I full shot heard around the USA for Second Amendment rights.

At least gun owners will be required to register their weapons. I'm sure that the guys shooting people in Trinidad will be sure to comply with that as quickly as possible.

Now that DC is expected to abide by this part of the U.S. constitution, as interpreted by the supreme court, perhaps someone will consider allowing the residents to be represented in Congress?

About time....I'll be packing this afternoon and ready for action

Congratulations, NRA. Now DC criminals can have something else to break into peoples' houses to steal: handguns.

Now that the Supreme Court has affirmed the right of District residents to own firearms, perhaps they can do something about our lack of voting representation in Congress? Or are some rights more important than others?

I know obscenity when I see it, and the court's decision in this case is obscene.

I wonder which emotive Leftist poster will be first to use the moronic "Wild West" analogy?

How could four Justices vote that you have no right to protect your home. The right to self-defense is immutable.

Typical. The Second Amendment is upheld by the Supreme Court yet D.C. officials will do their best to institute a de facto ban. Hopefully all the unreasonable infringements outlined in this article will be struck down as well.

Wow,

As a 20 DC resident, this is something.

As a resident of the District of Columbia. I am glad the Supreme Court overruled the D.C. hand gun ban. The 30 year handgun ban hadn't worked, because hoodlums, savages, thugs, and criminals were still able to get their hands on guns and were packing on the streets of the District of Columbia. The Metropolitan Police Department didn't protect the citizens of the District of Columbia. Myself and other law abiding citizens were helpless on not being able to own a handgun.

Thank you Supreme Court for ruling on this most important issue in the District of Columbia in years. To all the hoodlums, thugs, savages, and criminals out there. I will be one of the first to apply for a handgun for my home. Don't even think about breaking into my home, because I now too will be packing like you. LOL LOL

Rufus, I think you're projecting. You in fact were the first to mention the Wild West. Congratulations for bringing up the very thing you didn't want anyone to say. You're a smart one.

like homey cares one way or the other

A very sad and extremely PATHETIC day in Washington, DC. Well, once again, this is what this country had coming when they allowed G.W. "DUMBA$#" Bush and his band of IDIOTS to steal two elections and take over the country. DEAL WITH IT PEOPLE...BEND ON OVER AND TAKE IT LIKE CHAMPS...HAHAHAHAHA...AMERIKKKA IS SUCH A FUNNY COUNTRY...HAHAHAHA!!!

Wow,

As a 20 DC resident, this is something.

Rufus, we didn't have to. You did it for us

So guns are legal to have and hold and whatever whackjobs do with them. Bullets however, are not protected by the Constitution.

Not sure why we need guns for hunting in DC. And if we need them for self-defense, that makes it clear that the police can't protect us and we're all supposed to become vigilantes. That's great. I'm moving to Montana.

Always funny when morons like Rufus can't think of anything original to say, so they try to guess what others will say.

The problem with the ban was that it didnt stop criminals from using handguns. In 1976 there were 135 handgun murders in DC. In 2007, there were 143. It's good that law-abiding citizens can defend their homes. And I am not a gun nut. I agree with registration and banning assault rifles and such. But in this city, criminals shouldnt be the only ones getting handguns.

Lock and load baby!!!!!! Time to go hunting..

Now, will the gun nuts be slapping each other on the back when DC's murder figures rise?

Most likely not. The will of the majority means nothing compared to most gun nuts' feelings of inadequacy. Now they can flout the will of the majority of the city of Washington, DC and have their replacements for what Mother Nature didn't provide them.

But every dead kid from a stray bullet has those folks to thank from now on.

Sorry liberals but the Second Amendment actually means what it says. The RIGHT of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

SAVAGES????

I GUESS YOU REDNECKS WILL BE PARADING AROUND DUPONT CIRCLE WAVING THE CONFEDERATE FLAGS WEARING THE LATEST IN CAMO PRINT PUMPS NOW HUH?

Now that DC has finally been TOLD it must abide by the US Constitution, we can let you have representation in Congress. Funny how that works!

Battery Kemble Park should be a great hunting ground for all them deer out there!

"Among the likely regulations: Gun owners would have to be 18 or older and could not have been convicted of a felony or any weapon-related charge or have been in a mental hospital for the past five years. Registrants also will be finger-printed and required to pass a written test to be sure they understand the city's gun laws, Nickles said.

At least initially, he added, residents would be limited to one handgun apiece."

CAN ANYBODY SAY DISCRIMINATORY POLL TAX?

Get ready for a crime spree. We all know it's coming. Thanks NRA members! Can I come hang out at your place in McLean when my neighborhood gets too dangerous?

Jarob,

Actually, from what I understand, 'arms' is inclusive of ammunition

it's about time. since criminals and the cops (some of them are criminals) are carrying guns, it's about time I'm able to also.

CWK said:
Congratulations, NRA. Now DC criminals can have something else to break into peoples' houses to steal: handguns.

cwk, now those criminals have something to worry about when breaking into that home.

I wonder which right-wing nut job will be first to be a little bit*h.

Posted by: Dan | June 26, 2008 10:38 AM

Pussy

F you Joey five cent Nickles!

Well, we all knew this was going to happen anyway. Afterall, when the constitution was written everybody owned a gun to protect themselves and eat. Now it looks like DC will have to make a better effort at increasing it's police force and coming up with more rational and effective laws surrounding guns and youth conviction.

Another DC Voter: Your appeals court already said the police have no responsibility to protect you from criminals. See Warren v DC 1980-81. So, I'm not sure why you think they are protecting you.

Fenty - STFU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not into guns, that's my disclaimer. But, the ban went against the Constitution, even I could understand that. While I would prefer there be NO guns, I feel more strongly that the Constitution be honored and respected. I am pleased that all gun owners will be required to register their guns.

That being said, the criminals, of which there are almost as many as there are law-abiding citizens, will continue to not follow the laws and use guns for acts that would make the Founding Fathers cringe.

I'm fine with the guns. I'd rather have them than the criminals. Let's get rid of the criminals. Drive them out of our city. And, I don't give a damn where they go or what they do as long as they can no longer commit crimes and run ragged over the rest of us.

Get ready for a crime spree. We all know it's coming. Thanks NRA members! Can I come hang out at your place in McLean when my neighborhood gets too dangerous?

Posted by: WardOneDC | June 26, 2008 10:38 AM

Get ready? DC has been in a crime spree since 1968 you idiot. I guess you forgot about all the black on black crime with GUNS that has claimed over 10,000 lives.

Retard.

Let the rampage begin!!! Walmart here I come!!!
All jokes aside, this is a historic ruling. Good or bad, "normal" citizens who are not law enforcement should have the right to the defend themselves. I await how the courts will hash out the legal wording in this new ruling.

