Supreme Court hears major Second Amendment case
WASHINGTON (AP) - March 18, 2008 The justices were aware of the historic nature of their
undertaking, engaging in an extended 98-minute session of questions
and answers that could yield the first definition of the meaning of
the Second Amendment in its 216 years.
A key justice, Anthony Kennedy, left little doubt about his view
when he said early in the proceedings that the Second Amendment
gives "a general right to bear arms."
Several justices were skeptical that the Constitution, if it
gives individuals' gun rights, could allow a complete ban on
handguns when, as Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out, those
weapons are most suited for protection at home.
"What is reasonable about a ban on possession" of handguns?"
Roberts asked at one point.
But Justice Stephen Breyer suggested that the District's public
safety concerns could be relevant in evaluating its 32-year-old ban
on handguns, perhaps the strictest gun control law in the nation.
"Does that make it unreasonable for a city with a very high
crime rate...to say no handguns here?" Breyer said.
Solicitor General Paul Clement, the Bush administration's top
Supreme Court lawyer, supported the individual right, but urged the
justices not to decide the other question. Instead, Clement said
the court should allow for reasonable restrictions that allow
banning certain types of weapons, including existing federal laws.
He did not take a position on the District law.
While the arguments raged inside, advocates of gun rights and
opponents of gun violence demonstrated outside court Tuesday.
Dozens of protesters mingled with tourists and waved signs
saying "Ban the Washington elitists, not our guns" or "The NRA
helps criminals and terrorist buy guns."
Members of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence chanted
"guns kill" as followers of the Second Amendment Sisters and
Maryland Shall Issue.Org shouted "more guns, less crime."
A line to get into the court for the historic arguments began
forming two days earlier and extended more than a block by early
Tuesday.
The high court's first extensive examination of the Second
Amendment since 1939 grew out of challenge to the District's ban.
Anise Jenkins, president of a coalition called Stand Up for
Democracy in D.C., defended the district's prohibition on handguns.
"We feel our local council knows what we need for a good
standard of life and to keep us safe," Jenkins said.
Genie Jennings, a resident of South Perwick, Maine, and national
spokeswoman for Second Amendment Sisters, said the law banning
handguns in Washington "is denying individuals the right to defend
themselves."
The court has not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment
in the 216 years since its ratification. The basic issue for the
justices is whether the amendment protects an individual's right to
own guns or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a
state militia.
Even if the court determines there is an individual right, the
justices still will have to decide whether the District's ban can
stand and how to evaluate other gun control laws. This issue has
caused division within the Bush administration, with Vice President
Dick Cheney taking a harder line than the administration's official
position at the court.
The local Washington government argues that its law should be
allowed to remain in force whether or not the amendment applies to
individuals, although it reads the amendment as intended to allow
states to have armed forces.
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."
Dick Anthony Heller, 65, an armed security guard, sued the
District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his
home for protection. His lawyers say the amendment plainly protects
an individual's right.
The 27 words and three enigmatic commas of the Second Amendment
have been analyzed again and again by legal scholars, but hardly at
all by the Supreme Court.
The 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."
The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S.
v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional
scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not
squarely answer the question of individual versus collective
rights.
Chief Justice John Roberts said at his confirmation hearing that
the correct reading of the Second Amendment was "still very much
an open issue."