|
Gun Rights
Supreme Court Majority Appears To Back Gun Rights
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post
Tuesday, March 18, 2008; 2:27 PM
A majority of the Supreme Court today seemed to clearly indicate that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to possess a firearm and several justices appeared skeptical about whether the District of Columbia's handgun ban could be considered a reasonable restriction on that right.
Two justices cleanly framed the issue confronting them after about 90 minutes of intense arguments that took a trip back to the English Bill of Rights and the founding of a new nation on this continent.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer noted the number of people killed by handguns and asked if it was unreasonable for a "city with a very high crime rate to say 'no handguns here.' "
From the other side, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked: "What's reasonable about a total ban on possession?''
The justices peppered lawyer Walter Dellinger, who represented the District, about whether the law provided any adequate measure for residents to own and use a firearm for self-defense.
"Is there anything to show the District considered self-defense?" asked Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. Dellinger said laws that allowed residents to own rifles and shotguns were an adequate provision.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, often seen as the deciding vote on the divided court, immediately made it clear he did not accept the District's arguments -- and the views of a vast majority of federal appeals courts -- that the Second Amendment provided only a collective right to gun possession in furtherance of military purpose.
The 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."
Kennedy said he thought the much-debated first clause was simply "reaffirming" the importance of the Constitution's militia clause and that it clearly stated "there is a right to bear arms'' that is separate.
But a finding of an individual right means the court must decide what kind of restrictions would be proper for legislation to impose and under what standard a court should judge them.
Solicitor General Paul D. Clement told the justices that too strict a standard would imperil the federal government's efforts to restrict machine guns or "plastic" guns meant to avoid metal detector screening.
The right to bear arms, Clement argued, "always coexisted with reasonable regulations of firearms.''
Alan Gura, representing those challenging the District law, said he agreed that the "government can ban arms that are not appropriate for civilian use," but he said handguns clearly are not included in such a restriction.
The District, shortly after receiving home rule, passed the gun law in 1976, essentially banning private handgun ownership and requiring that rifles and shotguns kept in private homes be unloaded and disassembled or outfitted with a trigger lock. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declared the law unconstitutional last year, becoming the first appeals court to overturn a gun-control law because of the Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court's last examination of the amendment was in 1939, when it ruled in U.S. v. Miller that a sawed-off shotgun transported across state lines by a bootlegger was not what the amendment's authors had in mind when they were protecting arms needed for military service.
But several justices seemed to suggest that decision was not binding on the current court. Roberts said during his 2005 confirmation hearings that Miller left the Second Amendment "very much an open issue.'' Kennedy during arguments today called it "deficient."
The court could rule in District of Columbia v. Heller at any point before its adjournment in late June.
|