If you criminalize handguns, the only people able to buy guns will be criminals.

This ruling is a great step forward for civil rights and for self-defense for the people of Washington, DC. They will be able to feel safe in their homes.

As far as representation in Congress, the founding fathers said only a state may have representation in Congress. When DC becomes a state, then I shall be completely for them having representation. Otherwise, DC is analogous to Puerto Rico as far as their rights go - it's just a territory. If DC got representation, then ALL of our territories would have to get representation, as well.

Now that the court has ruled that the DC ban on guns was unconstitutional, city leaders will have to focus on the real problem, which is black-on-black crime, drugs, and gangs. The guns are not the problem, but DC's black culture needs to become civilized.

Now I'm OK with moving back into the city - freedom for my people.

"Now that DC is expected to abide by this part of the U.S. constitution, as interpreted by the supreme court, perhaps someone will consider allowing the residents to be represented in Congress?"

?????

The DC residents are the idiots that made gun laws that are constitutional.

They can't be trusted with constitutional rights. We can't trust them with a Congressional vote either.

They can always merge back with Maryland.

Welcome to the Wild Wild West! Yeh baby!
Slam me back one bartender and send over Miss Kitty.

Personally, I prefer a shotgun to a handgun for home protection. Handguns are just easier for criminals to conceal and take their victims by surprise. There's nothing like catching a burglar in your living room in the middle of the night, though, pumping your shotgun, and yelling, "Surprise, fool!"

"...required to pass a written test to be sure they understand the city's gun laws."

A ban is still possible:

If you can't read or write, you can't take the test and therefore cannot have a handgun.

You didn't get 100% on the written test? You can have a handgun.

Is this like having to take a test to vote (which is also an individual right) which has been found to be unconstitutional.

I waited over 30 years for this. Now, all my guns are legal!!! Go screw yourselves Nickles, Lanier and Fenty

El Rico, I said "spree." You would have understood my post if you weren't a retard and knew that the definition of "spree" is "a period or outburst of extreme activity." Extreme, as in not the norm. We have had a sustained level of crime in the District and now will have a spree. Retard.

Oops, typo's:

"...required to pass a written test to be sure they understand the city's gun laws."

A ban is still possible:

- If you can't read or write, you can't take the test and therefore cannot have a handgun.

- You didn't get 100% on the written test? You can't have a handgun.

This like having to take a test to vote (which is also an individual right) which has been found to be unconstitutional.

The problem with the ban was that it didnt stop criminals from using handguns. In 1976 there were 135 handgun murders in DC. In 2007, there were 143. It's good that law-abiding citizens can defend their homes. And I am not a gun nut. I agree with registration and banning assault rifles and such. But in this city, criminals shouldnt be the only ones getting handguns.

Posted by: Mike | June 26, 2008 10:35 AM
_____________________________

Because idiot VA laws allow anyone to get rifles at gun shows.

As a resident of the DC Metro area I've always been wary of venturing about the city at night. I'll let out a cheer the first time some nefarious criminal is stopped in their tracks by a gun-welding, freedom loving, and recently liberated law-abiding citizen. I see DC's crime problem improving a bit.

This just in from the decision.

"The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment."

Guess I can unlock the shotguns now.

Soon the Post will carry stories like this -- "Three black male teenagers got the surprise of their short lives when the white man they were trying to mug pulled out a gun and shot them dead. He claimed self-defense."

WardOneDC, we are already in an ongoing crime spree that just never seems to stop! The criminals almost outnumber the law-abiding citizens. Children are armed and shooting! I'm not into guns, but I also do not think this will cause an increase in crime. Until the criminals are BANNED, we will still be a city under seige.

Now I'm OK with moving back into the city - freedom for my people.

Posted by: ArlingtonMan | June 26, 2008 10:42 AM

------------

Come on home my brethren!

John Smallberries
DC Council AT LARGE Candidate

A great day for America!

A handgun is a terrible choice for in-home self-defense. A bullet from even a .22 pistol can easily penetrate drywall and travel from one room to another, inadvertently killing a family member. If you really want to protect yourself, get a .410 pistol, or a small-gauge shotgun and load it with bird shot. That would disable or kill an intruder in the same room with you, while reducing the likelyhood of killing an innocent person elsewhere in your home.

I'm just curious about why Scalia failed to employ stirring rationale of a couple of weeks ago re: Gitmo: this will undoubtedly lead to the deaths of thousands of Americans. Funny how those who base their rulings on ideology rather than law can so conveniently forget their erstwhile reasonings. Scalia is no jurist: he should be impeached.

If this is all about 2nd Amendment freedom, why shouldn't I be able to have semi-automatic weapons, hand grenades, bombs, and tanks stored in my garage? What is it about the handgun that makes it protected by the constitution when these other things aren't? This is just an arbitrary line, not a law of nature. And it won't do anything to solve the real problem

Now that DC is expected to abide by this part of the U.S. constitution, as interpreted by the supreme court, perhaps someone will consider allowing the residents to be represented in Congress?

Posted by: Deaniac | June 26, 2008 10:30 AM

-------------------------------------------
What a novel idea! So much for the 14th Amendment.

Does this mean that if I have a gun already registered in another state, it is considered registered in DC (full faith and credit?) And since a car is considered an extension of the home; can I carry that gun in my car? Can I do this today?

Sorry liberals but the Second Amendment actually means what it says. The RIGHT of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Posted by: oldno7 | June 26, 2008 10:37 AM

oldno7: you need to read the Constitution. That's not what the 2nd Amendment says.

Wow. The anti-gun crowd simply is immune to facts. Emotion trumps thinking for them. Fact: Gun bans do absolutely, positively nothing to stop gun violence because -- surprise! -- criminals do not obey the law. Fact: Communities with the highest rates of private gun ownership have the lowest rates of gun crimes. Of course, there is an old saying: "My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with the facts." What fools you people are!

There is no way a limit of one handgun, prohibition on semiautos, or requirement that the gun be unloaded would pass muster based on the Supreme Court decision. These are just another form of defacto bans.

Hey, oldno7 -- which militia do you belong to?

So, in the eyes of this court, a wild-eyed gang of crackheads constitutes "a well-regulated militia." Nicely done.

Time to buy stock in Kevlar and coffin companies.

Its a great Day in the U.S. of A.

DC still wants to make waves to slap the Supreme Court in the face.

No where in the US should should there be limit on the right to own guns. I even favor having all citizens wear a sidearm in public, as opposed to concealed weapons.

