Here’s the opinion at SCOTUS Blog

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.

The first AP report says the right extends to “self-defense and hunting.” And here’s an update.

The court’s 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia’s 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

I wasn’t aware that it was the Bush Administration that wanted this!?!?  Silly me, I thought it was the millions of citizens that cling to guns or religion

Obama had this to say:  This is not the Constitution I thought I studied

UPDATE: Jim Geraghty: “All statements by Barack Obama come with an expiration date. All of them.”

McCain weighs in:

U.S. Senator John McCain today issued the following statement regarding today’s United States Supreme Court ruling on District of Columbia v. Heller:

Today’s decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States. For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers. I applaud this decision as well as the overturning of the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns and limitations on the ability to use firearms for self-defense.

Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today’s ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right ” sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.

This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms. But today, the Supreme Court ended forever the specious argument that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Michelle has much more

Allahpundit dissects the ruling:

The first 50+ pages is devoted to historical analysis. Skip down to section III on page 54 for a discussion of limitations on the right. Here’s the whole thing, with citations omitted, for ease of reference:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues: Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.”: We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”: It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service”M-16 rifles and the like”may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

21 Responses to “Breaking: Court finds Second Amendment protects individual right to bear arms UPDATE:”All statements by Barack Obama come with an expiration date. All of them.””

1. Robert
   June 26, 2008 - 01:56 PM on June 26th, 2008

   The ruling should have been 9-0. Anyone who ruled that the 2nd Amendment does not support the Citizens right to keep and bear arms has no place on the SC. They are Constitutional Kriminals.

2. Patrick Britton
   June 26, 2008 - 03:46 PM on June 26th, 2008

   Today I am a very unbitter man clinging to his guns. But seriously, I applaud the five that voted for what is already clearly a right according to the constitution, our right to bear arms. To the other four, what happened to “upholding the constitution?” It’s clear that these judges are letting politics cloud their obligation to rule according to the constitution they are supposed to uphold.

3. Robert
   June 26, 2008 - 04:38 PM on June 26th, 2008

   These are the Constitutional traitors that don’t think the 2nd Amendment guarantees your right to keep and bear arms:

   * John Paul Stevens (Ford)
   * Stephen Breyer (Clinton)
   * Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Clinton)
   * David Souter (Bush)

   For shame! They should be imprisoned, imo.

4. NY-David
   June 26, 2008 - 05:38 PM on June 26th, 2008

   Wow, and half by Republicans. Just when the crime rate in DC was getting tolerable…
   NY-David

5. Robert
   June 26, 2008 - 06:11 PM on June 26th, 2008

   Souter is a disgraceful legacy to Bush 1.

6. Pam
   June 26, 2008 - 07:30 PM on June 26th, 2008

   NY-David,

   Those intent on killing will get the gun! How many convicted of murder in DC, were registered gun owners? How about nationwide?

   As a side question: If you feel that taking guns off the street will ebb the murder by gun rate, wouldn’t that same argument apply to illegal drugs?

7. NY-David
   June 26, 2008 - 07:51 PM on June 26th, 2008

   Pam – You pose an interesting question by the drug comparison. I think I may need to clarify myself here. I grew up with guns and certainly look to hold up the second amendment. What I’d like to see is a gun law that comes down on the gunshop owners that don’t follow the laws already on the books. Right now, it looks like any gun control law look like a swipe at the 2nd amendment and gets shot down (no pun intended). Gun laws that don’t hold the owner accountable aren’t exactly helpful either. Last year, a kid showed up at my daughter’s Jr. High in Brooklyn with his dad’s service revolver (his dad is a transit cop). The father claimed that he had no idea that his kid knew where the gun was kept. The father was currently desk-assigned and didn’t carry a weapon on a regular basis.
   To put it in a phrase, I want my cake and eat it too. I want to have the ability to have a gun if I’m a regualr law abiding citizen. I don’t want the idiot who just got out of prison to be able to get one.
   NY-David

8. carolyne
   June 26, 2008 - 09:56 PM on June 26th, 2008

   Doesn’t matter what the SC votes, I’m clinging to my gun and my God. You are right Robert – it should be 9-0 – what is wrong with people nowadays? The SC is way off base, and should have given the death penalty to anyone raping a child. I best not know anyone of that low degree that hurts a child or animal. Forget the death penalty or trial, if you get my drift.

