 |
| Supreme Court considers 'right to bear arms' |
|
|
|
Look at what the Supreme Court and The Constitution of the United States provides "The People" in the way of protection from murder by criminals and madmen:
In 1856, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that local law enforcement had no duty to protect individuals but only a general duty to enforce the laws. South vs. Maryland, 59 US{HOW} 396, 15 L. Ed. 433 {1856}. A U. S. Federal Appeals Court declared in 1982: "There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen." Bowers vs. devote, U. S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 686 F. 2d 616 {1982}
In essence, the Constitution and the Supreme Court throws personal protection directly into the hands and the responsibility of the citizen. Without access to Arms, we are nothing more than sheep awaiting the slaughter.
Jesus himself believed in the value of Self-Defense and the most recent interpretation of one of the Ten Commandments is, Thou Shall not Murder. The word "Kill" has been found to be an incorrect interpretation of the original text.
It is our duty from God and Man to protect ourselves and our loved ones from harm and from murder. The Bible give us the right to protect ourselves from murder. The Declaration of Independence recognizes our God given right to Self-Defense and the Constitution gives us the 2nd Amendment and the Right to Arms for use in personal and family protection.
Everything in life states that the Leftists are absolutely wrong in their attempt to disarm the population and if they become serious about their task, we need to become equally serious about our task and fight for our God given rights. What God has given let no man put asunder!
|
Court Upholds Workers' Right to Guns in Cars
Posted: Feb 19, 2009 05:33 AM
Updated: Feb 19, 2009 05:33 AM
Associated Press
TULSA, Oklahoma -- A federal appeals court has ruled that Oklahoma's law protecting employees' rights to have a guns in their locked vehicles at work is constitutional.
The Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 3-0 Wednesday to overturn a Tulsa federal judge's 2007 court order preventing enforcement of the law.
"We're pleased with the court's decision," said Charlie Price, a spokesman for Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson. "It was our opinion that the law is constitutional, and the court agreed with us today."
The appellate panel ruled that U.S. District Judge Terence Kern erred in deciding that Oklahoma's law -- passed in two stages in 2004 and 2005 -- was pre-empted by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act.
The judges ruled that the law did not conflict with any OSHA standard.
"We disagree," the judges wrote in a 23-page decision. "OSHA is aware of the controversy surrounding firearms in the workplace and has consciously decided not to adopt a standard" banning firearms from the workplace.
The impetus for the law came from Federal Way, Wash.-based Weyerhaeuser Corp.'s decision to fire eight workers because they had guns in their vehicles at a southeastern Oklahoma timber mill.
Benton Harbor, Mich.-based Whirlpool Corp. and Houston-based ConocoPhillips challenged the law more recently.
ConocoPhillips spokesman Rich Johnson said Wednesday that "the safety of our employees is a top priority of ConocoPhillips, and we are disappointed with today's decision." ConocoPhillips, a plaintiff in the case, has a refinery in Ponca City.
Johnson said the company has not had time to determine what its next step will be.
The appellate court also rejected claims by ConocoPhillips and its fellow plaintiffs that the law violated their constitutional due-process right to exclude people from company property and that the law constituted a "taking" of their property.
|
|
Special Revolver Commemorates Landmark Heller Decision
Sometimes things work out, and in this case, it's a home run! Three weeks ago on my Gun Talk Radio Show, I offered the idea of a presentation gun to be given to the six original plaintiffs in what started off as the "Parker" case, and then became the Heller case. That's the case where the U. S. Supreme Court ruled on July 26 that the Second Amendment is, in fact, an individual right, and the court threw out the total handgun ban in Washington, DC.
I'd love to say it was my idea, but I got the suggestion from a listener and Truth Squad member. I liked it, so I picked up the ball and ran with it.
Now, only three weeks later, it's reality. Even better, you can buy one.
On Sunday, July 20, I'll announce on the radio the new "D.C. vs. Heller" revolver from Smith & Wesson. It's the alloy frame model 442, which is a hammerless J-frame (the small frame) in .38 Special. It's very lightweight, with rubber grips. It's a perfect self-defense revolver.
Before I get into the details, let me tell you how it came about...more.
Click Here to view photos.
|
|
 |
| HOT NEWS PLEASE READ |
|
|
 |
| click here to Read the court's decision |
|
|
 |
| Click Here to read the usa today |
|
|
 |
| click here for DCGunCase.com |
|
|
 |
| VIDEO OF Court says individuals have right to own guns |
|
|
|
Jun 26, 12:14 PM EDT
Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns
By MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a
right to own guns for self-defense in their homes, the justices' first
major pronouncement on gun rights 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 home for protection in
the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.
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.
|
June 27, 2008
Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights
By DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court declared for the first time on Thursday that
the Constitution protects an individual’s right to have a gun, not just the
right of the states to maintain militias.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the landmark 5-to-4
decision, said the Constitution does not allow “the absolute prohibition of
handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.” In so declaring, the
majority found that a gun-control law in the nation’s capital went too far
by making it nearly impossible to own a handgun.
But the court held that the individual right to possess a gun “for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home” is not
unlimited. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in
any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,” Justice Scalia wrote.
The ruling does not mean, for instance, that laws against carrying
concealed weapons are to be swept aside. Furthermore, Justice Scalia wrote,
“The court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding
prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,
or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as
schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and
qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
The decision upheld a federal appeals court ruling that the District of
Columbia’s gun law, one of the strictest in the country, went beyond
constitutional limits. Not only did the 1976 law make it practically
impossible for an individual to legally possess a handgun in the district,
but it also spelled out rules for the storage of rifles and shotguns. But
the court did not articulate a specific standard of review for what might
be a reasonable restraint on the right to possess a firearm.
The court also said on Thursday that the district law’s requirement that
lawful weapons be rendered essentially inoperable, by trigger locks or
disassembly, was unconstitutional because it rendered the weapons useless
for self-defense.
Joining Justice Scalia were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices
Clarence Thomas, Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito Jr.
A dissent by Justice John Paul Stevens asserted 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.” Joining him were Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg
and Stephen G. Breyer.
The high court’s ruling was the first since 1939 to deal with the scope of
the Second Amendment, and the first to so directly address the meaning of
the amendment’s ambiguous, comma-laden text: “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.”
Not surprisingly, Justice Scalia and Justice Stevens differed on the
clarity (or lack thereof) of the Second Amendment. “The amendment’s
prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the
scope of the second clause,” wrote Justice Scalia. “The operative clause’s
text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep
and bear arms.”
Not at all, Justice Stevens countered, asserting that the majority “stakes
its holding on a strained and unpersuasive reading of the amendment’s
text.” Justice Stevens read his dissent from the bench, an unmistakable
signal that he disagreed deeply with the majority.
Indeed, it was clear from the conflicting opinions of Justices Scalia and
Stevens that the case had generated emotional as well as intellectual
sparks at the court.