As a resident of the District of Columbia. I am glad the Supreme Court overruled the D.C. hand gun ban. The 30 year handgun ban hadn't worked, because hoodlums, savages, thugs, and criminals were still able to get their hands on guns and were packing on the streets of the District of Columbia. The Metropolitan Police Department didn't protect the citizens of the District of Columbia. Myself and other law abiding citizens were helpless on not being able to own a handgun.

Thank you Supreme Court for ruling on this most important issue in the District of Columbia in years. To all the hoodlums, thugs, savages, and criminals out there. I will be one of the first to apply for a handgun for my home. Don't even think about breaking into my home, because I now too will be packing like you. LOL LOL

What I find funny is that conservatives love to have their second amendment rights, but have no problem giving up their freedom of speech? What am I missing here? Have your guns, what do I care?

I have been inspired. Government does work!!!

Just a tidbit of info:

Vermont has the fewest gun laws in the country, and also has one of the lowest crime rates.

There is no place I would feel safer at night than Vermont, knowing that absolutely everyone there is packing heat.

Smallberries is rejoicing with his fellow DC citizens!!

Yes, we should elect people whose representation and leadership is not STUPID,

ELECT SMALLBERRIES, who at this moment is throwing way all trigger locks and loading his long guns!

El Rico, I said "spree." You would have understood my post if you weren't a retard and knew that the definition of "spree" is "a period or outburst of extreme activity." Extreme, as in not the norm. We have had a sustained level of crime in the District and now will have a spree. Retard.

Posted by: WardOneDc | June 26, 2008 10:44 AM

Loser Islam El-Obama supporter that you are, you just don't understand time relativity. The crime spree that started in 1968 never stopped.

Retard cokc chugger terrorist muslim lover.

Rufus,

I'm anything but a "leftie." We've been under siege in DC for years. It's already the Wild, Wild West...right in our nation's capital!

I say ban the hootapops.

like so many NRA types oldno7 conveniently ignores the rest of the 2nd amendment, namely, the part about a "well-regulated militia being necessary..." or does he plan to go out and organize one with all the folks who'll be buying guns?

WardOneDc - Are you sure that a sustained high level of crime isn't the same as a long-term spree? Sure, it isn't as bad as the late 80s, early 90s, but it still is much higher than should be accepted. Maybe as an incentive for District home sales, on top of tax incentives, Fenty can offer a .45 and gun training to each new homebuyer?

DC At Large, Duane, and the anonymous loser can now see that Mike was the first emotive Leftist poster to invoke the moronic "Wild West" analogy.

Leftists are such non-thinkers that you can always tell what they are going to do.

Well, you lost this one and the people have won!

First people, DC is not a state and the constitution makes it VERY clear that only states may have representation in the Congress of the United States. DC is a Federal Territory (District) and as such it is by the grace of Democrats that DC residents are even ALLOWED to vote for the President of the United States. You knew this when you moved here. Stop the bellyaching immediately!
Second, guns have been in DC for years. The ruling by the Supreme Court doesn't as much impact DC as it does nationwide the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Finally we are getting the 2nd Amendment interpreted by the only people legally qualified to do so ... The Supreme Court!

@ Iraq Vet

As a moderate, I'll have my cake and eat it to.

I want gun rights AND free speech.

Finally, people other than Marion Barry supporters will have guns.

To read some of these posts you would think that DC was the Wild West (thank you Rufus). A simple google search shows that according to FBI statistics, Washington rates number 18 in violent crime for cities with populations of 100,000 or more. Of course, no one wants to live in the 18th most violent city, but you could do worse by living in Flint, St. Louis, Detroit, Memphis, Orlando, Oakland, Miami Gardens, Little Rock, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Cleveland, Nashville, Miami, St. Petersburg, Stockton, or Springfield (not the Springfield of Simpson's fame).

"Get ready? DC has been in a crime spree since 1968 you idiot. I guess you forgot about all the black on black crime with GUNS that has claimed over 10,000 lives."

Amen, El Rico!

DCVoter,
Read the relevant part of the Constitution below. DC is not a state. Voting representation is clearly unconstitutional for DC.

Now that the Supreme Court has affirmed the right of District residents to own firearms, perhaps they can do something about our lack of voting representation in Congress? Or are some rights more important than others?

Posted by: DCVoter | June 26, 2008 10:31 AM

Article I, Section 2 states that "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States . . . ." It also says that "No person shall be a Representative who shall not . . . be an Inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen" and that "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union . . . ." The same section guarantees that ". . . each State shall have at least one Representative . . ." and provides that "When vacancies happen in the representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies."

If you take this illogical to its own end, no need for self-defense in 'sensitive' areas?

I can now own an handgun in my D.C. home. Hurray!!!!

The Metropolitan Police Department did a terrible job in protecting the residents of D.C. and Fenty and the spineless D.C. Council wanted to take our rights away to own a handgun. Shame on you!!!!

To Chris who wrote that DC should not have representation in Congress since we are not a state...
Would you then favor the correct implementation of the Constitution's 16th Amendment. It allows income taxes to be levied only in the States....DC is not mentioned!!
By the way, Congress has the supreme authority vested by the same Constitution over the District of Columbia, therefore it can grant us a seat in the House.

To Chris who wrote that DC should not have representation in Congress since we are not a state...
Would you then favor the correct implementation of the Constitution's 16th Amendment. It allows income taxes to be levied only in the States....DC is not mentioned!!
By the way, Congress has the supreme authority vested by the same Constitution over the District of Columbia, therefore it can grant us a seat in the House.

Yeah, everybody register your guns.

The same thing Hitler did in the 30's.

Then he sent his goons door-to-door get them; sometimes the gun owners were allowed to live when they left.

To all you anti-gunners I say boo hoo. Im sure you would feel differently If someone broke into your house, tied you up and raped your wife while you watched. Every law abiding citizen in America should be armed. And not just in the home. A car jacker would think twice if he had a gun pointed at his head. Good job NRA.

First of all, I do not own a gun.I think if you study statistics, there are just as many murders in DC now as when handguns were legal. The ban has not worked, and it is better for a citizen to choose whether or not to own one. Why does the city feel the need to have gun registration and limit you to one gun? You should have to have a license to own one, but why have to register it? The criminals will not register their guns, will they? City officials should abide by the Constitution which states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." What part of "infringed" don't they understand?

Libscums lose another one.

Fantastic! 90 degree weather, tempers on the rise, and everyone in the District has access to a hand gun, including school kids.

This proves once and for all that 5 out of the 9 Supreme Court justices are too senile to correctly interpret the Second Amendment, which states that one has the right to bear arms when SERVING IN A MILITIA! That means unless you've enlisted in the National Guard, you DO NOT have the right to carry a gun.

