Conservative justices question D.C. handgun ban

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. capital's strict gun control law faced a barrage of skeptical questions on Tuesday from the U.S. Supreme Court's conservatives.

A majority of the nine-member high court seemed to support the view that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protected an individual right to keep and bear arms, rather than a right tied to service in a state militia.

The individual right position was advocated by opponents of the Washington, D.C., law, one of the strictest in the nation. The arguments marked the first time the Supreme Court has taken up the Second Amendment's meaning in nearly 70 years.

The court's ruling, expected by the end of June, could have a far-reaching impact on gun control laws in the United States, which is estimated to have the world's highest civilian gun ownership rate, and could become an issue in the November presidential election.

The case is widely viewed as one of the most important of the Supreme Court's current term, along with cases on the rights of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners and the U.S. lethal injection method of execution.

"What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked Washington, D.C.,'s lawyer, Walter Dellinger, referring to a provision barring private possession of handguns.

Dellinger said the ban was only on the weapons that have been considered especially dangerous.

Justice Samuel Alito, who like Roberts was appointed by President George W. Bush, cited another provision requiring rifles or shotguns be kept unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock, and said it did not seem as if they could be used as such for the self-defense of one's home.

The court's four liberals seemed most sympathetic to the law. "Is it unreasonable for a city with that high crime rate to say no handguns here?" Justice Stephen Breyer asked.
Conservative justices question D.C. handgun ban | U.S. | Reuters

Another good reason to vote for the GOP in November. I know some libs in here that have hand guns. LOL...what a kick in the ass to vote in someone that wants you to turn in your pistols for cash.

Have a good one!:s4:

While I'm a supporter of a widespread ban on guns, the current situation makes a DC gun ban ridiculous. It's either all or nothing. You can't expect adequate enforcement from a gun ban in a city when you can cross the bridge and have guns laundered from Virginia.

In this case I support having guns in DC. Criminals and police are the only ones with guns in the city it makes many young, upcoming neighborhoods in DC prone to gun violence. It a huge stagnator in growth, allowing no self-protection from citizens. Permiting guns will decrease the power of criminals in the city and increase the viability of police to patrol. In DC, there are a number of "no-go" zones which the police avoid, allowing criminal activity to brood. Allowing citizens to possess guns for self-protection would be a huge deterrent on crime, something DC needs.

Everyone should have the right to protect themselves and there property from intruders. Gun locks are terrible. If someone is kicking the door in you need a gun now not in 10 minutes after you find where you hid the key to the gun lock. I would though like to see some sort of training for new gun buyers to show them how to safely use your gun.

I live in florida I'm with killerweed on this one in florida we have great gun laws I have a concealed weapons permit and so do most evryone I know and I always carry it (smith and wesson semi-auto ) .40cal. and also have several assault rifles nobody is coming in my home and causing harm to me or my girl or rob us and live to tell about it.Two months ago my younger brother who lives with my parents heard a noise in the garage. He went to check it out and was hit in the head and was stabbed my father shot and hit both assailants killing one and injuring another the one that lived was charged for the murder of his accomplance which was killed by my father if it was'nt for my father being there they would have stabbe dmy brother to death.If the law abbiding inoccent citizens don't have a way to protect themselves the criminals would be the only ones with guns they don't care about gun laws and they could come in your home and rob you, kill you,rape your girl while you watch and you can't do nothing about FUCK THAT NOT AT MY HOUSE I WILL DIE SHOOTING WITH MY CHOPPER IN MY HANDS

this one time, at band camp...

Quote:

---

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.

---

i dont see the argument it says right there THE RiGHT OF THE PEOPLE