Justice Scalia devoted page after page of his opinion to the various state
constitutions and to the use of language in the 18th and 19th centuries to
support his view that an individual right to bear arms is embodied in the
Constitution. And Justice Scalia, who clearly takes pride in his writing as
well as his reasoning, used adjectives like “frivolous” and “bizarre” to
describe the other side’s arguments.
Not to be outdone, Justice Stevens called the majority’s interpretation of
the Second Amendment “overwrought and novel” and said it “calls to mind the
parable of the six blind men and the elephant,” in which each of the
sightless men had a different conception of the animal.
“Each of them, of course, has fundamentally failed to grasp the nature of
the creature,” Justice Stevens wrote.
The ruling on Thursday will surely not quiet the debate about guns and
violence in the United States, where deaths by firearm take a far higher
toll than in many other countries, as Justice Scalia acknowledged.
“We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country,” he
wrote, saying that he took seriously the concerns of those who believe that
“prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution.”
Lawmakers in the District of Columbia and across the country may look to
the decision as a blueprint for writing new legislation to satisfy the
demands of constituents who say there is too much regulation of firearms
now, or too little, depending on the sentiments in their regions.
(Washington’s Mayor, Adrian M. Fenty, will instruct the police department
to issue new handgun-registration rules within 30 days while city officials
study the ruling, The Washington Post reported on its Web site.)
Nor was there any suggestion that the court’s ruling would lead to a
proliferation of deadly, military-style assault weapons. Alluding to the
1939 Supreme Court decision, which held that the weapons protected under
the Second Amendment were those “in common use at the time,” Justice Scalia
said, “We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical
tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”
The White House issued a statement saying that President Bush “strongly
agrees with the Supreme Court’s historic decision today that the Second
Amendment protects the individual right of Americans to keep and bear
arms.”
The Supreme Court ruling is likely to play out in this year’s elections, as
Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican nominee for
president, made clear. “I applaud this decision as well as the overturning
of the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns and limitations on the
ability to use firearms for self-defense,” Mr. McCain said in a statement,
which contained a reminder that his Democratic nominee, Senator Barack
Obama of Illinois, refused to join him in signing an amicus brief in
support of overturning the district’s law.
Indeed, Mr. Obama’s view, expressed in a statement, was more nuanced than
Mr. McCain’s. “I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects
the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need
for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that
plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures,” Mr.
Obama said, predicting that the ruling would provide needed guidance for
lawmakers.
The National Rifle Association and other supporters of rights to have
firearms are sure to use the decision as a launch pad for lawsuits. The
N.R.A. said it would file suits in San Francisco, Chicago and several
Chicago suburbs challenging handgun restrictions there. “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,”
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the N.R.A., told The Associated
Press.
Reaction on Capitol Hill differed sharply. Representative John A. Boehner
of Ohio, the Republican minority leader in the House, applauded the ruling.
“The Constitution plainly guarantees the solemn right to keep and bear
arms, and the whims of politically correct bureaucrats cannot take it
away,” he said in a statement.
But Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California and a former mayor of
San Francisco, said she was disappointed in the ruling. “I speak as a
former mayor,” she said at a session of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “I
speak as somebody who has gone to homicide crime scenes.”
The last time the Supreme Court weighed a case involving the Second
Amendment, in 1939, it decided a narrower question, finding that the
Constitution did not protect any right to possess a specific type of
firearm, the sawed-off shotgun.
By contrast, the issues in the District of Columbia case seemed much more
“mainstream,” if that term can be used in reference to gun-control issues.
When the justices announced on Nov. 20 that they were accepting the case of
District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290, they indicated that they would
go to the heart of the long debate.
The question, they said, is whether the district’s restrictions on firearms
“violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated
with any state-regulated militia but who wish to keep handguns and other
firearms for private use in their homes.”
Dick Anthony Heller, a security guard who carries a handgun for his job
protecting federal judiciary offices, challenged the District of Columbia’s
law after his request for a license to keep his gun at home was rejected.
There have been debates about the efficacy of gun-control efforts in the
capital. Those district residents who want guns — and are willing to risk
punishment if caught with them without bothering to apply for permits — can
get them easily enough, across the Potomac River in Virginia and in other
nearby states.
Washington’s homicide rate, while high by world standards, is sharply lower
than it was in the early 1990s. Last year, there were 181 homicides in
Washington, down from a peak of 479 in 1991, when crack cocaine was a huge
problem in some sections of the city.
Concluding his opinion, Justice Scalia wrote, “Undoubtedly some think that
the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is
the pride of our nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal
security, and where gun violence is a serious problem.”
“That is perhaps debatable,” Justice Scalia wrote, “but what is not
debatable is that it is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second
Amendment extinct.”
When the Heller case was argued before the justices on March 18, Mr.
Heller’s lawyer, Alan Gura, did not assert that the Second Amendment
precluded any kind of ban related to gun possession. He said that a ban on
the shipment of machine guns and sawed-off shotguns would be acceptable,
and in answer to a question from the justices, so, too, might be a
prohibition on guns in schools. Some of the justices signaled during
arguments that they thought the District’s near-total ban on handguns went
too far.
A legislature “has a great deal of leeway in regulating firearms,” Mr. Gura
argued, but not to the extent of virtually banning them in homes.
The Washington law not only established high barriers to the private
possession of handguns, it also required that rifles and shotguns be kept
either in a disassembled state or under a trigger lock.
Walter Dellinger, the lawyer who argued for the district on March 18,
asserted that “the people” and “the militia” were essentially the same, and
that the Second Amendment gave people the right to bear arms only in
connection with their militia service.
Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, representing the federal government,
argued on behalf of the individual-rights position, which has been the Bush
administration’s policy. But he said that the appeals court had also gone
too far in overturning the ordinance and that the right to bear arms was
always subject to “reasonable regulations.”
|
MSNBC and NBC News
Thursday June 26 2008
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights 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 laws 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.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."
In dissent, 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."
Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.
'Landmark victory'
The ruling quickly became fodder for the presidential race. Sen. John McCain lauded the decision in a written statement, calling it a "landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States."
The Republican presidential hopeful criticized his rival Barack Obama's stance on the issue, saying the Democrat had refused to sign a statement calling for Thursday's ruling.
"Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right — sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly," McCain said.
The White House also praised the ruling.
"We are pleased by the Court's decision upholding Americans right to bear arms. We look forward to reading the ruling in detail," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said.
Capital's strict gun law
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 home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.