El Rico - Wow! If ignorance is bliss...you must be one happy person!

James H,
Let's see if the District's murder figures actually do rise. Also, a clear majority of the criminals that are carrying weapons in the District are convicted felons, previoulsy charged, etc... The laws on the books favor them and they know it - this is why you live in one of the most violent cities in America.
Regarding the stray bullet - you and I as residents are responsible for the rapes, the murders, and the "on target" bullets that have killed DC kids until now. As a DC resident, take some responsiblity for the current crime ridden situation you allowed... These innocent dead children don't excuse our pacifism over the District's violent situation...

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, free at last!

@ DC John

Congress also has the power to grant you statehood if you apply for it.

Like Puerto Rico, DC has chosen to eschew being a state.

As far as the 16th amendment, will you please quote to me the relevant text? I'd like to know whether it says "in the United States" - meaning the country and its territories - or whether it specifically says only States.

So does anyone know how much taxpayer money the DC Govt used on lawyers only to lose in the end?

Thank you Supreme Court. Clearly, the Founding Fathers granted us the right to bear arms. One thing for sure: crime in DC is going down.

Does anybody really believe that the previous gun ban has done anything to help gun violence in DC over the years? Does anybody really think that criminals will more easily get their hands on guns to commit offenses with the ban removed? I mean they already have an easy time obtaining guns illegally! DC Residents have a Constitutional right to purchase and own a gun, just like a citizen in any other city in this country. If you look at National Statistics, DC has just as high if not higher gun violence compared to other major metropolitan cities now, with the gun ban in place. Face it people, the gun ban did not work. What DC needs is to replace this destructive ignorant black thug culture. Kids need a father and a mother, not a baby-daddy and a baby-mama!

This has nothing to do with whether or not a gun ban is effective.

It has to do with whether or not the Constitution grants the Government the authority to ban guns. I agree that the Constitution clearly does not give the Government that authority.

That does not mean that We The People, can not amend the constitution to give the Government that authority. It only means that as currently written, We The People have not given the Government that authority.

Those who feel that a gun ban is a net positive idea, should draft an amendment to the Constitution and pressure their legislators (both State and Federal) to pass it.

Allowing the Government to garner powers and authority not granted by the Constitution is dangerous, regardless if that power is "good" or not.

That leads to unnecessary wars and USA PATRIOT Act's.

The DC Attorney General should go back to school.

DC can not enforce laws or regulations that are not on the books yet. Nor can he delay a decision by the Supreme Court to its own ends.

DC Residents right now can legally own guns (not just one). They do not have to wait for new regulations. They do not have to turn themselves in for an Amnesty when the law governing this has been declared moot.

This is DC Government propaganda and not law.

The national guard is hardly a militia.

A militia would be if say, the government got out of hand and so the population of a region took up arms to overthrow the government - a right that this country was founded on.

We wouldn't be able to do this without arms. The militia would regulate itself. How? Because any real ex or current military members in it would take charge of it and regulate it - it's in their training to be able to take command if there is no one else to.

What a pity that the Supreme Court would strike down a law that has, for 30 years, guaranteed the absolute safety of every resident of DC and has been instrumental in making DC the safest city in the United States, if not the world.

The utopian dream is over, and crime shall soon swamp our fair and swampy city.

Rat, the NRA was no help with this case! Thank god for Mr. Levy!

What's the over/under on how much crime will decline? I'll put the opening line at a 1/3 drop, at least.

"Nickles said, the mayor's office likely would propose new legislation to the D.C. Council that would require that guns remain unloaded in the home except in the case of self-defense.

Handguns would only be allowed in the home, Nickles added, with residents banned from carrying them on the streets or into other buildings."

This is going back to the Supreme Court in 3...2....1....

"For those folks who already own guns--against current law--Nickles said the city would offer an amnesty program in which they could come forward and register the gun, assuming it had not been used in a crime."

Umm, yeah? You can't exactly prosecute someone under a law that was ruled Unconstitutional.

A great day for the Constitution and the rights of citizens. Maybe a light will come on in the brains of the reality-impaired.

And Chris, you are an ignoramus!

DC will have representation. This case helps open that door.

"Posted by: Mugger's Worst Nightmare

Soon the Post will carry stories like this -- "Three black male teenagers got the surprise of their short lives when the white man they were trying to mug pulled out a gun and shot them dead. He claimed self-defense."

You have to be kidding me!!! The post will never publish that as it would disagree with their policy of publishing a truth that disagrees with their politics.

@ Mike

Did you not see the statistic that DC has the 18th highest crime rate in the USA? How is that the safest?

I hope your post was satire.

The facist four plus one have done an exceptional job - proving the rule that they are otherwise normally subversive to the intent of supreme law. I suppose the normally reasonable fair four must be being contrary as an exception to their rule as well.

if the Second 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.".
Then when, 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 betrayed a blind spot he should get corrected...
He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

the Framers MADE a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials - "...the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

I really think government has a problem with understanding that "Shall not" is "evidence" of some sort of "limit"

(Not to mention that government seems to confuse corporations for PEOPLE sometimes - but does NOT give any person the equal protection of the laws when compared to the protections corporations or corporate executives have...)

This idiot! DC's black culture? No its America's problem, racism. Your remarks wreak of ignorance like the utterances of one who promised to "Change the hearts and minds of Iraqis". I don't know what your background is but you can READ about violence everywhere not just DC.

Now that the court has ruled that the DC ban on guns was unconstitutional, city leaders will have to focus on the real problem, which is black-on-black crime, drugs, and gangs. The guns are not the problem, but DC's black culture needs to become civilized.

Posted by: Now Focus on the Real Problem in DC | June 26, 2008 10:41 AM

Go to hell Nickles!

Good point, anonymous poster at 11:03 AM!

Whatever the merits of the policy debate, this opinion by Scalia is one of his worst. He says that the part about a "well-regulated militia" is merely a preamble, and the "right to bear arms" is the operative part.

Okay. But surely the former bears upon the latter. Say for example that my Home Association documents said that "Because the community currently is in an unincorporated part of the county, the Association shall levy its members $100 a month for improvements." A few years later, we are incorporated into the county, which then takes over the responsibility for improvements (road maintenance, etc.)

It seems clear to me that the result should be that the Home Association should then cease charging me $100 per month, since the condition for the charge has ceased to exist. And so it is with the right to bear arms. Since we now have a standing army, there is no longer a need for a militia and, consequently, no constitutional right to bear arms. That does not mean the states cannot confer that right -- they can. It just means the right does not derive from the Constitution.

Talk about your activist judges!!!