9. FrmrArtyOffcr
   June 26, 2008 - 09:59 PM on June 26th, 2008

   David, Let me address your comments about gun shop operators. There are plenty of laws on the books about gun shop operators who don’t obey the laws. The penalties for willful violations is severe. While the occasional employee error may occur, willful violations can and often are severely punished. Back when I had an FFL, a willful violation was punishable by 5 years in Jail and a fine of up to $10,000 per firearm involved. That includes failing to retain the ATF form 4473, failing to properly log a transfer (incoming or outgoing) in your dealer’s bound log book, failing to insure the identity of the person, etc etc etc. Nowadays the rules are even more stringent. All names, addresses, dates etc etc must be fully spelled out and in black ink. Nothing else is acceptable. The form is NOT admissable in court against the person filling it out (it’s a fifth amendment/ no mandatory self incrimination issue) but is against the gun dealer should the sale be called into question. A gun dealer here in Phoenix was recently arrested for making straw sales to drug cartels in Mexico. A rifle that was found in Mexico was traced back to his shop and they contacted the man who’s name was on the front of the 4473. The man replied that he had bought A gun from the shop, but not the 4 additional ones that were listed on the form. The BATFE investigated and found that the dealer had been adding guns to lawful purchasers’ ATF form 4473, and then selling them to drug cartel gun runners. He’s facing a LOT of time in prison. He’s lucky none of the guns found their way to any of the terrorists who had been planning the attack on Ft Huachuca, he’d be looking out through the chain link at Gitmo.

10. FrmrArtyOffcr
    June 26, 2008 - 10:03 PM on June 26th, 2008

    Oh David, I forgot to add one more thing about being an FFL holder that most people don’t know. FFL holders are subject to an unlimited number of unannounced, warrantless searches of their homes and businesses. Searches that can and have included ripping the place apart, taking vital business documents for an indefinite period, and then reporting no evidence of wrongdoing. Guess who gets the bill for repairing any of the damages caused by the search? The FFL holder.

11. Pam
    June 27, 2008 - 05:56 AM on June 27th, 2008

    Thanks for addressing those points FAO! Stated clearly for all of us, which is much appreciated.

    On the point about the felon getting a gun, I do not see where this ruling gives a convicted felon a right that was taken away from them. Please note some of the items I highlighted in the original post.

    David,

    My first reaction to that father was yea right! Covering his ass so as not to lose that pension! I would guess that his career and pension were on the line because he did not properly safeguard his weapon and it was used in a crime. The crime being that his kid brought it to school. Dad didn’t know jr knew where it was kept? Kept as in locked up? Or kept as in laying on a shelf in his closet? At the Jr. high level, the kid should have been talked to by dad..the discussion should have been about gun safety, never touch my weapon, and most of all, taking guns to school is a crime, dumb ass!

    Thank God your daughter wasn’t hurt, but I can imagine, she was shaken up!

    ABC and CBS Find DC Crime High in Spite of Gun Ban

    As the broadcast network evening newscasts reported on the Supreme Court ruling against D.C.’s ban on handgun ownership, ABC and CBS both relayed to viewers that D.C. has a high crime rate at the same time handguns are illegal. CBS’s Katie Couric to D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty: “I was surprised to hear from Wyatt Andrews that this ban has been in effect for 32 years. … If that’s the case, why has the District remained one of the most dangerous and crime-ridden cities in the country with this ban in effect?” ABC’s Jan Crawford Greenburg: “It’s been called the nation’s murder capital, Washington, D.C., even though handguns were strictly banned.”

    But on the down side, CBS also ran a report by Bill Whitaker that focused on the complaints of gun control advocates, and seemed oblivious to links between gun control and high crime, even as he admitted Chicago has had a gun ban for 25 years, but still has 325 murders a year as he instead seemed to fret crime would get worse without the city’s gun ban. Whitaker: “Chicago, which passed a gun ban similar to D.C.’s 25 years ago, had 325 gun homicides last year — a 10-year-old shot in the head, a pregnant woman gunned down, a college student shot and killed. Mayor Daley said the Court’s decision will make his mean streets even more dangerous.” (Transcripts follow)

    All three networks led with the story. CBS first ran a report by Wyatt Andrews which was mostly balanced between advocates on both sides, in which the CBS correspondent mentioned that D.C.’s gun ban was 32 years old. But Andrews did not mention D.C.’s high crime rate which suggests the ban has been ineffective, even as he passed on the view of city officials who argue that “the handgun ban has kept thousands of guns off the streets and saved hundreds of lives.”