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.
|
| No. 07-290 |
|
| Vide 07-335 |
|
| Title: |
| District of Columbia, et al., Petitioners |
| v. |
| Dick Anthony Heller |
|
| Docketed: |
September 5, 2007 |
| Lower Ct: |
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit |
| Case Nos.: |
(04-7041) |
| Decision Date: |
March 9, 2007 |
| Rehearing Denied: |
May 8, 2007 |
| Questions Presented |
| ~~~Date~~~ |
~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
| Jul 16 2007 |
Application (07A51) to extend the time to file a petition for writ of certiorari from August 6, 2007 to September 5, 2007, submitted to The Chief Justice. |
| Jul 18 2007 |
Application (07A51) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until September 5, 2007. |
| Sep 4 2007 |
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 5, 2007) |
| Sep 28 2007 |
Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either or neither party received from counsel for petitioners. |
| Oct 3 2007 |
Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party received from counsel for respondents. |
| Oct 4 2007 |
Brief of respondent Dick Anthony Heller in opposition filed. |
| Oct 5 2007 |
Brief amicus curiae of American Civil Rights Union filed. |
| Oct 5 2007 |
Brief amici curiae of American Academy of Pediatrics, et al. filed. |
| Oct 5 2007 |
Brief amici curiae of New York, Hawaii, Illinois, and Maryland filed. |
| Oct 23 2007 |
Reply of petitioners District of Columbia, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| Oct 24 2007 |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 9, 2007. |
| Nov 15 2007 |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 20, 2007. |
| Nov 20 2007 |
Petition GRANTED limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions - D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 - violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes? |
| Dec 28 2007 |
Consent to the filing of amicus briefs in support of either or neither party, conditioned on a seven day written notice to counsel for petitioners, received from counsel for the petitioners. |
| Jan 3 2008 |
Consent to the filing of amicus briefs in support of either party only, conditioned on a seven day written notice to counsel for respondent, received from counsel for the respondent. |
| Jan 4 2008 |
Brief of petitioners District of Columbia, et al. filed. |
| Jan 4 2008 |
Joint appendix filed. |
| Jan 4 2008 |
Letter from counsel for the petitioners proposing a Lodging of Council Session Transcripts as legislative history of the laws at issue, and copies of local municipal laws regulating the firing of guns in the 19th Century as history of regulation of firearms in the District of Columbia. |
| Jan 11 2008 |
Brief amicus curiae of Members of Congress filed. |
| Jan 11 2008 |
Brief amici curiae of Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, et al. filed. |
| Jan 11 2008 |
Brief amicus curiae of NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. filed. |
| Jan 11 2008 |
Brief amici curiae of Professors of Linguistics and English Dennis E. Baron, Richard W. Bailey, and Jeffrey P. Kaplan filed. |
| Jan 11 2008 |
Brief amici curiae of American Academy of Pediatrics, et al. filed. |
| Jan 11 2008 |
Brief amici curiae of Violence Policy Center, et al. filed. |
| Jan 11 2008 |
Brief amici curiae of Major American Cities, et al. filed. |
| Jan 11 2008 |
Brief amici curiae of Law Professors Erwin Chemerinsky and Adam Winkler filed. |
| Jan 11 2008 |
Brief amici curiae of DC Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, et al. filed. |
| Jan 11 2008 |
Brief amici curiae of American Jewish Committee, et al. filed. |
| Jan 11 2008 |
Brief amici curiae of Former Department of Justice Officials filed. |
| Jan 11 2008 |
Brief amicus curiae of American Bar Association filed. |
| Jan 11 2008 |
Brief amici curiae of New York, et al. filed. |
| Jan 11 2008 |
Brief amicus curiae of Professors of Criminal Justice filed. |
| Jan 11 2008 |
Brief amici curiae of National Network to End Domestic Violence, et al. filed. |
| Jan 11 2008 |
Brief amici curiae of American Public Health Association, et al. filed. |
| Jan 11 2008 |
Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. |
| Jan 11 2008 |
Brief amici curiae of District Attorneys filed. |
| Jan 11 2008 |
Brief amici curiae of Jack N. Rakove, et al. filed. |
| Jan 11 2008 |
Brief amici curiae of City of Chicago, et al. filed. |
| Jan 22 2008 |
SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, March 18, 2008 |
| Jan 25 2008 |
Record received from the U.S.C.A. for the D.C. Circuit. (1 box) |
| Jan 28 2008 |
CIRCULATED. |
| Jan 28 2008 |
Record from the U.S.D.C. for the District of Columbia Circuit is electronically filed. |
| Feb 4 2008 |
Brief amicus curiae of American Legislative Exchange Council filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 4 2008 |
Brief of respondent Dick Anthony Heller filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 4 2008 |
Brief amicus curiae of GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 5 2008 |
Brief amicus curiae of Congress of Racial Equality filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 7 2008 |
Brief amici curiae of Disabled Veterans for Self-Defense and Kestra Childers filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 7 2008 |
Brief amici curiae of Alaska Outdoor Council, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 7 2008 |
Brief amicus curiae of Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 7 2008 |
Brief amici curiae of Buckeye Firearms Foundation LLC, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 7 2008 |
Brief amici curiae of Criminologists, Social Scientists, Other Distinguished Scholars, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 7 2008 |
Brief amicus curiae of Foundation for Free Expression filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 7 2008 |
Brief amicus curiae of Libertarian National Committee, Inc. filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 7 2008 |
Brief amici curiae of National Rifle Association, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 7 2008 |
Brief amicus curiae of Rutherford Institute filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 8 2008 |
Brief amici curiae of 55 Members of United States Senate, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 8 2008 |
Brief amicus curiae of Virginia1774.org filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 8 2008 |
Brief amicus curiae of Paragon Foundation, Inc. filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 8 2008 |
Brief amicus curiae of Second Amendment Foundation filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 8 2008 |
Brief amici curiae of Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, D.C., et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 8 2008 |