Does this include assault weapons such as fully auto machine guns? How about grenade launchers, bazookas and surface to surface missles?

Anyone for a pool on when the first kid shoots himself after getting his hands on Daddy's legal Glock?

"SensibleDCer",

I was born in DC. I didn't move here.

Why don't i deserve the same rights as all my fellow citizens of the United States. I pay my federal taxes, i serve in the federal military....why can't I have representation?

@johng1

DC will have representation the day it becomes a state.

As far as I know, there is nothing keeping it from becoming a state except the will of its populace.

Fantastic! 90 degree weather, tempers on the rise, and everyone in the District of Columbia has access to a hand gun, including school kids.

This proves once and for all that 5 out of the 9 Supreme Court justices are too senile to correctly interpret the Second Amendment, which states that one has the right to bear arms when SERVING IN A MILITIA! That means unless you've enlisted in the National Guard, you DO NOT have the right to carry a gun.

Exactly. You should be able to walk into a DC police station today and license a handgun you legally bought. The laws are still on the books requiring registration, but the DC Government is REQUIRED to issue you a license and register your firearm under the current DC law.

What does registration do? A gun is not like a car. A policeman can trace a car leaving the scene of a crime from it's license plate but the serial number of a handgun is not visable if someone still has it in their possession. The criminals in DC that are responsible for shootings are not going to register their handguns and even if they did, they don't leave them at the scene of shooting.

I'm a liberal leaning independant, but this is where I have to part ways with the simple minded liberals that think that if you get rid of guns you get rid of peoples ability to commit crime and kill their fellow man. The right to own and bear arms is vital to the survival of our democracy. Not to protect it from invading armies, but to protect it from those that would errode and destroy it from within. The current administration has illustrated clearly, the need for a mechanism to get rid of a non representative government. The founding fathers knew that, over time, all government becomes corrupt, and ends up servicing it's own agenda, at the expense of the people they are supposed to represent. The constitution says that it is not only our right, but our duty to get rid of a government that fails to represent the will of the people, like the one we have now, and elect a new representative government. The right to own guns is the mechanism they gave us to accomplish that right and duty. The supreme court decided, not only for DC, but for the entire country, that it is indeed our right to have the ability to protect ourselvs, not only against the individual that would do us harm, but against a government that would attempt to take away our constitutional rights. We have seen the beginnings of it with the Bush administration, and this ruling sends a signal to the government that they best not go too far, or we may have a 2nd ammendment million man march.

After I saw what happened during Katrina I went out and got a couple of guns, I resided in MD. If any type of disaster hits the Wash. DC area we're on our own. This is a right every American has, the right to bear arms! Break in my home I'm blowing you away!

@ ogenec

What makes a "militia"?

An organized and armed group of civilians.

A militia cannot exist if their right to bear arms is taken away from them.

This decision really puts a nail in the coffin for all you anti-gun, anti-liberty, pro government hacks out there. THE SUPREME COURT MADE A DECISION AND GUESS WHAT...

the phrase a "well-regulated militia" DID NOT EXCLUDE ones INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO KEEP AN BEAR ARMS

SO STOP all this "you aren't in a militia" (said with a whiny voice) BECAUSE EVIDENTLY as THE LAW IS READ IN THIS COUNTRY you are INCORRECT.

CASE CLOSED

Register your firearms? Those too young to remember need to study the history of Nazi Germany and what happened to those who were foolish enough to comply.

Now that you are able to protect yourselves in your homes... How are you simply going to protect yorself on the street, where the many senless deaths and mass murders occur...

Let wait and see how many are actually going to abide by the new ruling, MD & VA will continue to barter GUNS into you community (city) and all you can do is simply sit in the confines of your homes and join the many others that are simply hostages in their neighborhoods...

Their are laws that protect those criminals who barter guns and those that get them illegally tp prey on victims with those bartered weapons... And if you think of putting a shooting range in my community, you better think twice...

Those that have already been victimized will now be able to have weapons to protect themselves as well.

There should be no discrimination as to where you live, if you are a DC resident there will be many lobbyist making sure that you have access to a gun in your home.

The criminals will continue to get them and will not even think about coming in your homes, they will continue to shoot you on the STREET and the sad part is you can not defend yourself...

Quite a collection of big brains here today.

Muggers' Worst Nightmare -- and his friend Bill Smith -- might be leading the way, but the posters analogizing to Nazi Germany are not far behind.

I think that each person that doesn't accept parts of the constitution that doesn't apply to their own personal belief structure needs to have a part of it (the constitution) that does restricted for a while...

I hate people that have such a narrow view of the world that they can only take it in the most narrow minded manner-- their own. Good luck with evolution if you can't see another person's point of view.

It must be nice to so easily label someone as a GW Bush clone or evil Republican just because they disagree with your feelings....

Good luck DC.

Just remember, Obama's one vote away from overturning this and confiscating all weapons -- the first step in building his socialist utopia.

Let them eat lead.

@Chris

This is where we get into the weeds. Whatever a militia is, can we agree that it is the opposite of a standing army? If you look at the history of the clause, the Framers were suspicious of standing armies (given their anti-colonial roots, that's hardly surprising).

Now that we have a professional army, however, there is absolutely no need for a militia. None whatsover. When that condition went away, so did the associated constitutional right.

Again, I am not saying there should not be a right to have guns. I'm saying it's an issue for the states, not the Constitution. And that fact that I, a moderate, have to point this out to the conservatives on the court is really scary.

"As a resident of the District of Columbia. I am glad the Supreme Court overruled the D.C. hand gun ban. The 30 year handgun ban hadn't worked, because hoodlums, savages, thugs, and criminals were still able to get their hands on guns and were packing on the streets of the District of Columbia. The Metropolitan Police Department didn't protect the citizens of the District of Columbia. Myself and other law abiding citizens were helpless on not being able to own a handgun"

__________________________________________

You could not be further out of touch with reality. The police will now be denied the right to arrest a criminal for possession of a handgun on the street. Before today that law allowed to take hoodlums off the street as well as one more gun at a time. Now the simple possession of a gun will not be against the law by you or by someone who is planning to do a drive-by shooting.

You were not helpless. Can you honestly articulate ONE instance where a law abiding citizen was denied the right to protect himself or his home with a handgun? I doubt it.

Statistics (not the NRA's stats) show that thousands of people are killed every year by people who mistakenly kill their neighbors, family members, children who find their parents guns, or other mishaps around the house. The cases where a homeowner truly protects himself with a gun are very, very few.