    It was left to Couric to point out the failure of D.C.’s handgun ban as she interiewed Mayor Fenty after Andrews’s story. After asking him if he thought the ruling would “make your city more dangerous,” she then followed up with one of the best lines of the evening: “I was surprised to hear from Wyatt Andrews that this ban has been in effect for 32 years. And it was just recently challenged. If that’s the case, why has the District remained one of the most dangerous and crime-ridden cities in the country with this ban in effect?”

    After the Fenty interview came Whitaker’s report which focused on complaints by gun control advocates with only one soundbite given to a gun control opponent. Couric introduced the report contending that “while gun rights organizations like the NRA cheered today’s ruling, several mayors worried about what happens next.”

    Whitaker ran four soundbites of several gun control advocates during his story, including Chicago Mayor Richard Daley complaining about children being “killed in their homes by guns,” and LAPD Chief William Bratton decrying “America’s love affair with firearms” and the “insanity” of the Supreme Court ruling. Whitaler only ran one opposing soundbite in the form of NRA attorney Chuck Michel, whom Whitaker tagged as part of the “gun lobby,” as Michel talked about the “fundamental right to self-defense.”

    The CBS correspondent also did not seem to pick up on the possible link between Chicago’s gun ban and the high level of crime in the city: “Chicago, which passed a gun ban similar to D.C.’s 25 years ago, had 325 gun homicides last year – a 10-year-old shot in the head, a pregnant woman gunned down, a college student shot and killed. Mayor Daley said the Court’s decision will make his mean streets even more dangerous. … According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, 30,000 Americans die from gun violence each year — some 80 a day — 321 killed by guns in Philadelphia last year; 114 in Oakland, California; 316 in Los Angeles.”

    On ABC’s World News with Charles Gibson, there was more emphasis on the closeness of the Supreme Court vote than at the other networks as substitute anchor George Stephanopoulos referred to the “closely-divided Court” and the “narrow decision” during his introduction to Jan Crawford Greenburg’s report. Greenburg stated that the decision “deeply divided” the Court, although she surprisingly referred to the four dissenting justices as “liberals” while she did not label the justices in the majority as “conservative.”

    Greenburg’s report was mostly balanced as she came closest of the three evening newscasts of making a link between D.C.’s high crime rate and its handgun ban as she employed a soundbite from one of the plaintiffs in the case. Greenburg: “It’s been called the nation’s murder capital, Washington, D.C., even though handguns were strictly banned.” A clip of lawsuit plaintiff and D.C. resident Shelly Parker was shown: “The criminals have guns. If you’re a law-abiding citizen, the law in this city says you do not have a gun.”

    Last year on 20/20, ABC’s John Stossel made the case that gun bans lead to more crime, and argued that D.C.’s crime rate increased after its city’s gun ban was instituted. Stossel: “Since Washington’s gun law passed, the murder rate actually increased, even while America’s murder rate dropped. It’s because guns can also save lives, says [plaintiff Tom] Palmer, as one saved his years ago in California.”

12. Dr. Ruger
    June 27, 2008 - 01:39 PM on June 27th, 2008

    Justice Stevens’ dissent is severely flawed and it is scary to think that one more dissenter would have effectively repealed the second amendment. Stevens’ premise is that the 2nd states that the ‘right’ extends to only bone fide miltia members to store the weapons of war within their homes to to engage in armed conflict on behalf of the state/federal government in defense of what those governments dictate. The absurdity of a ‘right not to be infringed’ declared in the Constitution to apply to service in a bone fide military organization is hard to comprehend. Why would the Framers need to guarantee the right of someone in a combat miltia the ‘right’ to be in a combat militia fighting? Does that then mean that you have a right to be in a militia if you so want that cannot be infringed? First let’s ask who was the militia? At the time it was ordinary, able citizens who voluntarily formed defensive units. They provided their own weapons. Yet Stevens equates them to State National Guards under the direction of the governor. Would this then mean that Guardsmen can ‘keep’ their weapons of war at their homes? Would this then include mortars, TOWs, Bradleys & M60-A2’s? Or, if it truly only applies to militias, then folks in the Michigan and other militias should have the right to keep & bear all manner of offensive & defensive weapons including Stingers, Tomahawks & MRVs. If only Guardsmen have the ‘right not to be infringed’ to store war weaponry at their homes and to fight in active combat for their country, what about the NAVY, ARMY, AF & Marines? What would these guardsman be allowed to fight for……perhaps only things that Justice Stevens sanctioned……perhaps a women’s right to choose (abortion on demand)? The militias could shoot abortion protesters. Maybe the ‘rights’ of the enemy combatants to go before a US judge? How about forced school busing? Or better yet, enforce the elimination of ‘hate speech’ and the implementation of the ‘fairness doctrine’. But Stevens does not have to worry about being patently ridiculous, he’s a Supreme Court Justice appointed for life so he can be as dumb as a box of hammers and we can’t do anything about it.