Brief amicus curiae of 126 Women State Legislators and Academics filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 8 2008 |
Brief amici curiae of Pink Pistols and Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 8 2008 |
Brief amicus curiae of Grass Roots of South Carolina, Inc. filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 8 2008 |
Brief amici curiae of Major General John D. Altenburg, Jr., et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 8 2008 |
Brief amici curiae of Cato Institute, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 8 2008 |
Brief amicus curiae of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 11 2008 |
Brief amicus curiae of American Center for Law and Justice filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 11 2008 |
Brief amici curiae of Maricopa County Attorney's Office, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 11 2008 |
Brief amici curiae of State Firearm Associations filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 11 2008 |
Brief amici curiae of Bruce L. Benson, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 11 2008 |
Brief amicus curiae of Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 11 2008 |
Motion of the Solicitor General for enlargement of time for oral argument, for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed. |
| Feb 11 2008 |
Motion of Texas, et al. for leave to participate in oral argument as amici curiae and for divided argument, and, in the alternative, for enlargement of time for oral argument filed. |
| Feb 11 2008 |
Brief amici curiae of Texas, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 11 2008 |
Brief amicus curiae of President Pro Tempore of the Senate of Pennsylvania, Joseph B. Scarnati, III filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 11 2008 |
Brief amici curiae of Former Senior Officials of Department of Justice filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 11 2008 |
Brief amicus curiae of Goldwater Institute filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 11 2008 |
Brief amicus curiae of Academics for the Second Amendent filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 11 2008 |
Brief amicus curiae of Center for Individual Freedom filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 11 2008 |
Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Justice filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 11 2008 |
Brief amici curiae of International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 11 2008 |
Brief amici curiae of Gun Owners of America, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 11 2008 |
Brief amicus curiae of Retired Military Officers filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 11 2008 |
Brief amicus curiae of Heartland Institute filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 11 2008 |
Brief amicus curiae of Foundation for Moral Law filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 11 2008 |
Brief amici curiae of Southeastern Legal Foundation, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 11 2008 |
Brief amicus curiae of Mountain States Legal Foundation filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 11 2008 |
Brief amici curiae of Jeanette M. Moll, Ohio Concealed Carry Permitholders, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 11 2008 |
Brief amicus curiae of American Civil Rights Union filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 11 2008 |
Brief amici curiae of Organizations and Scholars Correcting Myths and Misrepresentations etc. filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 11 2008 |
Brief amicus curiae of National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 11 2008 |
Brief amici curiae of International Scholars filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 25 2008 |
Motion of Texas, et al. for leave to participate in oral argument as amici curiae and for divided argument, and, in the alternative, for enlargement of time for oral argument DENIED. |
| Feb 25 2008 |
Motion of the Solicitor General for enlargement of time for oral argument, for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED. |
| Feb 28 2008 |
Motion for leave to file amicus brief out of time filed by Wisconsin. (Distributed) |
| Mar 5 2008 |
Reply of petitioners District of Columbia, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| Mar 14 2008 |
Letter, dated March 12, 2008, received from counsel for the petitioners. (Distributed). |
| Mar 17 2008 |
Motion for leave to file amicus brief out of time filed by Wisconsin GRANTED. |
| Mar 18 2008 |
Argued. For petitioners: Walter Dellinger, Washington, D.C. For United States as amicus curiae: Paul D. Clement, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Alan Gura, Alexandria, Va. |
|
|
| ~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
~~Phone~~~ |
| Attorneys for Petitioners: |
|
|
| Todd S. Kim |
Solicitor General |
(202) 724-6609 |
| Counsel of Record |
Office of the Attorney General for D.C. |
|
|
441 Fourth Street, N.W. |
|
|
Washington, DC 20001 |
|
|
todd.kim@dc.gov |
| Party name: District of Columbia, et al. |
| |
|
|
| Walter Dellinger |
O'Melveny & Myers LLP |
(202) 383-5300 |
|
1625 Eye Street, N.W. |
|
|
Washington, DC 20006 |
|
|
wdellinger@omm.com |
| Party name: District of Columbia, et al. |
| Attorneys for Respondent: |
|
|
| Alan Gura |
Gura & Possessky, PLLC |
(703) 835-9085 |
| Counsel of Record |
101 N. Columbus Street, Suite 405 |
|
|
Alexandria, VA 22314 |
|
|
alan@gurapossessky.com |
| Party name: Dick Anthony Heller |
| Other: |
|
|
| Marc James Ayers |
Bradley Arant Rose & White LLP |
(205) 521-8598 |
|
One Federal Place |
|
|
1819 Fifth Avenue North |
|
|
Birmingham, AL 35203 |
|
| Party name: Criminologists, Social Scientists, Other Distinguished Scholars, et al. |
| |
|
|
| M. Carol Bambery |
1330 New Hampshire Ave., N.W. |
(240) 515-6034 |
|
Unit 321 |
|
|
Washington, DC 20036 |
|
| Party name: 126 Women State Legislators and Academics |
| |
|
|
| Robert Jeffords Barham |
1613 Main Street (29201) |
(803) 799-1111 |
|
P.O. Box 8448 |
|
|
Columbia, SC 29202 |
|
| Party name: Grass Roots of South Carolina, Inc. |
| |
|
|
| Robert L. Barr Jr. |
44 N. Main Street |
(770) 836-1776 |
|
Atlanta, GA 30143 |
|
| Party name: Libertarian National Committee, Inc. |
| |
|
|
| Bradford A. Berenson |
Sidley Austin LLP |
(202) 736-8000 |
|
1501 K Street, NW |
|
|
Washington, DC 20005 |
|
| Party name: Goldwater Institute |
| |
|
|
| Jeffrey L. Bleich |
Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP |
(415) 512-4000 |
|
560 Mission Street |
|
|
San Francisco, CA 94105 |
|
| Party name: Major American Cities, et al. |
| |
|
|
| Carl T. Bogus |
Roger Williams University School of Law |
(401) 254-4617 |
|
Ten Metacom Avenue |
|
|
Bristol, RI 02809 |
|
| Party name: Jack N. Rakove, et al. |
| |
|
|
| Victor A. Bolden |
NAACP |
(212) 965-2200 |
|
99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 |
|
|