SAD...VERY SAD! The fact that statistics show that the number of gun-related crimes rose slightly during the years since the gun ban ignores the likelihood that an unknown number of gun-related crimes, deaths, kids accidentally shooting each other, etc were prevented by the gun ban - it is difficult to prove a negative. However, if statistics are your bag, "Google" the international statistics regarding gun-related deaths, which show that the USA HAS A RATE OF GUN-RELATED DEATHS THAT IS DOUBLE ANY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.

I say it is time to AMEND THE CONSTITUTION to REPLACE THE 2nd AMENDMENT with a clear, rational, national regulation of all guns and ammunition in the USA. Guns don't kill people...bullets do." BAN BULLETS - VOTE DEMOCRAT.

Chris, DC did try to gain statehood, I believe in the 70's. The constitutional amendment failed to be ratified by the requited number of states.

This will change, just as today's gun ruling restored our rights.

One more point. I don't think the "we ARE TOO a militia!!!" folks really want to make that argument. Because if you are correct, the Constitution says you have to be "well-regulated."

Rufus

Us lefties have guns too. The bullet has no political preference.

Outstanding..but only one gun!!!!!!!
Back to the courts....how about the collector and/or the hunter? One gun does not fit all situations.

The Constitution was upheld no matter what people on here think. People really need to understand the constitution before they actually open their mouths on the subject.

To the people who through insults...it takes away from your argument and it is poor debating for it shows you do not have a coherent argument to make.

I applaud SCOTUS on this decision for it was the right ruling.

@ ogenec

Yes - we definitely agree that the militia is the opposite of a standing army.

However, when the government becomes oppressive and the citizens need to take up arms against their army (as we did against Britain over 200 years ago), the citizens will need to form a militia and take up arms.

Watch out darkies, if you try mug law abiding citizens your going to get shot back. In fact tonite, I am going to wear my rolex watch and be sitting in my living room waiting for you with the safety off.

"Make my day, punk!" -- Clint Eastwood

This SCOTUS decision has been long overdue and it is time to place power into the hands of law-abiding citizens. The D.C. Council and Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton have stood in the way of common sense for too long. Criminals don't give an arse about laws; they still obtain and use weapons for their illegal purposes. One month from now, I will be registering my Beretta 92S that I will purchase in D.C.!

Why are you guys arguing about Militias? While I have not read the opinion, it appears that that issue was interpreted as a separate reason for the right.

So what exactly are you trying to say? That the law-abiding residents of the District are suddenly going to go running into the streets to shoot folks now? (Laughs hysterically) And as for the shooting range comment, you're obviously deluded if you think valuable land inside of the district could ever be used cost-effectively as a gun range, that's ludicrous. Gun ranges are a type of development usually only feasible in low-density rural areas. Unless of course the District's residents demand a crud load of practice after being suppressed for so many years ;-)

All the gun-control nuts claimed Florida would become the Wild,Wild West when they changed the law for self defense some years ago. To their dismay there has been no rise in street killings that in any way related to the current law. Law-abiding citizens don't kill people indiscriminately. Criminals do and they could care less about your gun laws.

@ Joseph Bleaux

No citizen who truly believes in this country should ever consider overturning any of the Bill of Rights.

If you overturn even one of the first ten amendments, you open all ten of them up to being unnecessary.

Our Founding Fathers included those ten amendments to our Constitution as basic human rights, and they need to be treated as such.

Well, if owning guns enhanced safety, then the U.S. should be the safest country in the industrialized world, shouldn't it?

an unloaded gun is classified as a paperweight and worthless.

I challenge anyone to defend themselves at 3am with a gun that has a trigger lock or is unloaded.

"Hold on Mr. Killer.... Let me load the clip and unlock the gun so I can shoot you...

Wait..... Where are you going? Come back here!... Where is my bat....
"

Yay! The city should arm every woman and train them how to shoot to defend themselves.

I can't wait to hear the avalanche of news stories about DC residents that protected themselves against a crime by having their handy dandy hand gun. That's the logic, right? More guns, less crime.

I have trouble understanding why is it that an outdated constitution can't be updated... the Framers did it for their social circumstances. I guess you rather argue about the past than prepare a peaceful future for your children. Instead of buying a bun go and buy a book for those marginalized teenagers, maybe you will learn something in the process.

Almost everyone here is in the militia! not that it even matters! Check out the law regarding militias:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia

From Yahoo News:
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."
---------------------------------------
Um, yeah stupid that's exactly what they were aiming for. Not only that, but a well regulated militia at the time consisted of every able-bodied man. Thus there is perhaps a historical argument for keeping guns away from women but certainly not from citizens as a group overall. ;)

@ Funny

Civil rights never become outdated - only the lack of them becomes outdated.

The first ten amendments are the basis for civil rights.

Without guns, how will you stand up against a tyrannical government?

I live in a part of the country where many people own firearms. No one is shooting each other, crime is low and accidents are few. If DC is having a gun violence problem, it's not because of firearms, it's due to other factors the city needs to deal with. Patching problems with ineffective feel good laws is a cop out and unfair to the residents of our nation's capital who deserve better.

This ruling is a relief for citizens across the country.

Now DC residents need to be represented. It's appalling and embarassing that they aren't.

To all the people who think this will result in a "crime wave": Want to back that up? Most studies show that in places where people are allowed to own guns, the crime rate involving guns is much LOWER than in places where handguns are outlawed. Criminals don't usually go and bother people who have the ability to defend themselves.

Let's watch the statistics on ALL murders committed with handguns in DC. The great majority of such crimes involve people who know each other, and many of them happen within the home. If there are fewer muggings but more in-home murders (so that the total number of people killed is greater), is that a step forward?

As for the bogus comparisons to Vermont etc. -- the only valid comparisons are ones that look at what happens when gun laws change in a *specific place* -- there are too many other variables otherwise. Does anyone know the data from those cases?

Except for the fact that Stevens is wrong and that the governments can still put restrictions on guns. They just cannot ban them.

Steve if banning guns enhanced safety, DC wouldn't have been the murder capital for so many years and would've even been safe.

--------------
Well, if owning guns enhanced safety, then the U.S. should be the safest country in the industrialized world, shouldn't it?
Steve

To the poster that said get ready for a crime spree.

There has been a crime spree in DC for the last 30 years. Do you really think that continuing a gun bad, will cause the thugs to all of a sudden one day follow the rules and start breaking into peoples houses with stick and stones??? If anything we will see more thugs getting shot as they break into people homes and only then will they have second thoughts since there lives are now in danger.

Ask your self this.

You awake tonight to the sound of broken glass and hear someone approaching your kids room, would you rather reach over and grab a firearm, or a phone to call 911 and wait 60min for metro to arrive?

