's highest murder cities.

According to the District's medical examiner, there were 177 homicides in 2006. Of those, 135 were firearm-related. In 1976, the medical examiner said that 135 of the District's 207 homicides were firearm-related, according to a Washington Post article from that era.

The U.S. Court Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 for Heller in March. Judge Laurence Silberman said reasonable regulations still could be permitted but that the ban went too far.

The Bush administration, which has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, has yet to weigh in on the case.

The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.

Associated Press writer Stephen Manning contributed to this report.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
2007-11-20 16:21:11
Bookmark

Recent Comments

Post Your Own  
1 - 10 of 1277
1277 comments

CNf61 08:52:27 AM Mar 18 2008

Report This!

I stongly support the right to own a gun for hunting and personnal protection. I think our constitution fathers had this in mind when righting the constitution. WE can argue on alot more on other parts of our bill of rights or amendments ,but thats why we live america,FREE SPEECH. If you dont like America and the laws of the land get out.

madt3030 10:39:24 AM Dec 04 2007

Report This!

To be or not to be , will the real people unite together ...no.... thats why the people who show up to vote . Are only 30 % WHY the people and soon it will be 20 % .We are counting on that ,we sent your jobs away, Raised your education fees and the cost to feed and water your self and if you do have anything else left your love one's will need your money soon, so keep playing along , and sing your songs , we are just hoping on you. when time running out ..There Us and then there you.......how its working for you? The good old USA still the best place on earth . have you hug your family?How grandma?

schorell 09:13:00 PM Nov 25 2007

Report This!

I MIGHT give up my guns if they get rid of every criminal and foreign person that has come to the USA in the last 40 years.

onehusting 10:00:47 AM Nov 25 2007

Report This!

Those who were raised in the country or had access to the country and were taught the responsibility of guns generally have nothing against them. It's those who were raised in the cities by parents who were afraid of guns who are against them. I didn't like whipped cream until I tried it at the age of 21, because I thought it was whipped sour cream. If you don't want to be around a gun you have that right, but your rights stop where my nose begins. If someone attacks my family I will use whatever means to protect them; this is why I believe in the one gun control issue that I agree to -- THE ABILITY TO HIT WHAT YOU AIM AT!!

wslfred 04:12:03 PM Nov 24 2007

Report This!

We have the right to own a gun or many if we wish. It is not up to them to tell us what they believe is right and wrong. They work for us the people. If you dont like guns or want guns then dont own one. Do not make me a criminal because I own one, my guns are used for target shooting I enjoy them like any other hobby and will not give them the right to take them from me.. If they want to call me a criminal for having them then they are wrong, I would be a criminal if I used them towards another in an act of violence but will use them to defend myself or family. It is not the gun that is bad it is the person behind the trigger, if the person is willing to commit a crime then banning a gun will not stop them as they were intent on breaking the law anyway. So they will obtain a gun illegally anyway.. I wonder if they would have second thoughts about breaking into a house if they thought the owner had a gun or was a better shot than them.. bet not. More people die in car crashes, ye

wslfred 04:11:54 PM Nov 24 2007

Report This!

We have the right to own a gun or many if we wish. It is not up to them to tell us what they believe is right and wrong. They work for us the people. If you dont like guns or want guns then dont own one. Do not make me a criminal because I own one, my guns are used for target shooting I enjoy them like any other hobby and will not give them the right to take them from me.. If they want to call me a criminal for having them then they are wrong, I would be a criminal if I used them towards another in an act of violence but will use them to defend myself or family. It is not the gun that is bad it is the person behind the trigger, if the person is willing to commit a crime then banning a gun will not stop them as they were intent on breaking the law anyway. So they will obtain a gun illegally anyway.. I wonder if they would have second thoughts about breaking into a house if they thought the owner had a gun or was a better shot than them.. bet not. More people die in car crashes, ye

Polabo 08:12:08 AM Nov 24 2007

Report This!

reading an article about paying taxes it referred to the only place in the US that the constitution does not protect was the district of columbia--I guess this is why all the political crooks get away with all the thieving and lieing--

Polabo 08:09:33 AM Nov 24 2007

Report This!

i am wondering if DC being a district and not a state do the residents have the same rights as the state of american--

Dutchalso6 07:56:03 PM Nov 23 2007

Report This!

A person who is armed is called a citizen. A person who is not armed is called a subject.

Dutchalso6 07:55:03 PM Nov 23 2007

Report This!

Gun ban, what gun ban?

1 - 10 of 1277
1277 comments

Add your own Comments

Clear
Add
* Want the latest Hot Seat polls delivered to your Vista desktop? Hot Seat Vista Gadget »

CNN.com

More Stories

Technology

More Stories

Top Videos

News Bloggers