New York, NY 10013 |
|
| Party name: NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. |
| |
|
|
| Jonathan G. Cedarbaum |
WilmerHale |
(202) 663-6000 |
|
1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW |
|
|
Washington, DC 20006 |
|
| Party name: Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, et al. |
| |
|
|
| Robert Phillip Charrow |
2101 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000 |
(202) 533-2396 |
|
Washington, DC 20037 |
|
| Party name: Major General John D. Altenburg, Jr., et al. |
| |
|
|
| Erwin Chemerinsky |
Duke University School of Law |
(919) 613-7173 |
|
Science Drive & Towerview Rd. |
|
|
Durham, NC 27708 |
|
| Party name: Law Professors Erwin Chemerinsky and Adam Winkler |
| |
|
|
| Paul D. Clement |
Solicitor General |
(202) 514-2217 |
|
United States Department of Justice |
|
|
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. |
|
|
Washington, DC 20530-0001 |
|
|
SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov |
| Party name: United States |
| |
|
|
| Alexis S. Coll - Very |
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP |
(650) 251-5000 |
|
2550 Hanover Street |
|
|
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |
|
| Party name: District Attorneys |
| |
|
|
| Charles J. Cooper |
Cooper & Kirk, PLLC |
(202) 220-9600 |
|
555 Eleventh Street, N.W., Suite 750 |
|
|
Washington, DC 20005 |
|
|
ccooper@cooperkirk.com |
| Party name: Former Senior Officials of Department of Justice |
| |
|
|
| R. Ted Cruz |
Solicitor General |
(512) 936-1700 |
|
Office of the Attorney General |
|
|
P.O. Box 12548, MC-059 |
|
|
Austin, TX 78711-2548 |
|
|
Ted.Cruz@aog.state.tx.us |
| Party name: Texas, et al. |
| |
|
|
| Bert H. Deixler |
Proskauer, Rose, LLP |
(310) 557-2900 |
|
2049 Century Park East |
|
|
Suite 3200 |
|
|
Los Angeles, CA 90067 |
|
| Party name: American Acdemy of Pediatrics, et al. |
| |
|
|
| Deborah Dewart |
620 E. Sabiston Drive |
(910)-326-4554 |
|
Swansboro, NC 28584-9674 |
|
| Party name: Foundation for Free Expression |
| |
|
|
| Robert Dowlut |
P.O. Box 341101 |
(703) 267-1254 |
|
Bethesda, MD 20827-1101 |
|
| Party name: American Legislative Exchange Council |
| |
|
|
| Charles M. Dyke |
Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner |
(415) 371-1200 |
|
101 Second Street, Suite 1800 |
|
|
San Francisco, CA 94105 |
|
| Party name: Professors of Linguistics and English Dennis E. Baron, Richard W. Bailey, and Jeffrey P. Kaplan |
| |
|
|
| Peter J. Ferrara |
American Civil Rights Union |
(703) 582-8466 |
|
10621 Summer Oak Court |
|
|
Burke, VA 22015 |
|
| Party name: American Civil Rights Union |
| |
|
|
| Jonathan S. Franklin |
Fulbright & Jaworski LLP |
(202) 662-0466 |
|
801 Pennsylvania Ave., NW |
|
|
Washington, DC 20004 |
|
| Party name: DC Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, et al. |
| |
|
|
| Andrew L. Frey |
Mayer Brown LLP |
(202) 263-3000 |
|
1909 K Street, N.W. |
|
|
Washington, DC 20006 |
|
| Party name: City of Chicago, et al. |
| |
|
|
| Scott E. Gant |
Boies Schiller 7 Flexner LLP |
(202) 237-2727 |
|
5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW |
|
|
Washington, DC 20015 |
|
| Party name: Members of Congress |
| |
|
|
| Richard E. Gardiner |
10560 Main Street |
(703) 352-7276 |
|
Suite 404 |
|
|
Fairfax, VA 22030 |
|
| Party name: Bruce L. Benson, et al. |
| |
|
|
| Renee L. Giachino |
Center for Individual Freedom |
(703) 535-5836 |
|
113 South Columbus Street |
|
|
Suite 310 |
|
|
Suite 402 |
|
|
Alexandria, VA 22314 |
|
| Party name: Center for Individual Freedom |
| |
|
|
| Shannon Lee Goessling |
Southeastern Legal Foundation, Inc. |
(404)-257-9667 |
|
6100 Lake Forrest Drive, N. W. |
|
|
Suite 520 |
|
|
Atlanta, GA 30328 |
|
| Party name: Southeastern Legal Foundation, et al. |
| |
|
|
| Stephen P. Halbrook |
10560 Main Street, Suite 404 |
(703) 352-7276 |
|
Fairfax, VA 22030 |
|
| Party name: 55 Members of United States Senate, et al. |
| |
|
|
| L. Kenneth Hanson |
15 West Winter Street |
(740)-363-1213 |
|
Delaware, OH 43015 |
|
| Party name: Buckeye Firearms Foundation LLC, et al. |
| |
|
|
| David T. Hardy |
8951 East Driftwood Trail |
520749024 |
|
Tucson, AZ 85749 |
|
| Party name: Academics for the Second Amendent |
| |
|
|
| Richard E. Hill Jr. |
The Law Office of Richard E. Hill, Jr. |
(757) 259-0017 |
|
1321 Jamestown Road, Suite 102 |
|
|
Williamsburg, VA 23185 |
|
| Party name: Virginia1774.org |
| |
|
|
| Erik S. Jaffe |
Erik S. Jaffe PC |
(202) 237-8165 |
|
5101 34th Street, NW |
|
|
Washington, DC 20008 |
|
| Party name: Institute for Justice |
| |
|
|
| Daniel G. Jarcho |
McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP |
(202) 496-7500 |
|
1900 K Street, N.W. |
|
|
Washington, DC 20006 |
|
| Party name: Violence Policy Center, et al. |
| |
|
|
| Gregory M. Jones |
Foundation for Moral Law, Inc. |
(334) 262-1245 |
|
One Dexter Avenue |
|
|
Montgomery, AL 36164 |
|
| Party name: Foundation for Moral Law |
| |
|
|
| Lawrence G. Keane |
National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. |
(203) 426-1320 |
|
Flintlock Ridge Office Center |
|
|
11 Mile Road |
|
|
Newtown, CT 06470-2359 |
|
| Party name: National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. |
| |
|
|
| Paul M. Kienzle |
Scott & Kienzle PA |
(505) 246-8600 |
|
P.O. Box 587 |
|
|
Albuquerque, NM 87103-0587 |
|
| Party name: Paragon Foundation, Inc. |
| |
|
|
| David B. Kopel |
Independence Institute |
(303) 279-6536 |
|
13952 Denver West Parkway |
|
|
Suite 400 |
|
|
Golden, CO 80401 |
|
| Party name: International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association, et al. |
| |
|
|
| John P. Krill Jr. |
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP |
(717) 231-4505 |
|
17 North Second Street |
|
|
Harrisburg, PA 17101 |
|
| Party name: President Pro Tempore of the Senate of Pennsylvania, Joseph B. Scarnati, III |
| |
|
|
| Jeffrey A. Lamken |
Baker Botts L.L.P. |
(202) 639-7700 |
|
1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. |
|
|
Washington, DC 20004-2400 |
|
| Party name: American Jewish Committee, et al. |
| |
|
|
| Robert A. Long Jr. |
Covington & Burling |
(202) 662-6000 |
|
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW |
|
|
Washington, DC 20004 |
|
| Party name: Former Department of Justice Officials |
| |
|
|
| Nelson Lund |
George Mason University |
(703)-993-8045 |
|
School of Law, 3301 Fairfax Drive |
|
|
Arlington, VA 22201 |
|
| Party name: Second Amendment Foundation |
| |
|
|
| Daryl Manhart |
Burch & Cracchiolo, PA |
(602) 274-7611 |
|
702 E. Osborn Road, Suite 200 |
|
|
Phoenix, AZ 85014 |
|
| Party name: Maricopa County Attorney's Office, et al. |
| |
|
|
| Charles Kevin Marshall |
Jones Day |
(202) 879-3939 |
|
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W. |
|
|
Washington, DC 20001-2113 |
|
| Party name: Cato Institute, et al. |
| |
|
|
| Andrew G. McBride |
Wiley, Rein LLP |
(202) 719-7000 |
|