Bravo US Supreme Court! So now all of us
"Typical Small Town Clinging To Our Guns
And Religion" can keep our firearms ready
to put down the "Typical Marxist Barack
Hussein Obama and Nancy Pelosi Gun Grabber
Bunch Communist Take Over of the USA! So
Thank You US Supreme Court For Protecting
Our Second Amendment Rights,To Own and Bear
Arms! A Great Victory for the US Consitution and the Second Amendment over
Gun Grabbers Obama,Pelosi,Hoyer,Reid and
Howard Dean! Vote Republican and McCain!
NOBAMA!

DC's acting attorney general really doesn't get it, does he? He still thinks he has the right to stop people from owning guns doesn't he?

Like so many arrogant, over-empowered government employees he'll have to be, figuratively speaking, beaten down completely on this issue.

Am I the only person who's concerned that this thread is full of people who viscerally hate the District and everyone in it, and they're all orgasming with glee over this decision?

Folks, you are getting exercised over nothing. The sun will rise tomorrow morning on schedule. Nothing will change. Great now DC people can own guns. Rest assured that the powers that be will regulate you out of "meaningful" ownership. They can still mandate disassembly, locks, limit access to ammunition, all of the above. There will only be more litigation.

I'm somewhat disappointed in the decision. I will say that the decision is the correct one for sure, but I'm disappointed that as a liberal myself, there wasn't a single "liberal" justice in the majority. I am a liberal gun owner. I know that to some that sounds like an oxymoron but I don't believe so. I have a lot of friends who are liberal gun owners. Take a look through these message boards and you can see what a danger some of these rabid right wing fascists are. And many of them are heavily armed.

CRIMINALS BEWARE!! NOW THE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS IN D.C. CAN EVEN THE SCORE ON CRIMINALS, THUGS AND THIEVES!! YOU BEST THINK TWICE WHEN YOU DECIDE TO ATTACK THE OLD AND YOUNG. YOU'LL NEVER KNOW WHO WILL END YOUR REIGN OF TERROR!! GREAT DAY FOR AMERICANS!!

Ward 4 D.C. Resident

What you fail to realize is that having the gun and being able to affectively use it against the so called hoodlums are two different things. If the criminals are not afraid of each other why do you think they will be afraid of you or me? Seeing how often you hear of shootings the so called thugs are a lot more familiar with guns than the rest of us. Now please tell me how this repeal will stop them from killing each other? Thats the problem, not them killing you and me. They know who they are after when they commit murder. Not to mention most DC residence already have handguns anyway. Now they will just get a fine if caught instead of facing jail time. But the flip side is so will the criminals. Now the criminal that already has the assault charge and gun charges will get zero jail time when he is caught again with a firearm on the street. Now that thug who would have went to jail for the next gun change will still be on the street. Thats something to think about. The gun ban with all its flaws did put criminals in jail based on the mandatory sentence.

Personally, I prefer a shotgun to a handgun for home protection. Handguns are just easier for criminals to conceal and take their victims by surprise. There's nothing like catching a burglar in your living room in the middle of the night, though, pumping your shotgun, and yelling, "Surprise, fool!"

Posted by: DC Resident | June 26, 2008 10:42 AM

How many times has this happened to you Mr. Heston? LOL

Seriously though banning handguns completely is ridiculous and over-reaches way too much. If a regular citizen wants one in their home then that's their right. So long as the procedures to acquire a handgun are stringent then it's fair game. Now the NRA nuts are probably going to go nuts on the fact that the registering process is unfair and just too damn difficult, but that's a crock of poo. You have to register to drive a car then it's unimaginable to say that someone should just be handed a gun without review.

I call Godwin Rule on DCVoter, for an unecessary Hitler reference.

TEXAS: They can still mandate disassembly, locks, limit access to ammunition, all of the above. There will only be more litigation.

===========================================

Actually Texas, that's not necessarily true. Read the opinion and you will notice that D.C. cannot stop people from having their guns unlocked for self-defense.

Quote: "One major question, he said, was whether the court would undo the city's trigger lock requirement that all shotguns in homes remain unloaded with locks on the triggers."

From the opinion: "The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition--in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute--would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."

Clearly any plan to limit the functionality of the gun a non-starter from this point forward. I doubt they could get by with saying a gun must be unloaded. Unless of course the District decides to fight this and spend all that extra discretionary money it has in its coffers.

This ruling really isn't about guns. Its much more far reaching. It will take quite awhile to "shake out" the nuances. The role of the police in protecting the citizenry need s a very hard look. A historical look at the facts reveal that the first job or priority of the police is to protect the police.This has always been first and foremost. Second, the police protect property; if any citizens are protected its incidental. Protecting us is not on the list of police prioritys and never has been.

Ya know...I'm done here. I can't stand the mudslinging.

Good ruling though. The ban was blatantly unconstitutional, as is the proposed limit on one per household.

Ward 6 Guy: So you're going to leave your gun put where your kids can get it? Now that's great parenting!

To Jarob,

"So guns are legal to have and hold and whatever whackjobs do with them. Bullets however, are not protected by the Constitution."

The Second Amendment does not say "the right of the people to keep and bear guns..." It says "arms."

If you'd bothered to read the opinion you'd have seen this statement on page 7: "Timothy Cunningham's important 1771 legal dictionary defined "arms" as 'any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.'"

I would definitely say a bullet falls into the category of something used "in wrath to cast at or strike another."

As resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania I'd like to extend my congratulations to the citizens of the District of Columbia in the sharing and the affirmation of their full constitutional rights.

When will Americans end this obsession for firearms? Guns are not big and they are not clever. Some of the opinions evinced here are just laughable; my favourite is the one where a challenge is meeted out to the 'homies' to break into a house to see what happens!
We live in the 21st century, not in the 1800's. There is no need for shoot outs at the 'Last Chance Saloon'. Don't Americans understand that the rest of the world hate them for their bully boy tactics on the world political stage, and this attitude pervades across the whole of American society; from the destructive actions of the Bush dynasty through to the gun toting population that seem to think it normal for a civilised society to allow its residents to carry weapons.
The sooner ther USA sinks into obscurity the better. After all their 100 years of fame will soon be up. After that who cares what happens in the States? They can all shoot themselves as much as they want, as long as the rest of the world is left alone.

In DC most fireworks are illegal.
Same in Virgina.
The good people in DC and VA are not responsible enough to own fireworks.

Guns? Sure. Go for it!!!

Hunting could become very, very big in DC after all the wiliest most dangerous animals in the world, in the history of the world are sitting around stealing us blind day and night 24/7. The only question is shoukkd we ned a license or will it be open season. I'm only kidding of course.

