|
Citizen’s Investigator |
|
To file a story call (217) 960-1662 |
|
Investigative Journalism Fighting for Truth Every Step of the Way |
|
Citizen's Investigator is a watch-dog media group that examines behavior of government, business and people involving issues such as ethics, crime and questionable behaviors. The mission of Citizen's Investigator is excellence in media coverage that best represents the interest of our community's citizens throughout the Unites States of America. |
|
PO Box 363 Marshall, IL 62441 |
|
Phone: (217)960-1662 email: citizensinvestigator@gmail.com |
|
District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008, the Right to Keep and Bare Arms
A Washington DC gun ban was challenged in the United States Supreme Court on the point that a restriction of hand guns in the home was unconstitutional. The argument by attorneys representing the Washington DC in favor of the gun ban disputes the Second Amendment intends for the right of “the people” to keep and bare arms. The term “the people” was defined as a collective of citizens such as an organized group of citizens run by the state government. Additionally, there was an argument that, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” was applied towards arming of the military. The fundamental argument of this case is: does the amendment mean the right of the people as an individual and would it mean the right for the militia to keep and bare arms? The D.C. gun ban has been in effect for approximately 35 years and only allows for law enforcement (active or retired) to keep a loaded handgun within their home. There are permits available that are issued by the chief of police, however, are valid for one year and have limited provisions for who and the manner of the use of a firearm. Overall, these limitations and provisions in the Firearm Control Regulations Act are so restrictive that it interferes with a person’s right to keep and bare arms and to properly defend one self. This is the first case in recent years that addresses the issue of the right to keep and bare arms. The argument, opinion of the majority, opinion of the dissenter and the impact it would have throughout the country is something not to be ignored. Case name and date decided No. 07-290 decided on June 26, 2008 Summary of facts District of Columbia has a law that restricts the use of handguns in a person’s home by requiring that the owner of the handgun disabled or place triggers locks on the handgun. The Respondent, Heller, who is a D.C. Special Policeman, applied for a permit to keep his firearm at home and was denied by the D.C. Police Department. Heller filed suit stating the D.C. gun restriction violated the Second Amendment of a person’s right to keep and bare arms.
Statute or administrative action at dispute The statue in question it the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 “Sec. 702. Responsibilities regarding storage of firearms” states: “(a) It shall be the policy of the District of Columbia that each registrant should keep any firearm in his or her possession unloaded and either disassembled or secured by a trigger lock, gun safe, locked box, or other secure device. “(b) No person shall store or keep any loaded firearm on any premises under his control if he knows or reasonably should know that a minor is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the parent or guardian of the minor unless such person: “(1) Keeps the firearm in a securely locked box, secured container, or in location which a reasonable person would believe to be secure; or “(2) Carries the firearm on his person or within such close proximity that he can readily retrieve and use it as if he carried it on his person”.
Provision of the Constitution that applies The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution that 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”.
Legal question Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 “Sec. 702. Responsibilities regarding storage of firearms to include using a trigger lock or disabling the firearm violate the Second Amendment’s “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”?
Outcome of case, what the vote was and how all of the justices voted In a 5 to 4 decision, Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito voted against the Firearms Control Regulation. Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer voted in favor of the Firearms Control Regulation. It was a split decision with Kennedy as the tie breaker. Despite the split decision from the lower court’s upholding, the decision was supported by direct and careful interpretation of the Construction. Justice Scalia had the most to discuss throughout the opinion following Chief Justice Roberts. Justice Stevens had the largest part to day about the dissenter. Justice Steven’s dissenter seems to represent the views of the other opposing Justices.
Legal reasoning of majority, if concurring opinions exist, how they differ The legal reasoning of the majority seems that the right to keep and bare arms applies to the individual. The opinion that differs seems to come mostly from Justice Kennedy saying the right is for a militia purpose. This is a conservative judicial decision.
Views of dissenter The views of dissenter Justice John Stevens is as follows:
“Petitioners justify their limitation of “bear arms” to the military context by pointing out the unremarkable fact that it was often used in that context—the same mistake they made with respect to “keep arms.” It is especially unremarkable that the phrase was often used in a military context in the federal legal sources (such as records of congressional debate) that have been the focus of petitioners’ inquiry”. Additionally, “Justice Stevens points to a study by amici supposedly showing that the phrase “bear arms” was most frequently used in the military context”. The core belief in the views of the dissenter is the term “well regulated militia” applied toward a military right to keep and bare arms for the purpose of the security of a free state. This is a common belief in relation towards the viewpoint of citizens who believe the Second Amendment applied for the purpose of defending the nation by the use of a military.
Is the decision consistent with previous opinions of the court The last Supreme Court last decided a case concerning the Second Amendment was heard in 1939. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 and it addressed the type of firearm that was used. Likely impact of case on the American society and government The impact of this 2008 D.C. v. Heller decision can be significant throughout the United States. This decision reaffirms the Constitutional right that citizens of the United States have a right to “keep and bare arms” as an individual right. The decision will affect the entire United States with relation towards gun regulation to include Illinois. Currently in Illinois there is a ban on handguns in Chicago and strict regulation of rifles and shotgun ownership which is being challenged under McDonald v. Chicago. The suit that was filed in the Supreme Court resembles D.C. v. Heller, in that; it restricts gun ownership for Chicago citizens. The Second Amendment is not limited to the federal government; instead, it applies to state and local governments as also indicated in the 14th Amendment. Throughout history, firearms have been used to hunt food, defend land, invaded countries, keep the peace, sport shooting, sport hunting, collecting, protect lives of others and for self defense. There are also times when firearms (including handguns) are used by citizens to protect the rights of the people from ternary. There are examples of this ranging from the Magna Carta to the Declaration of Independence. On the other hand, guns have been used by criminals to rob and murder. Terrorist have also used guns to hijack and kill innocent people. Despite the guarantee right to own guns, regulation is still necessary to maintain safety and security in society. Gun ownership is not an absolute right. If guns were an absolute right, then, there will be serious problems of violent crime, physical harm and death. Gun regulations are necessary, however: the right to keep and bare arms is an individual right. |