1776 K Street, NW |
|
|
Washington, DC 20006 |
|
| Party name: Retired Military Officers |
| |
|
|
| Jack Brian McGee |
445 Nelson Street |
(907) 586-2548 |
|
Juneau, AK 99801 |
|
| Party name: Alaska Outdoor Council, et al. |
| |
|
|
| Michael B. Minton |
One U.S. Bank Plaza |
(314) 552-6000 |
|
St. Louis, MO 63101 |
|
| Party name: Pink Pistols and Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty |
| |
|
|
| Jeanette M. Moll |
803 B Market Street |
(740)-408-0431 |
|
Zanesville, OH 43701 |
|
| Party name: Jeanette M. Moll, Ohio Concealed Carry Permitholders, et al. |
| |
|
|
| John R. Monroe |
9640 Coleman Road |
(678)-362-7650 |
|
Roswell, GA 30075 |
|
| Party name: GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. |
| |
|
|
| William H Neukom |
American Bar Association |
(312) 988-5000 |
|
321 North Clark Street |
|
|
Chicago, IL 60610 |
|
| Party name: American Bar Association |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| William Perry Pendley |
Mountain States Legal Foundation |
(303) 292-2021 |
|
2596 South Lewis Way |
|
|
Lakewood, CO 80227 |
|
| Party name: Mountain States Legal Foundation |
| |
|
|
| Stephen D. Poss |
Goodwin Procter LLP |
(617) 570-1000 |
|
Exchange Place |
|
|
Boston, MA 02109 |
|
| Party name: National Rifle Association , et al. |
| |
|
|
| James R. Schaller |
311 B Avenue Suite D |
(503)-635-1505 |
|
Lake Oswego, OR 97034 |
|
| Party name: International Scholars |
| |
|
|
| David J. Schenck |
Jones Day |
(214) 220-3939 |
|
2727 N. Harwood Street |
|
|
Dallas, TX 75201-1515 |
|
| Party name: State Firearm Associations |
| |
|
|
| Andrew L. Schlafly |
939 Old Chester Road |
(908) 719-8608 |
|
Far Hills, NJ 07931 |
|
| Party name: Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. |
| |
|
|
| Daniel L. Schmutter |
36 Fowler Drive |
(973) 214-6298 |
|
West Orange, NJ 07052 |
|
| Party name: Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership |
| |
|
|
| Jay Alan Sekulow |
American Center for Law & Justice |
(202) 546-8890 |
|
201 Maryland Ave., N.E. |
|
|
Washington, DC 20002-5703 |
|
| Party name: American Center for Law and Justice |
| |
|
|
| Kelly J. Shackelford |
Liberty Legal Institute |
(972) 423-3131 |
|
903 East 18th Street |
|
|
Suite 230 |
|
|
Plano, TX 75074 |
|
| Party name: Dr. Surzanna Gratia Hupp, et al. |
| |
|
|
| Douglas G. Smith |
200 East RandolphDrive |
(312)-861-2000 |
|
Chicago, IL 60601 |
|
| Party name: Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund |
| |
|
|
| Bruce D. Sokler |
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. |
(202) 434-7300 |
|
701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW |
|
|
Washington, DC 20004 |
|
| Party name: National Network to End Domestic Violence, et al. |
| |
|
|
| Stefan Bijan Tahmassebi |
3117 Woodland Lane |
(703) 267-1259 |
|
Alexandria, VA 22309 |
|
| Party name: Congress of Racial Equality |
| |
|
|
| Jeffrey B. Teichert |
Teichert Law Office, PC |
(360) 594-4321 |
|
44164 Meridian Street |
|
|
Suite 405 |
|
|
Bellingham, WA 98226 |
|
| Party name: Organizations and Scholars Correcting Myths and Misrepresentations etc. |
| |
|
|
| Herbert W. Titus |
William J. Olson, PC |
(703) 356-5070 |
|
8180 Greensboro Drive |
|
|
Suite 1070 |
|
|
McLean, VA 22102 |
|
| Party name: Gun Owners of America, Inc. |
| |
|
|
| Alison M. Tucher |
Morrison & Foerster LLP |
(415) 268-7000 |
|
425 Market Street |
|
|
San Francisco, CA 94105 |
|
| Party name: American Public Health Association, et al. |
| |
|
|
| Barbara D. Underwood |
Solicitor General |
(212) 416-8016 |
|
Office of the NY State Solicitor General |
|
|
120 Broadway, 25th Floor |
|
|
New York, NY 10271 |
|
|
barbara.underwood@oag.state.ny.us |
| Party name: New York, Hawaii, Illinois, and Maryland |
| |
|
|
| Albert William Wallis |
Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels LLP |
(617) 856-8200 |
|
One Financial Center |
|
|
Boston, MA 02111 |
|
| Party name: Professors of Criminal Justice |
| |
|
|
| James H. Warner |
P.O. Box 409 |
(301)-432-4935 |
|
Burkittsville, MD 21718 |
|
| Party name: Disabled Veterans for Self-Defense and Kestra Childers |
| |
|
|
| John W. Whitehead |
Rutherford Institute |
(434) 978-3888 |
|
1440 Sachem Place |
|
|
Charlottesville, VA 22901 |
|
| Party name: Rutherford Institute |
| |
|
|
| Richard K. Willard |
Steptoe & Johnson LLP |
(202) 429-3000 |
|
1330 Connecticut Avenue |
|
|
Washington, DC 20036 |
|
| Party name: Heartland Institute |
| |
|
|
| Christopher G. Wren |
Assistant Attorney General |
(608) 266-7081 |
|
17 W. Main Street |
|
|
P.O. Box 7857 |
|
|
Madison, WI 53707-7857 |
|
| Party name: Wisconsin |
|
Justices Appear Skeptical Of D.C.'s Handgun Ban
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 19, 2008; A01
A majority of the Supreme Court indicated a readiness yesterday to settle
decades of constitutional debate over the meaning of the Second Amendment
by declaring that it provides an individual right to own a gun for
self-defense.
Such a finding could doom the District of Columbia's ban on private handgun
possession, the country's toughest gun-control law, and significantly
change the tone and direction of the nation's political battles over gun
control.
During oral arguments that drew spectators who had waited for days to be in
the courtroom, there was far more skepticism among the justices about the
constitutionality of the District's ban on private handgun possession than
defense of it.
Justices balanced the commands of a Constitution written more than 200
years ago with the modern-day questions presented by a gun ban that, it was
argued, either prevents the law-abiding from a means of self-protection or
keeps more guns off the streets of the nation's capital.
The court seemed swept up in the historic nature of its endeavor, examining
a part of the Constitution that most believe has never been clearly
defined. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. encouraged the lawyers to keep
talking well beyond the scheduled 75 minutes.
For all the references to Lord Blackstone and the English Bill of Rights
and the Framers' intent, Roberts was succinct in describing how he might
view the District's arguments that its gun law is reasonable.
"What's reasonable about a total ban on possession?" he asked Washington
lawyer Walter E. Dellinger III, who represented the city.
The clauses of the Second 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" -- have long vexed constitutional
scholars. The Supreme Court's last major ruling on the subject, in 1939,
stressed the militia-related aspects of the provision.
Roberts quickly signaled his disagreement. "If it is limited to state
militias, why would they say 'the right of the people'?" he asked.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, often the deciding vote on the divided court,
was next. "In my view," he said, "there's a general right to bear arms
quite without reference to the militia either way."
