Gun Laws To Be Considered By US Supreme Court

[Detomah]

The US Supreme Court is to consider an American's right to bear arms for the first time in nearly 70 years.

It has agreed to rule on whether a ban on handguns by the city of Washington, DC complies with the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.

The US capital has banned handguns since 1976.

The case is expected to be heard next spring, with a ruling in summer, and therefore could influence the presidential election in November.

The Supreme Court will consider a case brought by a Washington resident, Dick Heller, against his city council, arguing that he should be allowed to keep a handgun for his own protection.

The case was initially rejected, but a federal appeals court later overturned that judgement.

The city of Washington asked the Supreme Court to rule on the case, and on Tuesday it said it would - the first time it will have ruled on the divisive Second Amendment since 1939.

High murder rate

The Second Amendment 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."

The powerful gun lobby says this guarantees that citizens may bear arms, and is vehemently imposed to restrictions on that right.

But states which wish to impose gun control measures argue that it only means a "militia", ie a modern-day police force, is entitled to be armed.

A lawyer for Mr Heller and other Washington residents said: "We believe the Supreme Court will acknowledge that, while the use of guns can be regulated, a complete prohibition on all functional firearms is too extreme.

"It's time to restore a basic freedom to all Washington residents."

Washington council maintained: "Whatever right the Second Amendment guarantees, it does not require the district to stand by while its citizens die."

With gun crime endemic in the US, the issue provokes heated argument. Some blame guns for the problem, while others say they are the best way to protect themselves against violence.

Handguns are used in two-thirds of robberies and assaults and in half of murders in the US, according to statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigations.

But supporters of gun rights point out that having one of the toughest laws in the US has not stopped Washington being one of its most murder-ridden cities - with 169 killings in 2006.

[Laz]

As I understand it, there are two aspects to the question.

1) Must you be a part of an official state-run militia to possess a firearm? Or can every individual own a gun, as a constitutional right? The language is grammatically vague. The original reasoning comes from corrupt aristocracies where only the federal army can possess a gun, thus amplifying their power over the general populace. By allowing everyone to have guns, it makes it very difficult for police or armies to put down a revolt - thus encouraging the elected leaders to to the right things for their constituents. This is also part of the reason that the army can't force individuals to house and feed soldiers.

Has the situation changed enough in 200+ years? Individuals originally needed guns to hunt and fend off local bears, thieves, and displaced indigenous residents (originally called Indians by some lost explorers). Today, those concerns are gone, replaced by drug gangs and lunatics. But the worries over a dominant aristocracy that has little respect for individuals are increasing.

2) Is this a state-regulated right, or a federal (nation-wide) right? Can different states have significantly different gun laws? Most of the rest of the US constitution has been applied on a national level. It's a little more complicated, as Wash DC is not a true "state".

The rhetoric should be interesting.