D.C. Braces For Supreme Court Ruling On Gun Ban
Washington Afro, News Report, James Wright, Posted: Mar 24, 2008
Although Supreme Court justices appear to be leaning against upholding D.C.’s ban on handguns, Mayor Adrian Fenty says it’s critical that the city maintain its ability to outlaw firearms.
"Make no mistake about it, this is a public safety case," Fenty said. "The reason the city council enacted the gun ban in the 1970s because crime was getting out of control and guns were the cause of a disproportionate number of fatalities. When the gun ban became law, violent crime dropped significantly in the city and has steadily gone down since then."
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court held oral arguments on the case. Judging from their questions, a majority of the justices seemed to indicate that the Second Amendment permits individuals to possess firearms.
"This case will determine whether the District or any local political body has the right to determine whether citizens can possess firearms…”
The Second Amendment states: “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.”
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., for example, asked: “What’s reasonable about a total an on possession?”
Mayor Adrian Fenty, D.C. City Council Chairman Vincent Gray and other key city leaders were present at the U.S. Supreme Court hearing on March 18 to listen to arguments made by attorneys to keep or declare the city's handgun ban unconstitutional.
After listening to the attorney from the city in the District of Columbia vs. Heller case, the Bush administration which opposes the ban and the attorney for Dick Heller, who challenged the handgun ban, banter with the Supreme Court, city leaders were pleased with what took place in the high court's chambers.
The law in question is the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 which bans residents from possessing handguns unless they have a permit from the city to have one. Criminal penalties are imposed in violation of the law.
A high crime rate in the city at that time, as well as concerns about a nation's capital that is dangerous to live and do business in prompted the gun ban.
However, in recent years, Congress and certain individuals have stated that the gun ban is unfair and it violates the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.
D.C. Chief of Police Cathy Lanier said that a ban on handguns in the city is reasonable.
"When I came to this building [U.S. Supreme Court], I had to surrender my gun and I am the chief of police," she said. "That was good. Guns shouldn't be taken inside of churches and government buildings. They should not be available to everybody. The gun ban works and should stay in place."
Dick Heller is a D.C. special police officer who carries a gun while on duty as a guard at the Federal Judicial Center in the city. He applied for a permit to keep a handgun in his home and was denied by the D.C. government.
He filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court and the court dismissed the suit on the grounds that the city had a right to enact the legislation and there is no right to bear arms. The court appeals reversed the District Court's ruling, stating that the city's gun ban was unconstitutional and that an individual has a right to possess firearms.
The central question before the court was whether the city handgun ban is legal.
Advocates for the city ban include the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the primary pro-gun group that opposes the ban is the National Rifle Association. Both groups wrote amicus (friend of the court) briefs stating their position.
The Heller case has drawn national attention because it is only the second major case that the Supreme Court has heard in the past century on the Second Amendment. The high court's guiding principle on the Second Amendment is the 1939 case of U.S. vs. Miller, in which the court said that firearms may be maintained for use if needed in service of a state militia.
Dellinger argued to the court that there was a reason for the passage of the law at that time and the District did what it felt was right.
"This case will determine whether the District or any local political body has the right to determine whether citizens can possess firearms if they deem it in the best interest of the city to do so," he said. "We think this is the case despite that there is no issue of whether a militia is involved or not."
The Bush administration was represented by U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, who argued that the Second Amendment made it clear that citizens had a right to bear arms and that the government could not infringe on that right.
He agreed with Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy that this right was stated in the Constitution's Preamble, which argued for "providing for the common defense."
He said, "James Madison [one of the Founding Fathers was guided by the English Bill of Rights in this instance. He said that the people had a right to arms to protect themselves from an oppressive government. He believed that any democracy had to have a pre-existing right to bear arms."
Heller's attorney, Alan Gura, argued to the court that the District's law unfairly harmed his client. Associate Justice Stephen Breyer disagreed with that notion.
"I do not believe that the amendment was just about maintaining a citizen army," Breyer said. "This past year, we have had 80,000 or 100,000 people killed, wounded or commit suicide by gun-related fatalities. Doesn't a city have the right to address this matter in the way it knows how?"
Gura said that the city cannot address the gun-related fatalities by way of a gun ban because "it infringes on individual rights."