Kennedy expressed, at least three times during the argument, his disbelief
that the Framers had not been also concerned about the ability of "the
remote settler to defend himself and his family against hostile Indian
tribes and outlaws, wolves and bears and grizzlies and things like that."
Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito Jr. also lent support to the
individual interpretation. Justice Clarence Thomas was silent during the
arguments, as is his custom, but has previously expressed such a view.
>From the District's point of view, deciding there is an individual right
would be answering only half the question. Dellinger argued that it is
reasonable for the city to ban the "uniquely dangerous" handgun, which "can
be taken into schools, into buses, into government office buildings, and
that is the particular danger it poses in a densely populated urban area."
The D.C. law, passed in 1976 shortly after residents received the right to
govern themselves, also requires that rifles and shotguns kept in private
homes be unloaded and disassembled or outfitted with a trigger lock.
Those challenging the law disagree with the District's contention that it
provides residents with access to a firearm for self-defense purposes.
Several justices agreed.
"How could the District code provision survive under any standard of review
where they totally ban the possession of the type of weapon that's most
commonly used for self-defense?" Alito asked.
The more liberal justices were most sympathetic to the city. Justice John
Paul Stevens repeatedly said that only two states at the time of the
framing of the Constitution had individual-right guarantees, and most
mentioned the need for guns to provide a "common defense."
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted that even Lord Blackstone had said gun
rights were subject to law and, thus, to restrictions. Justice Stephen G.
Breyer was the most aggressive in making the case that local governments
may have leeway in restricting gun ownership, based on their own
circumstances.
"Is it unreasonable for a city with that high crime rate to say, 'no guns
here?' " Breyer asked Alan Gura, the Alexandria-based attorney for security
guard Dick Anthony Heller's suit against the city. Before Gura could
answer, Scalia interjected, "You want to say yes."
While Gura said it is unreasonable, he conceded that governments could ban
ownership of some weapons. Machine guns could be one category, he said, and
"plastic" handguns manufactured to escape detection. He said that certain
individuals, such as felons, could be banned from gun ownership, and agreed
that some licensing of gun ownership would pass constitutional muster.
He hesitated on a question from Stevens: "How about a state university
wants to ban students having arms in the dormitory?" "It's something that
might be doable, but again, that's so far from what we have here," Gura
finally answered. "We have here a ban on all guns, for all people, in all
homes, at all times in the nation's capital."
One of the most intriguing aspects of the case has been the position of the
Bush administration. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement in a brief urged the
court to accept the individual-rights view, but he also said the opinion of
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit striking
down the city's law was too broad.
It held that since handguns can be defined as "arms" under the Second
Amendment, they cannot be banned. Clement said such "strict scrutiny" could
undermine a host of federal gun-control legislation, including restrictions
on machine guns.
His suggestion that the case be sent back to lower courts for more work
enraged gun rights advocates, who felt betrayed, and set off a split in the
Bush administration when Vice President Cheney joined a brief rebutting the
government's position.
Clement did not back down yesterday. He said it would make a "world of
difference" to the viability of federal gun control if government
restrictions on gun ownership did not have to meet the strictest
constitutional standards.
Roberts said finding the standard by which to review all government gun
regulations may not be necessary in deciding the constitutionality of the
District's law.
Clement said any ruling narrower than that of the appeals court would be
welcome.
The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, and will be decided before the
court adjourns in late June.
|
State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions
Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School *
[After each provision, I indicate whether it now protects an individual right aimed at least partly as self-defense, which I abbreviate as "self-defense right"; the shorthand "self-defense right explicitly protected" refers to provisions that specifically say "in defense of himself" or some such. I generally cite only one case, simply for the sake of being terse, unless there's some uncertainty in the caselaw.]
Alabama: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 26 (enacted 1819, art. I, § 23, with "defence" in place of "defense," spelling changed 1901).
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Alaska: 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 individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State. Art. I, § 19 (first sentence enacted 1959, second sentence added 1994).
[Individual right explicitly protected; provision enacted in 1994, when the individual right to bear arms was generally understood as aimed at protecting self-defense.]
Arizona: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men. Art. II, § 26 (enacted 1912).
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Arkansas: The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense. Art. II, § 5 (enacted 1868, art. I, § 5).
1836: "That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." Art. II, § 21.
[Self-defense right protected, Arkansas Game and Fish Com'n v. Murders, 327 Ark. 426 (1997); Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557 (1878).]
California: No provision.
Colorado: The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons. Art. II, § 13 (enacted 1876, art. II, § 13).
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17). The original 1818 text came from the Mississippi Constitution of 1817.
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Delaware: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use. Art. I, § 20 (enacted 1987).
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Florida: (a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.
(b) There shall be a mandatory period of three days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, between the purchase and delivery at retail of any handgun. For the purposes of this section, "purchase" means the transfer of money or other valuable consideration to the retailer, and "handgun" means a firearm capable of being carried and used by one hand, such as a pistol or revolver. Holders of a concealed weapon permit as prescribed in Florida law shall not be subject to the provisions of this paragraph.
(c) The legislature shall enact legislation implementing subsection (b) of this section, effective no later than December 31, 1991, which shall provide that anyone violating the provisions of subsection (b) shall be guilty of a felony.
(d) This restriction shall not apply to a trade in of another handgun. Art. I, § 8 (sections (b)-(d) added in 1990).
1838: "That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." Art. I, § 21.
1865: Clause omitted.
1868: "The people shall have the right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the lawful authority of the State." Art. I, § 22.
1885: "The right of the people to bear arms in defence of themselves and the lawful authority of the State, shall not be infringed, but the Legislature may prescribe the manner in which they may be borne." Art. I, § 20.
1968: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law." Art. I, § 8.
[Self-defense right protected, Alexander v. State, 450 So.2d 1212 (Fla. App. 1984).]
Georgia: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne. Art. I, § 1, ¶ VIII (enacted 1877, art. I, § XXII).
1865: "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." Art. I, § 4.
1868: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but the general assembly shall have power to prescribe by law the manner in which arms may be borne." Art. I, § 14.
[Self-defense right protected, McCoy v. State, 157 Ga. 767 (1924).]
Hawaii: 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. Art. I, § 17 (enacted 1959).
[No decision about whether self-defense right right is protected.]
Idaho: The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony. Art. I, § 11 (enacted 1978).
1889: "The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense; but the Legislature shall regulate the exercise of this right by law." Art. I, § 11.
[Self-defense right protected, In re Brickey, 70 P. 609 (Idaho 1902).]
Illinois: Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Art. I, § 22 (enacted 1970).
[Self-defense right protected, Kalodimos v. Village of Morton Grove, 470 N.E.2d 266, 273 (Ill. 1984).]
