By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer




WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a constitutional right to keep guns in their homes for self-defense, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun control in U.S. history.

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

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. 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 basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.
Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans' preferred weapon of self-defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons." He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

Gun rights supporters hailed the decision. "I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.
The NRA will file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several of its suburbs challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a leading gun control advocate in Congress, criticized the ruling. "I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it," she said. The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest. Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his Capitol Hill home a short distance from the Supreme Court.
"I'm thrilled I am now able to defend myself and my household in my home," Heller said shortly after the opinion was announced.


The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.

The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.
White House reaction was restrained. "We're pleased that the Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment protects the right of Americans to keep and bear arms," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said.

Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

In a concluding paragraph to the his 64-page opinion, Scalia said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."

The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.
Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.
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.

Forty-four state constitutions contain some form of gun rights, which are not affected by the court's consideration of Washington's restrictions. The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.

Score one for the good guys...for now.

__________________
Buds,Buds, and more Buds: Purps + White Russian

Good news.

Fina-fucking-ly. Some sense actually coming from the supreme court... That's a first.

__________________
All statements, claims and photos are completely fictional in nature. Yay photoshop!

Holy shit!, this is good... there are a few good guys in there!

Man im just happy that they used the constitution right this time.... not so much for the gun policy, but thats a big plus too!!

__________________
StrainReview.com Medical Marijuana Strain Reviews.

the decision was only 5-4

if this happend after barak became pres with one of his picks of the supreme court we very may well would have lost all our rights to defend our families and own a gun!!!! one of the most important freedoms we have, the federal government has no right or power to do that. they are not our mommies each state is sovern to thier peoples will

im tellin you if think the LA riots were bad you try pull somthing like that and there hell to pay no kiddin they will be hell to pay even the national gaurd wouldnt help the feds fight the outraged citizens

i bet, outrage citizens will be locked and loaded, u think the cops would wanna battle thousands of outraged citizens held up in thier homes defending the seizure of thier weapons? hell no bro

hell no

im starting to get pretty ticked off at these criminals & traitors in washington

buildings would burn

__________________
"They must find it difficult...Those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than the truth as authority"

Yes, the 5-4 vote is a bit too close for comfort. All it takes is one more asshole appointed the SC. And I really hope people do riot the day they try to totally disarm us. I know I will be there....a damn pot smoking peaceful guy out there marching for the right to own deadly weapons

__________________
Buds,Buds, and more Buds: Purps + White Russian

5-4? ...........a living, breathing constitution? What's wrong with those (4 this time, but 5 total) people?

__________________
Loving women since 1979!

More good news based on this ruling...
Wilmette Suspends Local Handgun Ban - News Story - WMAQ | Chicago

Hopefully this will have a domino effect across the country.

__________________
The Bill of Rights.....Void where prohibited by Law.

I think state laws can still trump this SC ruling. But yeah, it does seem to be forcing some areas to " rethink their ink " .

__________________
Buds,Buds, and more Buds: Purps + White Russian

No they can't. If the "right" is granted in the Constitution, then the states must comply. That's how the Constitution operates.

For example, the 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of speech. That right is protected by the Constitution throughout the US. No state can pass legislation to hinder the 1st Amendment.

What the states can do of course is introduce registration of arms. They can't prevent a citizen from owning a handgun, but they can force them to register them.