Gun+Control

·  2nd amendment: 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. ·  **//District of Columbia v. Heller//**, [|554 U.S. ___] (2008) is a [|legal case] in which the [|Supreme Court of the United States] held that the [|Second Amendment to the United States Constitution] protects an individual's [|right] to possess a [|firearm] for private use. ·  It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to directly address whether the [|right to keep and bear arms] is a right of individuals or a collective right that applies only to state-regulated [|militias]. ·  On [|June 26], [|2008] , the Supreme Court affirmed the [|Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit] in //Parker v. District of Columbia//, 478 [|F.3d] 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007). [|[1]] The Court of Appeals had [|struck down] provisions of the [|Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975] as unconstitutional, and determined that handguns are "Arms" that may not be banned by the District of Columbia ( [|Washington, D.C.] ), also striking down the portion of the law that requires all firearms including [|rifles] and [|shotguns] be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a [|trigger lock] ." ·  This represented the first time since the 1939 case // [|United States v. Miller] // that the Supreme Court had directly addressed the scope of the Second Amendment. [|[9]] ·  On [|June 26], [|2008] , by a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the federal appeals court ruling, striking down the D.C. gun law The Court based its reasoning on the grounds: ·   that the operative clause of the Second Amendment—"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"—is controlling and refers to a pre-existing right of individuals to possess and carry personal weapons for [|self-defense] and intrinsically for defense against [|tyranny], based on the bare meaning of the words, the usage of "the people" elsewhere in the Constitution, and historical materials on the clause's [|original public meaning] ; ·   that the prefatory clause, which announces a purpose of a "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", comports with the meaning of the operative clause and refers to a well-trained citizen [|militia], which "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense", as being necessary to the security of a free polity; ·   that historical materials support this interpretation, including "analogous arms-bearing rights in [|state constitutions] " at the time, the drafting history of the Second Amendment, and interpretation of the Second Amendment "by scholars, courts, and legislators" through the late nineteenth century; and ·   that none of the Supreme Court's [|precedents] forecloses the Court's interpretation, specifically // [|United States v. Cruikshank] // (1875), // [|Presser v. Illinois] // (1886), nor // [|United States v. Miller] // (1939). ·  The core holding in //D.C. v. Heller// is that the Second Amendment is an individual right intimately tied to the [|natural right] of self-defense. ·  In a [|dissenting opinion], Justice [|John Paul Stevens] stated that the court's judgment was "a strained and unpersuasive reading" which overturned longstanding [|precedent] , and that the court had "bestowed a dramatic upheaval in the law".  ·   The Stevens dissent seems to rest on four main points of disagreement: that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the "militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keep and bear arms" demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only; that many lower courts' later "collective-right" reading of the Miller decision constitutes // [|stare decisis] //, which may only be overturned at great peril; and that Congress has not considered its gun-control laws (e.g., the [|National Firearms Act] ) unconstitutional. The dissent concludes, "The Court 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.... I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice."  ·   Justice Stevens' dissent was joined by Justices [|David Souter], [|Ruth Bader Ginsburg] , and [|Stephen Breyer]. ·  Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia Crime Rate Plummets, On May 1, 1982, ·  Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes. ·  Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. ·  Crime dropped after the ordinance and the city has maintained an exceptionally low [|crime] rate ever since, even with the population swelling from 5,000 in 1982 to approximately 30,000 today. The truth is [|crime] has plummeted and population has soared. ·  not a single resident of Kennesaw has been involved in a fatal shooting - as a victim, attacker or defender. There has been one firearm related murder but not from a resident of Kennesaw. Since the ordinance, no child has ever been injured with a firearm in Kennesaw. ·  Illinois, Morton Grove, passed an ordinance banning hand guns from anyone other than peace officers. Morton Grove was the first community to ever ban the sale and possession of handguns. ·  In 1981, Morton Grove became the first town in America to [|prohibit the possession of handguns]. ·  In comparison, the population of Morton Grove, Illinois has dropped slightly and the [|crime] rate has increased, especially right after the ban. ·  A minority have argued that because the [|District of Columbia], which is [|not a state] , was the only government involved in //Heller//, uncertainty remains concerning whether the Second Amendment applies to state and local jurisdictions by way of [|incorporation] through the [|Fourteenth Amendment]. However, the Court's unambiguous declaration that the right to bear arms is an individual privilege, taken with the Fourteenth Amendment's clear stricture that, "[n]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," appears to conclusively support incorporation. [|[8]] [|[9]]
 * Gun Control** 12/13/08