Kennedy said that he was sensitive to the argument of individual rights, but saw a handgun ban as "a reasonable regulation of that right." Since the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor from the court, Kennedy is viewed as the swing vote between the conservatives Roberts, Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito and the moderates Souter, Breyer and Associate Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
The court has two options: it can declare the law unconstitutional and order the city to come up with a new plan that would address the concerns of the ruling or it can state that the District law is constitutional and the case can serve as precedent in other jurisdictions who want to model their law according to the city. The court will announce its decision in June.
Peacholics co-founder Ronald Moten was with Fenty at the oral argument and said that hoped the court makes the right decision.
"If the court lifts the ban, it would be catastrophic for our people," Moten said. "It will be the young people that will be affected the most. Young people should not have guns. There will be more homicides, more robberies, more rapes because you will have more guns on the street. I hope they make the right decision for the sake of the city."
Related Articles:
Court Likely To Approve Same Sex Marriage
White Jurors Continue to Hammer Black Defendants
Reducing Sentencing Isn't Enough to End Racial Disparity
Page
1 of 1
|
User Comments
J.S. on Apr 21, 2008 at 05:21:42 said:
When Texas Passed the concealed handgun law, their rape and murder cases went down because regular citizens could now defend themselves. Look up the statistics yourself. Answer me this question, Why do the areas with the strictest gun control, have the highest crime, Look at California,New York, Pennsylvania, Mass,Washington DC, they have the strictest gun control and the most crime, the reason is the citizens dont have the right to defend themselves, the cops and criminals have the guns.
Will Harris on Apr 19, 2008 at 10:18:47 said:
I cannot believe in today's society that there are still people whom have never taken an english or civics class, let alone a history course. The mayor of D.C. is lieing to the press about informaton that is easily found in less than 3 minutes. The homicide rate for D.C. has quadrupled in the last 31 years since the laws inception.
The rate he is qouteing going down is the number of people who have commited suicide within his city not crime. Actually, he should be more conscerned with the follow up hearings that are already being planned. The word in the attorney realm, now, is once the US Supreme Court has stated what everyone already knows. That the next hearings will be about enforceing the, "shall not be infringed" clause in the second amendment.
Duane Gren on Apr 17, 2008 at 18:52:16 said:
It is imposible for a gun to harm a person by itself. If every one exept criminals have guns we have very little hope. If the people have guns we will still have control.
j inlo on Mar 31, 2008 at 16:01:29 said:
i listend to the audio 4 times,and read the transcripts, (i cant tell you how many times)
and kennedy made it preety clear in the very begining were he stood, (individual) the D.C. Ban is going Down, and if we keep pushing, there were a few hints made by the justices that the 1986 ban on full autos, could also fall if given strict scrutiny,, D.C. actually unwittingly opened the door for that, by stating that the 2nd is actually 2 seperate statments,, and the justices quickly followed up, by saying that the standerd arm issued to both regular and national guard is a full auto,, and if you take into context the 2nd ammendment the way D.C. explains it, the people, (you and i) would be allowed, if not almost obligated to own the same, (with out the $200.00 tax stamp)
never forget, our country was founded on the principle that the government's only powers are the ones that we have loaned to them, if the supreme court rules against the 2nd ammendment, i think we will need to call for full repayment of that loan,
Mike Girard on Mar 27, 2008 at 12:06:38 said:
The Letter I sent to each Justice
March 27, 2008
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543
Dear Mr. Chief Justice Roberts,
You have heard the case Heller v. DC now and having seen the transcript of the questions and arguments, I am compelled to write you over this matter.
One area of concern was the unanimous agreement that even as a right, it was permissible for government to provide some level or reasonable regulation. Nothing could be further from the truth.
No government deprives its citizens of rights without asserting that its actions are \"reasonable\" and \"necessary\" for high-sounding reasons such as \"public safety.\" A right that can be regulated is no right at all, only a temporary privilege dependent upon the good will of the very government officials that such right is designed to constrain. Which brings me to my next point—the so-called Bill of Rights (BOR).
The BOR does not actually confer any rights at all, least of all to government which has powers, either reserved or delegated, but in no way do governments have rights. Rather, the BOR is designed to constrain government. It lists areas (in I-IX) where the government has no authority to limit the exercise of any and all rights except as specified under the due process clause in the 5th amendment.