Indiana: The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State. Art. I, § 32 (enacted 1851, art. I, § 32).
1816: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State, and that the military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power. Art. I, § 20.
[Self-defense right protected, Kellogg v. City of Gary, 562 N.E.2d 685, 694 (Ind. 1990).]
Iowa: No provision.
Kansas: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. Bill of Rights, § 4 (enacted 1859, art. I, § 4).
[Interpreted as collective right only, City of Salina v. Blaksley, 83 P. 619 (Kan. 1905), adhered to by City of Junction City v. Lee, 532 P.2d 1292 (Kan. 1975). But see City of Junction City v. Mevis, 601 P.2d 1145, 1151 (Kan. 1979) (striking down a gun control law, challenged by an individual citizen, on the grounds that it was “unconstitutionally overbroad,” and thus implicitly concluding that the right to bear arms did indeed belong to individual citizens).]
Kentucky: All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: ...
Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons. § 1 (enacted 1891).
1792: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Art. XII, § 23.
1799: "That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Art. X, § 23.
1850: "That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned; but the General Assembly may pass laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed arms." Art. XIII, § 25.
Louisiana: The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person. Art. I, § 11 (enacted 1974).
1879: "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 abridged. This shall not prevent the passage of laws to punish those who carry weapons concealed." Art. 3.
[Self-defense right protected, State v. Chaisson, 457 So.2d 1257, 1259 (La. App. 1984).]
Maine: Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned. Art. I, § 16 (enacted 1987, after a collective-rights interpretation of the original provision).
1819: "Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence; and this right shall never be questioned." Art. I, § 16.
[Self-defense right protected, State v. Brown, 571 A.2d 816 (Me. 1990).]
Maryland: No provision.
Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it. Pt. 1, art. 17 (enacted 1780).
[Interpreted as collective right only, Commonwealth v. Davis, 343 N.E.2d 847 (Mass. 1976).]
Michigan: Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 6 (enacted 1963).
1835: "Every person has a right to bear arms for the defence of himself and the State." Art. I, § 13.
1850: "Every person has a right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state." Art. XVIII, § 7.
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Minnesota: No provision.
Mississippi: The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons. Art. III, § 12 (enacted 1890, art. 3, § 12).
1817: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State." Art. I, § 23.
1832: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and of the State." Art. I, § 23.
1868: "All persons shall have a right to keep and bear arms for their defence." Art. I, § 15.
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Missouri: That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. Art. I, § 23 (enacted 1945).
1820: "That the people have the right peaceably to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those vested with the powers of government for redress of grievances by petition or remonstrance; and that their right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the State cannot be questioned." Art. XIII, § 3.
1865: Same as above, but with "the lawful authority of the State" instead of "the State." Art. I, § 8.
1875: "That the right of no citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereto legally summoned, shall be called into question; but nothing herein contained is intended to justify the practice of wearing concealed weapons." Art. II, § 17.
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Montana: The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. Art. II, § 12 (enacted 1889).
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Nebraska: All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. Art. I, § 1 (right to keep and bear arms enacted 1988).
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Nevada: Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes. Art. I, § 11(1) (enacted 1982).
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
New Hampshire: All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state. Pt. 1, art. 2-a (enacted 1982).
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
New Jersey: No provision.
New Mexico: No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. Art. II, § 6 (first sentence enacted in 1971, second sentence added 1986).
1912: "The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons." Art. II, § 6.
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
New York: No provision.
North Carolina: 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; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice. Art. 1, § 30 (enacted 1971).
1776: "That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Bill of Rights, § XVII.
1868: "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; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up, and the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Art. I, § 24.
1875: Same as 1868, but added "Nothing herein contained shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the Legislature from enacting penal statutes against said practice."
[Self-defense right protected, State v. Kerner. 107 S.E. 222, 225 (N.C. 1921).]
North Dakota: All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed. Art. I, § 1 (right to keep and bear arms enacted 1984).
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Ohio: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. Art. I, § 4 (enacted 1851).
1802: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be kept up, and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to the civil power." Art. VIII, § 20.
[Self-defense right protected, Arnold v. Cleveland, 616 N.E.2d 163, 169 (Ohio 1993).]
Oklahoma: The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons. Art. II, § 26 (enacted 1907).
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Oregon: The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.] Art. I, § 27 (enacted 1857, art. I, § 28).
[Self-defense right protected, State v. Hirsch, 114 P.3d 1104, 1110 (Ore. 2005).]
Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21).
1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII.
[Self-defense right protected, Sayres v. Commonwealth, 88 Pa. 291 (1879).]
Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Art. I, § 22 (enacted 1842).
[Self-defense right protected, Mosby v. Devine, 851 A.2d 1031, 1043 (R.I. 2004).]
South Carolina: 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. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it. Art. 1, § 20 (enacted 1895).
1868: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence. As, in times of peace . . . ." Art. I, § 28.
[Right treated as an individual right, apparently aimed at least partly at self-defense,
South Dakota: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied. Art. VI, § 24 (enacted 1889).
[Self-defense right protected, Conaty v. Solem, 422 N.W.2d 102, 104 (S.D. 1988).]
Tennessee: That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime. Art. I, § 26 (enacted 1870).
1796: "That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." Art. XI, § 26.
1834: "That the free white men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." Art. I, § 26.
[Self-defense right protected, State v. Foutch, 34 S.W. 1, 1 (Tenn. 1896).]
Texas: Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime. Art. I, § 23 (enacted 1876).
1836: "Every citizen shall have the right to bear arms in defence of himself and the republic. The military shall at all times and in all cases be subordinate to the civil power." Declaration of Rights, cl. 14.
1845: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in lawful defence of himself or the State." Art. I, § 13.
1868: "Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defence of himself or the State, under such regulations as the legislature may prescribe." Art. I, § 13.
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Utah: The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the legislature from defining the lawful use of arms. Art. I, § 6 (enacted 1984).
1896: "The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but the legislature may regulate the exercise of this right by law."
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15).
[Self-defense right protected, State v. Rosenthal, 55 A. 610 (Vt. 1903).]
Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Art. I, § 13 (enacted 1776 without explicit right to keep and bear arms; "therefore, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" added in 1971).
[No decision about whether self-defense right right is protected. Compare 1993 Va. Op. Atty. Gen. 13 (construing the right as collective) with 2006 WL 304006 (Va. Op. Atty. Gen.) (construing the right as individual).]
Washington: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men. Art. I, § 24 (enacted 1889).
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
West Virginia: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use. Art. III, § 22 (enacted 1986).
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Wisconsin: The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose. Art. I, § 25 (enacted 1998).
[Self-defense right protected, State v. Fisher, 714 N.W.2d 495 (Wisc. 2006).]
Wyoming: The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied. Art. I, § 24 (enacted 1889).
[Self-defense right protected, State v. McAdams, 714 P.2d 1236, 1238 (Wyo. 1986).]
|
|