Wow
look at both sides going at it

this is still and will always be a volatile subject

Good Luck DC - the more things change the more they stay the same

What the Opinion says is only partially relevant. A motivated DA with a lot of public money can keep the ball in the air indefinitely. This is only the start of the litigation. Look at Gitmo.

Hooray For The Second Amendmant and our US
Supreme Court for uphold our Right to Own
and Bear Arms! This has to be a crushing
defeat for Gun Grabber Barack Hussein Obama
and his fellow Democrat Losers Madame Speaker Nancy Pelosi,Cockroach Steny Hoyer,
Harebrain Harry Reid,Dirty Dickey Durbin,
and Howard Dean! A big thank you to our US
Supreme Court! Vote NO on the Democrat
Gun Grabbers from Barack Hussein Obama on
down! No Way Obama! NO Damn Obama! NOBAMA!

Actually, from what I understand, 'arms' is inclusive of ammunition

Posted by: Jackson 123

- I think you could make a persuasive argument to the contrary.

- also i don't think there is any restrictions to the size of a handgun that can be available for sale. In other words, if DC were to limit the sale of the size of handguns to only those that fire BB sized or smaller projectiles. That might still satisfy all requirements. So no magnum .44 with armour piercing bullets.

- and if you put a waiting period on sale of bullets to say 2 months or more.

food for thought.

I believe guns are unnecessary. I've lived in the District for over 5 years and have successfully defended my home from armed intruders with a Samurai sword on two seperate occaissions. Throwing stars and nunchucks are also very effective against guns. If you practice two to three hours a day and are fearless, you will not fail.

Just remember folks, you now have the right to legally have a gun to protect your home, not become Charles Bronson. Seeing that most of you new DC residence cant tell a thug from an honor student in this city you may want to hold off on packing in the street until you get to know the difference. Or maybe the honor student who wears baggy jeans, a tee shirt, with a cap on his braids will need to get a makeover to prevent being killed by the law abiding citizens who got him confused with the thugs. The judge will not accept the I thought he was a thug defense.

Both my guns have locks on them. So explain to me how I'm a bad parent? I'm sure you leave a lot more dangerous things around the house then a locked gun, like alcohol, knives, prescription drugs. You don't know me to call me a bad parent. I could say the same about you since you don't have a plan to protect you family god forbid if that time comes when you have seconds not hours to think about what to do.

Oh bo ho ho for all you liberal pukes who think they can selectively trash the constitutional rights that they don't like and support only those that fit their own socialist agenda's. Hail to all of us stupid, conservative rednecks (the silent backbone of this great country)! May we wave the flag high on a great day for freedoms sake! Happy upcoming 4th of July, and shoot'em up!!

@ bob

If that's how you feel, you probably shouldn't even care about the article or what either side of this argument thinks are our rights, so you shouldn't be here wasting our time.

A barking dog will protect your home much better than a sleeping hand gun.

I never read the ban on PISTOLS as being a ban on all weapons, or as preventing legitimate self defense or hunting interests. I own several pistols myself, but let me say this: they aren't worth SQUAT for hunintg or self defense--shotguns seem a lot better for self defense, shotguns and rifles for hunting. If my little town in SC were as crime-ridden as DC, I would happily sell my pistols back to the state (or city). Surely there is no RIGHT, in either the constitutional or practical sense, to own a particular type of (easily concealable and practically only useful for killing other people, and then ineffciently)gun. This is just another result-opriented opinion from a Supreme Court which decides who can win an election, an area long considered to be beyond the reach of the courts.

If you want meaningful self defense or hunting weapons--shotguns and rifles are the way to go.

To all you D.C. nuts who think that allowing legal ownership of handguns is going to do nothing else but turn D.C. into a bloodbath:

Go ahead! But you didn't need the Courts to give you permission to do that anyway. You guys have been the murder capital for quite some time - even with a handgun ban in place.

P.S. Don't forget to blame it all on Bush, the NRA, aliens, God, whoever you hate at the moment.

Dear Rat: As an "anti-gunner", I ask you about how you would feel if your kid was killed by another kid who used a "legal" gun to accidentally (or intentionally - eg Columbine) shoot him? Or if a road rager decided to shoot a member of your family with the "legal" gun in his car because your family member cut him off in traffic? BOO HOO TO YOU TOO! (Just don't come crying to me.)

When will Americans end this obsession for firearms? Guns are not big and they are not clever. Some of the opinions evinced here are just laughable; my favourite is the one where a challenge is meeted out to the 'homies' to break into a house to see what happens!
We live in the 21st century, not in the 1800's. There is no need for shoot outs at the 'Last Chance Saloon'. Don't Americans understand that the rest of the world hate them for their bully boy tactics on the world political stage, and this attitude pervades across the whole of American society; from the destructive actions of the Bush dynasty through to the gun toting population that seem to think it normal for a civilised society to allow its residents to carry weapons.
The sooner ther USA sinks into obscurity the better. After all their 100 years of fame will soon be up. After that who cares what happens in the States? They can all shoot themselves as much as they want, as long as the rest of the world is left alone.

Posted by: bob | June 26, 2008 11:40 AM

We don't really care what idiots around the world think of us. Good ruling. DC will be far safer in a few years.

Sorry Bob but as nice as it would be to not need guns and to try to be civilized, it doesnt change the criminal population that do not seem to want to be a part of civilized society. I would rather be safe than civilized. You cannot just turn the other cheek to the violent crimes being committed in this country. Your best defense is to fight back and drive the criminal element out.

I believe people should definitely be able to own guns but I think they should all have to attend a safety course. Guns should be respected just like cars should be because they can kill other people. You have to prove your knowledge when you drive a car so why not with a gun? Then again I think the voter competency test is a good idea too and that will clearly never happen!

Have a look at this law.
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/08/leg_history_of.php

Guns kill people just like spoons made Rosie O'Donnell a fat pig.

With all this conversation about what is constitutional and covered by 2nd, don't overlook the fact that it was a 5-4 decision. The court ultimately decides what is constitutional and what is not. And this court was decided by who Bush put into office. It very easily could have gone 5-4 the other way if Roberts had not been appointed. Remember that this time around.

Do any of you people even live in D.C.? Welcome to the new Wild West with the overturn.

To give you a clue, over 350+ assault with a deadly weapon in D.C. for just the month of MAY 2008! The reason the gun law was in effect was because police needed a reason to search folks and pull suspicious folks over. Which by the way, the criminals are suing the police department for doing random checks of vehicles in D.C. - they apparently like to do drive by shootings. Now, the supreme courts takes away the need for trigger locks on guns, sorry kids the supreme court doesn't care about you either!

This is going to be a tragedy in Washington.