The Preamble to the BOR explicitly states the purpose of the first ten amendments:
“THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution…”
A full understanding of the intended purpose of the Second Amendment is critical. The founders regarded all males over 16 to be militia, except those in the professional army or navy and certain public officials. But let us hear the words of some founders to determine who the militia are and what purpose they had in an armed populace.
\"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property . . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.\" Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War (1775).
\"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.\" Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution (1776).
\"Americans need not fear the federal government because they enjoy the advantage of being armed, which you possess over the people of almost every other nation.\" James Madison.
\"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms …To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms . . . \" Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters From the Federal Farmer 53 (1788).
\"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.\" George Mason, during Virginia\'s Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788).
\"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.\" --James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
\"Suppose that we let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal: still it would not be going to far to say that the State governments with the people at their side would be able to repel the danger...half a million citizens with arms in their hands\" --James Madison, The Federalist Papers
\"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people\" --Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
\"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.\" --Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975.
\"The great object is that every man be armed\" and \"everyone who is able may have a gun.\" --Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386
\"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.\" --Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646
This is a mere sampling. Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson had thoughts about removing a right for “safety’s sake:
\"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crime…Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater … confidence than an armed man.\"--Cesare Beccaria, quoted by Thomas Jefferson
And the courts of the past have denied that “public safety,” is an acceptable reason to deny constitutionally protected natural rights:
\"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.\" [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]
Entrusting the nation’s sovereignty to the people, the amendment breaks the government’s military monopoly, guaranteeing to the people such firearms as would be necessary to defend against the sort of government abuse of their inalienable rights the British had committed. Thus, the amendment’s \"well regulated Militia\" encompasses all citizens who constitute the polity of the nation with the right to form their own government. The amendment’s \"keep and bear Arms\" secures the right to possess firearms such as fully-automatic rifles, which are both the \"lineal descendant(s) of … founding-era weapon(s)\" (applying a 2007 court of appeals’ test), and \"ordinary military equipment\" (applying a 1939 Supreme Court standard).
Also, historically speaking, the National Firearms’ Act (NFA) of 1934 was originally in Title 15, the Tax Code, and not in the Criminal Code (Title 18). This was done because of Second Amendment concerns. It wasn’t until much, much later that the NFA was quietly snuck over to the criminal code. The Miller case (1939) concerned a short-barreled shotgun, which was a $10 firearm that under the NFA was required to have a $200 tax applied.
The case was originally thrown out on Second Amendment grounds as the judge in the case was familiar that short-barreled shot guns were in face used by the military—as they still are. The US Government appealed to the Supreme Court and no one is sure what happened to Miller, but with out the defendant the defending attorney did not feel compelled to attend on behalf of the defendant and apparently according to his private notes did not feel that the lower court would be overturned. The US Attorney new of the militia use of such arms and did not feel compelled, quite naturally to inform the justices—why would he want to sink his own case? And it is interesting to note that On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice McReynolds, reversed and remanded the District Court decision. The Supreme Court declared that no conflict between the NFA and the Second Amendment had been established, writing:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a \'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length\' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
The Court indicated that only military type arms are constitutionally protected. In reality, all firearms qualify: pistols, of all types; rifles and carbines; of all calibers and types, semi-auto, bolt, or full-automatic; though in modern times, the semi and full auto are the main type. Bolt-action are used for military sniping primarily. Shot guns with both normal and short barrels are used in both semi-auto and full-auto varieties.
So, is there acceptable “gun control” regulation? Yes! Acceptable “regulation,” is only permissible if tailored to prohibit only those who have had their rights curtailed by due process of law, but applying to no others. Other than that, any regulation limiting type of weapons (including automatics and destructive devices), quantity, type of ammunition, quantities of arms, and even taxes (the BOR constrains even the commerce clause—since a tax would be an infringement), as well as any impediment as to where one may bear arms violates not only the Second, but the 9th as well—which I call the CYA amendment.
The BOR extends to the states, contrary to popular and poor scholarship, because of what value is a restriction of the exercise of power, intended to prevent abuse, (the intent as described in the BOR Preamble) whereby the restriction is only upon the federal government, while leaving open the opportunity for abuse of natural rights by the states? The 14th Amendment (privileges and immunities clause) while additionally useful is in fact, superfluous.
I am aware that four of you are seriously committed leftists/statists with little regard for the founding principles of individual liberty; this letter while it is hoped will move you to consider again the US Constitution as the Founders framed it, to provide for limited government and to protect the sovereignty of individuals; but is especially directed toward the other five justices who will it is hoped, redouble their efforts in the commitment to Federalism and to strike down not only the DC Law, but also to apply the decision to eliminate gun control generally, except as provided under due process under the Fifth Amendment. If the real purpose of gun control were public safety, why is always directed at those who did not commit a crime? The answer is: because gun control has never been about crime control; just control. There is one answer to violent crime—but it seems to be out of vogue and that is making society more violent than ever as a result of our reticence to apply the appropriate measures.
In summary then, the BOR protects or guarantees pre-existing rights; rights which are absolute and which come from God, not from government—the specific purpose of the Second Amendment is to guarantee the people protection from criminals and government, especially when sometimes, the one is also the other. Access to any and all arms is necessary as a prophylactic measure against crime and tyranny.
Michael Girard
Dave on Mar 27, 2008 at 04:48:18 said:
I listened to the hearing twice, and I've poured over the transcript looking for anything that would support the author's statement that "Kennedy said that he was sensitive to the argument of individual rights, but saw a handgun ban as 'a reasonable regulation of that right.'" In fact Justice Kennedy states, "I would have to agree with Justice Ginsburg that a machine gun is probably more related to the militia now than a pistol is. But that -- that seems to me to be allowing the militia clause to make no sense out of the operative clause in present-day circumstances." Assuming he's not swayed by the militia clause, how could he be expected to support a total ban? Guess we'll need to wait until June.
scott on Mar 25, 2008 at 19:42:31 said:
You politically appointed talking heads in DC, NY and Chicago have no clue what you are saying...violent crime is UP-UP-Up when you totally ban the right to reasonable self defense...shortly you will see a dramatic reversal by the SCOTUS...get ready to eat your hat
mt on Mar 25, 2008 at 15:03:17 said:
I would like to point out a factual inaccuracy in this poorly-researched article. The article states that the Bush administration opposes the D.C. ban. This is untrue. Paul Clement, the U.S. Solicitor General, (appointed by and representing the Bush administration) argued in favor of the D.C. ban.
Bill on Mar 25, 2008 at 12:57:40 said:
Mayor Fenty is a liar, the violent crime rate has not gone down on DC since the ban. The fact of the matter is that the murder rate per 100,000 has been higher every year but one since the ban went into effect. In the majority of years it was not only higher, but significantly higher. If Fenty has to lie to make his point, what does that tell about his character.
Wendy Weinbaum on Mar 25, 2008 at 10:26:01 said:
As a Jewess in the US, may I remind everyone that criminals are stopped by FIREARMS, not by talk? And that America wasn't won with a registered gun? That is why all REAL Americans put our 2nd Amendment FIRST!
Important 2nd on Mar 25, 2008 at 07:14:05 said:
"When I came to this building [U.S. Supreme Court], I had to surrender my gun and I am the chief of police"
At least you had the option.
The people who you serve, *not rule*, aren't given that choice.
"There will be more homicides, more robberies, more rapes because you will have more guns on the street"
My guns have never raped, robbed or killed a human. They are not capable of it. Are my guns defective?
fsilber on Mar 25, 2008 at 04:39:36 said:
If my local police chief had that attitude, I could not in good conscience support my local police. I cannot respect mayor Adrian Fenty, either. If banning guns owned by private citizens with good records and training makes us safer, then the same logic would apply to disarming the police. After all, there's nothing inherent about a uniform that changes a person's trustworthiness.
Don Tremaine on Mar 24, 2008 at 15:21:40 said:
The claim the the police uses racial profiling is based on the fact that more black men are arrested for selling drugs. This is utter nonsense. Did it ever occur to you that maybe there are more black men that are drug dealers than other races?
-->How well do you think it would work if you were responsible for looking for republicans and you decided to start your search in the streets of east los Angeles. Would it be racial profiling if you went to Orange county?
Regards,
Don