ChristiansUnite Forums

US right to bear arms may get its day in court

by Fanny Carrier Sun Nov 11, 3:37 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - For the first time in 70 years, the US Supreme Court may decide next week whether to examine the question of the right to bear arms, something which is fiercely upheld by millions of Americans.

The US capital of Washington, which is trying to stem a wave of violence in its seedier neighborhoods, has lodged a case with the nine Supreme Court judges seeking to maintain its three-decade ban on individuals carrying handguns.

The judges were due to have an initial discussion on Friday, and their decision on whether or not to examine the question could be announced as early as Tuesday.

The case goes right to the heart of the American constitution, which in its second amendment declares that: "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."

Washington, which is also home to the president and the government, has interpreted the amendment to mean that there is a collective right to bear arms for those who are part of a police force or a security force.

But since 1976, it has banned residents from carrying handguns, although they are allowed to keep a rifle or hunting gun in their homes, providing it is locked and not loaded.

For millions of Americans though, and especially the powerful gun lobby represented by the National Rifle Association, the second amendment guarantees the right of every American citizen to own any gun, with few limits.

In 2003, Washington resident Dick Heller, who lives in one of the city's tougher districts, lodged a suit against the local authorities saying his constitutional right to bear arms was being violated. Although his case was initially rejected, he won on appeal to a federal appeals court in March.

Washington officials in turn then lodged a case with the Supreme Court in September insisting that it must rule on the extent of access to handguns, the weapon of choice in two-thirds of robberies and assaults.

Handguns are also used in half of the 15,000 murders across the country every year, according to statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigations.

"Faced with the evidence that handguns pose a particularly serious threat to public safety, the council chose to ban handguns because it concluded that less restrictive regulations would be ineffective," the city said in its petition to the court.

"Whatever right the second amendment guarantees, it does not require the district to stand by while its citizens die."

If the court decides to examine the case, it would likely be heard sometime between February and April, with a ruling before the end of June, just a few months before the November 2008 presidential elections.

To date the Supreme Court has rarely considered the issue of the right to bear arms.

In the 19th century, it determined that the founding fathers meant the amendment to remain the remit of federal laws and left all the states in the union free to draw up their own gun laws.

Then in 1939, the court upheld a law requiring that arms transported from state to state should be registered.

But all states have formulated their own restrictions, which vary wildly.

Heller believes that the laws in Washington, which are similar to those in many big cities such as Chicago, New York or Detroit, are not just unconstitutional but also ineffective.

Last year in the city with 580,000 residents, there were 169 murders, 137 by firearms.

"This case presents the court a unique opportunity to correct a persistent misconception that the people do not actually enjoy a right that is specifically enumerated in the constitution," Heller says in his petition.

"'The people' -- individuals in our country -- retain the right to keep and bear arms."

His case is being backed by the American Civil Rights Union which says in his support: "This case presents questions of the highest importance, involving the fundamental meaning of the second amendment.

"In over 200 years, this court has still not resolved the basic questions regarding the amendment's meaning."

US right to bear arms may get its day in court (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071111/ts_alt_afp/usjusticeweapons_071111083310;_ylt=AuvtvnEUOuM3F_sa9ARK9NWQOrgF)

Mayor: Guns 'too violent' for veterans parade
'They are awful things. Killing in any war is awful'

Your guns are 'too violent' for Remembrance Day, mayor tells rifle regiment

Napoleon tried, as did many others.

They all discovered that the riflemen of the British Army do not lay down their arms easily - if at all.

Nonetheless, Hilary Beach decided to call for 1Bn The Rifles to leave their weapons behind at tomorrow's Remembrance Day parade because she feels they are too "violent".

Miss Beach, the Labour mayor of Chepstow in Monmouthshire, said: "I would prefer for there not be any guns at the parade - and raised it because it is an issue I personally feel very strongly about.

"I am very much against guns and think they are awful things. Killing in any war is awful and I am against this violence.

"But I want to make it clear that I hold Remembrance Day as extremely important and it is vital that members of the Armed Forces are in attendance.

"I have always thought about Remembrance Day as a time for peace and to remember those who have lost their lives in combat. However, I think this could be done better without any guns.

"Everybody is worried about the rise in gun crime and violence in this country at the moment, and the destruction these weapons cause is terrible."

If only Miss Beach had boned up on her military history. The Rifles might only have come into being in February this year, but the illustrious history of the four regiments which were merged to create it would have indicated the magnitude of what she was asking.

The Devonshire and Dorset Light Infantry, the Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Light Infantry, the Light Infantry and the Royal Green Jackets all embraced the concept of the rifleman as laid down by General Sir John Moore, the tragic hero of the retreat to Corunna in the Peninsula War.

Miss Beach's plea to the council fell on deaf ears.

Ned Heywood, a former mayor, made one of the opposing speeches.

He said: "Miss Beach is a pacifist and felt unhappy about the Rifles marching with guns through the town. But she received absolutely no support.

"Members of all parties all feel that this is a time to support our armed forces.

"We need them and they do an impossibly difficult job, laying down their lives for the rest of us. I felt this would be undermining them. But it was all very civilised, and Miss Beach accepted the views of the majority."

Phylip Hobson, a fellow councillor, added: "The war veterans have brought guns to the cenotaph since 1918 - guns have always played a part in Remembrance Day.

"We are all very excited about seeing the Rifles in full dress and giving them a warm welcome."

The Rifles - who have only been stationed at Beachley Barracks in Chepstow since August - were not contacted about the discussion and will march with their weapons as planned.

The Royal British Legion said the troops would feel "naked" without their guns.

Tom King, president of its Chepstow branch, said: "What she said is ridiculous. It is nonsense.

"The regiment is called The Rifles, and rifles are an important part of their uniform and their kit. It's like asking a tank regiment to march past on parade without their tanks. She just doesn't understand this."

Tim Merritt, the legion's Gloucestershire manager, added: "Traditionally, our serving soldiers on parade tend to carry arms and I see no good reason why they should not be allowed to."

• A Remembrance Sunday cannon salute at the start and end of the twominute 11am silence has been banned.

The cannon, known as a maroon, used to be fired by the Parks Police service in Sutton, Surrey. But its replacement by a "Safer Parks Team" - a sergeant, two constables and three police community support officers - has led to is being banned because of health and safety fears.

FURY ON THE FELLS

Poppy wreaths have been banned from the 3,000ft summit of Great Gable in the Lake District. For almost 90 years, a mountain-top service has been held there on Remembrance Sunday.

But a dispute broke out this year after the poppy ban by the Lake District Fell and Rock Climbing Club.

Club secretary Paul Exley said: "In the past, members have climbed the mountain and have removed several large rucksacks full of disintegrated, soggy poppy waste.

"This isn't an easy task as the weather is usually awful in late November."

Protesters plan to flout the ban tomorrow - and insist they will clean up after themselves. One of them, Guy Newbold, said: "People laid down their lives in order to protect our freedom from precisely this kind of interference. We intend to lay our wreaths and remember their sacrifices."

That's why it's called WAR ma'am.  Nobody likes it and wouldn't be wonderful if it could be won by playing Tiddley Winks.

The anti-war crowd seems to think so. They need to go play tiddley winks and let real people handle real life situations.