13. FrmrArtyOffcr
    June 27, 2008 - 11:11 PM on June 27th, 2008

    While I applaud the decision, I have no delusions that this fight is far from over. The arguments that I have read from the various state ratification conventions clearly indicate that the second amendment was NEVER even considered to be a collective right. Thomas Jefferson even commented that one of the strongest cases for the right of the people to keep and bear arms is to protect themselves from Tyranny in government. That hardly sounds like a state organized military unit to me. Sounds like Jefferson intended for the citizenry to have the ability to over throw the government by force if necessary if the PTB got out of hand, as they are doing more and more lately.

14. NY-David
    June 28, 2008 - 03:21 AM on June 28th, 2008

    FAO and Pam,
    Great points, as Pam indicated. It recalls me to spending time in Switzerland during the 80’s. Everyone had to do military service and kept a weapon at home. While the overall idea was for national security, the ancilary effect was that there wern’t too many robberies.
    NYD

15. PCD
    June 28, 2008 - 06:54 AM on June 28th, 2008

    NYDavid,

    I was in Zurich in the 90s, and the Swiss still keep FULLY AUTOMATIC Weapons in the home with a minimum 1000 rounds of ammo.

    I was alarmed at gunshots next to the building I was working in. One of my office hosts told me that someone was just shooting crows. If that was Los Angeles at the same time, SWAT would have been called, Bob Tur would have been circling over head in his Newscopter, and Willie Brown would have been on the CA assembly floor demanding more taxes for more gun control.

16. San Francisco Liberal
    June 28, 2008 - 02:02 PM on June 28th, 2008

    “…the Swiss still keep FULLY AUTOMATIC Weapons in the home with a minimum 1000 rounds of ammo.”

    ——————

    And almost every single one of them has been carefully trained by the Military.

    Most gun owners in the US probably can’t say the same.

17. FrmrArtyOffcr
    June 28, 2008 - 03:45 PM on June 28th, 2008

    Every adult male anyway SFL. Universal conscription will do that. They are also required to maintain proficiency and prove it on an annual basis. There are also state sponsored shooting competitions starting with airguns at age 5 and state funded ranges with state subsidized practice ammunition. Exactly what would the liberals in this country do if we tried to implement a similar program in this country? They get up in arms when the NRA offers to teach gun safety at a school. NRA instructors have to go through a number of training programs themselves to be instructor qualified.They have to attend more intensive firearms training than most military drill instructors.

    By that logic, I should be able to demand and receive a selective fire M4 from the federal government as well as an M9 (Beretta) or M11 (Sig Sauer) 9mm handgun and a few thousand rounds of ammo. Damn Just think how much money I’d have saved if I had just known all I had to do was show up at the armory with my DD 214 honorable discharge. Oh well. I already own a Sig and my AK and FAL are both more reliable than an M4. I don’t really need to fire full auto. It’s fun but expensive when you’re paying for the ammo.

18. San Francisco Liberal
    June 28, 2008 - 09:11 PM on June 28th, 2008

    “I already own a Sig”

    ———

    I just shot one of those last year! 9mm…

    SFL not into guns, but hit the can on my second try!

19. Robert
    June 29, 2008 - 01:55 AM on June 29th, 2008

    SFL in post #16 you make a great point and I agree with you that every American who wants to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights should be well trained and encouraged to keep firearms at the ready.

    Living in the high-crime city of San Francisco, you should be well armed and prepared to defend yourself and others around you.

20. PCD
    June 29, 2008 - 06:31 AM on June 29th, 2008

    16, but SFL, most gun owners in the US do not use their guns unlawfully, nor do they shoot liberals on sight.

21. carolyne
    June 29, 2008 - 11:45 AM on June 29th, 2008

    I’m going target practicing today. Can’t let the SFL get ahead of me, just in case! LOL

    I agree with Jim Gerachty – Obama even lies saying he’s not a liar. Obama needs to have an expiration date on him. July 4th, 2008 will do fine, otherwise he’s going to go bad.
    OH Glory, independence day for America! Hallelujah!

    

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Right Voices uses Gravatar to display individual comment author icons. If you'd like your own icon next to your name, then go to Gravatar.com and sign up - it's easy!

more »

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail