US Supreme Courts: The Right to Bear Arms is For Individual Americans, Not Only State Militias

Wow. How depressing.

Truly a very sad day again in recent US history.

From a Public Health perspective, I agree wholeheartedly with gun control; if you have to go to the kitchen and get a butcher knife, then look your victim in the eye as you stab them, and get drenched in their blood, then maybe - just maybe - you'll not go through with it. If you can just grab a small piece of ironmongery and pop off a few rounds from a safe distance, you're somewhat insulated from the event and perhaps more likely to do something you'll later regret.

Before the current Administration came to power if you'd asked me that'd been my response. But now I see clearly why the Framers want the People to be able to protect themselves from their government. We should be very afraid of any government that wants us defenseless (especially the current bunch of jackboots and thugs).

I don't have a handgun for protection, but that's my choice; any city, county, state, or even federal government that tells its people that they may not possess a weapon to defend themselves takes upon that city, county, etc. the responsibility to defend its citizens in the manner the citizenry would if armed - even if that means stationing an armed officer at every family home 24/7. And quite frankly, even if the government could afford to spend that kind of money (our money), the prospect of a heavily armed governmental presence (especially in my home) scares me more than a little.

From the NYT:

"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.” "

OK - this guy is clearly an idiot.

I don't see what's so hard about "the right of the the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The 2nd amendment could have read "Because the great purple snorklewhacker what lives in the sky might one day come down to eat us all, the right of the the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The why doesn't really matter, what matters is the what - the "right of the the people to keep and bear arms."

1) All the time of the framing of the Constitution, *all* weapons were civilians weapons;

2) The Framers definitely intended to protect the civilian's right to rebel against an oppressive government; and,

3) Everywhere else in the Constitution the phrase "the People" refers to the general populace.

The Framers intended for the power to reside in the People, not the government, and did not want a national standing army. You may fault them for not foreseeing M16's, Mini guns, and AK-47's, but their intention was clearly for a weak central government.

The founders put in a mechanism to adapt to changes they knew they couldn't foresee - amending the Constitution.

The 2nd amendment doesn't make sense anymore, you say? Fine. But the solution is to go into the document granting the *right* of every citizen to keep and bear arms and amend it to reflect the "current reality."

Simply pretending that it doesn't say what it clearly does, or passing laws obviously in conflict with it, aren't solutions. There's a process, and it has to be used.

Or do you want the Government deciding ad hoc what rights we have?

This is absolutely sickening. The Second Amendment specifically states that it is the well-regulated militias that have a right to bear arms, not private citizens. The Supreme Court has overstepped its mandate, just like when they appointed Bush POTUS.

Unfortunately, I think I agree with the Supreme Court. I believe the writers intended everyone to have the right to bear arms.
But I don't think it's good for the US to continue the practice of allowing handguns to every idiot. I believe it's time to amend the Constitution, for the good of the nation, to restrict the right to shoot at everything that scares you. The Constitution has been amended before, to good purpose (women's suffrage and slavery, for example). The times have changed and the world is overcrowded, and gun violence is out of control.

Bean, if it were obvious, then this debate wouldn't have been so heated nor have waged on for so long.

Personally, I agree with their ruling and it's nice to see this currently government take at least one step in the direction of individual rights. While I, too, happen to work in the health care system, I think there are quite a few more items higher up on the list of Things Tragically Killing Americans.

Bean, would you outlaw saturated fats? High fructose corn syrup? SUVs? <-- That would be great, actually.

[By the way, I carry my own handgun for personal protection. Outlawing them won't keep criminals from getting them. It'll simply make it easier to rape, kill, and steal from the innocents. Also, you can't put the toothpaste back into the tube, etc etc.]

i agree with the ruling. It's sound. Even Breyer on dissent agrees that it is an individual right: "the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to self-defense..." with some added caveats.

To nullify a Constitutional Amendment, which is what some of the above authors want, is an outright travesty of thought, and a glaringly obvious knee-jerk reaction to thier own feelings...valid only without reason.

Even Scalia has said that there be minor restrictions on gun usage (presumably to convicts, etc...)...

If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.

Ach dammit; all you gun wearing maniacs sicken me. And you really believe what you're spewing around. You really do believe it. I am deeply saddened by the lack of autonomous thinking ability displayed in the US nowadays.

@ Tim:

That is EXACTLY what I am talking about. Did you even think a split second about what you were writing?

99% of people who own guns are normal people. We are indeed not 'gun wearing maniacs' as you would put it.

fluff, he's right. if you strip people of thier right to protect themselves and provide a disincentive for thugs to commit crimes against a potentially armed target, you help individuals protect themselves.

If you don't have any inclination for self-preservation, it's your right not to own one. but don't strip anyone else of the ability to protect themselves and keep others at bay solely on the fact that you feel queasy about guns.

Have you even visited the United States??

Being denied the right to protect yourself with firearms by the state would be sad and depressing. Guns in the wrong hands can lead to great evil but its not like outlawing them would suddenly cause gun violence to go away. There will always be means to purchase firearms.

If everyone carried a gun criminals would think twice about about their actions knowing their chances of getting shot were far greater than if guns were banned completely.

You fluffy folks can keep your blinders on, but I personally will hold onto my guns, thank you very much. The Second Amendment didn't grant me a "right" to bear a firearm, it "recognized" my right to do so. My right came to me as a human: As most other species that inhabit the planet, we as humans have a natural right to defend ourselves. Period. What does that mean? If soembody breaks into my house at night with the intent of robbing me or doing harm to me and/or my family, I'm simply going to blow their head off. It is that simple.

Awesome decision. It's hard to imagine that they would rule otherwise, but I was worried after the ghastly Kelo decision of few years ago.

The Constitution protects individual liberties for a reason, and the arbitrary and petty decisions of tyrant politicians shouldn't interfere -- kudos for the judicial branch for protecting our right to bear arms. It's a pity that the ACLU doesn't defend ALL civil liberties. Why aren't they at the forefront of the battle to protect the 2nd Ammendment?

Ach dammit; all you gun hating maniacs sicken me. And you really believe what you’re spewing around. You really do believe it. I am deeply saddened by the lack of autonomous thinking ability displayed in the US nowadays

Take that fluff. If you don't like the 2nd Amendment, then change it. Or at least try. And good luck with that.

Praise the Lord & pass me another clip!

Thank you, Tim and J.D. Nicely put.

Guns are bad, mmkay?

Unlike a lot of other lefty's.... at least the dailykos had some semblance of intellectual honesty when they posted about this:

"Sometimes in life (and in law), there are things that we might desire from a policy standpoint -- like certain forms of gun control, or restrictions on some election-related speech -- which are nevertheless forbidden by the Constitution. And as liberals -- unlike the other guys -- we ought not try to pretend that the Constitution doesn't exist when it gets in the way of our policy preferences."

First Habeus Corpus, now this... I'm almost starting to have hope...

I forgot to mention that bean is ill-informed. The "well-regulated militia" lingo does not refer to some sort of National Guard. Organized state militias did not exist at the time the document was written. The language refers to individual firearms ownership being ensured as a means of the public protecting itself against a repressive government. Note, I said a *repressive government*, not even just protection form a criminal element. Likewise "well-regulated" doesn't mean "controlled by regulations". "regulated" at that time referred to "properly functioning" as in a clock.

That's the problem when important documents are written in a language that changes over time. The majority of the common masses don't understand this and expect the document to change with time as well. The Vatican continues to write its documents in Latin for a reason and it ain't just nostalgia.

Victory!!! This is a momentous day in U.S. history and will hopefully be only a step in the right direction. I applaud Neatorama for posting this.

Guns are tools. Only people are bad, mkay?

@DanO: Guns are inanimate objects, mmkay? Are cars bad because people are maimed & killed by them?

Thanks for that DailyKos quote, DJ. I rarely read anything there, and it's good to see some honesty from the left for a change.

Hey, whatever happened to those who say leave politics out of Neatorama, gun issues are as political as they get.

Oh well never mind.

I'm not happy at all with this ruling.

I think most advocates of gun criminalization (note that I did not say "gun control") fear that an armed populace presents an immediate threat to their safety. This may be true. There is an indisputable correlation between the US level of gun violence, and the volume of guns in private hands.

However, if I have to choose between security and liberty, I think the choice is clear. I'd rather live bravely in the land of the free than live safely in the pen of the supervised.

For the record, I don't own a gun, and likely never will. But freedom is only tangible in the ability to make a choice. Every choice your government makes for you is a freedom you've forfeited- and the list of choices you can make should always be longer than the list of choices you can't make.

Actually, here is something neat that I've only see one other place mention. Two bloggers were used as references in Justice Scalia's majority opinion: Clayton Cramer and Eugene Volokh. Other Bloggers wrote amicus briefs, such as Dave Hardy.

Blogging, FTW!!

Sad thing is that this is even considered a partisan issue.

One group that wrote an amicus for Heller was Pink Pistols, a LGBT group that believes that the second amendment is crucial to defend themselves from anti-gay bigots.

The NRA only wrote an amicus brief after they unsuccessfully tried to kill the case.
(See The Washington Post, "The NRA's Main Target?")

If the ACLU actually believed in defending ALL of our civil rights, I would donate to them in a heartbeat.

When reading that, my first thought was questioning the fact that anyone would actually believe that the constitution is talking only about militias. It's not written that way, nor do historical facts show that that was anyone at the time's intent.

Then I read the comments here. Apparently people are crazier than I had given them credit for.

I personally believe that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Period. End of story. I can't believe 4 of the judges voted against that right.

Th supreme court should be the one place where the justices can take an honest look at issues - without being compelled to change the laws according to their party lines. The amendment says what it says and anyone in denial about it is, just that, in denial.

Ban guns and gun violence will go up immediately. People will fight to protect their rights. End of story.

The same people who whine about the government increasing their grip on us and trying to "take over" are the same people who want us to get rid of guns.

Have any of you even thought of the reason that we are given the right to own guns?

Would you rather have a people afraid of its government, or a government afraid of its people?

Thankfully, the "supreme abort" had some sense this time around. Self-preservation is a basic right, period. The gun I own has never been fired, but it is my right to defend myself should someone break in at 2 am, and please don't tell me that calling 911 is going to protect me. It's rare that cops get the opportunity to save people. They normally act as historians after the fact and "clean up" the mess that follows. Am sure after the Obama-nator occupies the oval office that given the first opportunity to replace a conservative justice, he'll happily nominate Hildebeast Clinton for the position.

Even if you can interpret the text that way (which seems a bit of a stretch to me), the people who wrote it didn't have today's guns to worry about. It's a lot easier to "shoot first, think later" with today's guns than with those they would have had when the Second Amendment was written.

And if the Founding Fathers had wanted everyone to carry guns around, why did they include the bit about the militia at all? Surely it would have been easier to say "Guns for all!" and be done with it.

This ruling would have made no affect either way on the current system.

Title 10: Section 311 of the United States Code states:
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.

We are all already part of a militia. Welcome to The United States.

The country is free to change the 2nd Ammendment through Congress, but the courts are not free to change the law, only to interpret. I believe the court accurately interpreted the 2nd Ammendment of the Bill of Rights here. I believe under the Bill of Rights every American has the right to bear arms under reasonable regulation. I think this is a good thing, but for the record I have choosen not to own a gun. But I feel safe nowing I have the right.

Hmmm... they said the 2nd amendment applies to individuals and not just militias. Doesn't this mean that ALL gun control laws may now be considered unconstitutional?

So? even with guns, you people can't do a danged thing. Your government isn't afraid of you. What do you expect to do with your guns? overthrow your government? Even if you wanted to, you chicken turds don't have the cojones. You will be labeled a terrorist. Might as well be mindless drones with guns then just mindless drones. Power of the people doesn't exist here anymore. You morons even get detained by the government during peaceful rallies with plastic ties and hoarded into chain link cages. Hahahahaha!

Uh oh, the Red Coats have come back! What will you do?
Nothing! :D

First, let's actually read what it says:

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.

First, it does state that the right to bear arms is a right of the people. That is simply a fact. Why? In order to allow the establishment and maintenance of well-regulated militias, that is to say local, regional, or state-level ad hoc or part-time military units. The principle is ultimately that of the "citizen-solider" - a citizen (the people) have the right to own weapons SPECIFICALLY in order to protect their communities. This means, of course, the government does have the right to regulate weapons (which the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed) and their use, but it does not have the right to ban their ownership by citizens in good standing. And, dare we forget, the security of a free state infers defense against a few principle types of "enemies" - internal tyrants (e.g. our government decides to take away our freedom) and external threats (e.g. another government seeks to attack our state while we are ruled by a legitimate democratic republic). What makes the 2nd Amendment so contentious is that conversations about it tend to degenerate into yelling about rights rather than practical discussions of why it exists and what are the practical rules we can apply to guarantee that this right doesn't infringe on the rights of other men and women (such as our forbidding of the use of slander, an abuse of our 1st Amendment rights).

As for me, well, I support the Supreme Court's decision - I think it is pretty close to what the intention of the Founding Fathers was - libertarianism limited only by pragmatic rationalism and a realistic understanding of international and domestic threats.

Take away free speech before the guns. Then see how people feel with their RIGHTS removed.

DC violent crimes DROPPED when the guns were returned to the citizens. The highest crime rate was when they were taken away.

OH, THIS IS NOTHING! Next Step? Will be when I am subpeona'd for my testimony on my past 30+ years as an US Army "Manchurian Candidate Study" subject.
(Go to www.rickhyatt.freeservers.com to see just how immersed I AM in this espionage business - Hope you have Piclens, for I've got PHOTOS of past major spies I have known long-term along this line you won't believe!)
That is to say, my own mission as a "Sleeper," totally controlled, of course, by the FBI and (Double-Blind, unknowingly) "Social(ist) Services," was to "Act up" (Utilizing special psychological and physical attributes such as clinical hypnosis and Celiac's Disease, which causes reversible neopathy) to the degree that I became "One of those who shouldn't own a gun... and thusly influence on-going anti-gun legislation. I was successful in helping Maui Waiver Form 2036 (Allowing the corrupt politicians to search a gun applicant's ENTIRE LIFE'S medical, sexual etc. files) and then exploit same for political purposes on Maui. Coming then here to Wyoming, hearing of my "Reputation" they specially whipped up our Concealed Carry Permit Restriction, for such " a person like me... Then, when I passed the NCIC, etc., and got a Florida Permit, valid here, they passed a special law - JUST FOR ME- ILLEGAL AS HELL - Such that it could not be used here, as examples.
My "Behavioral Programming?" To act unnaturally conservative, pro-Constitutional, openly Patriotic, and to be vocal about it. Be "Dumbed Down" from the Celiac's by eating bread and drinking beer. Couldn't have made a better target and/or "Dummy" for the Liberals to use as an "Example."
Now... Since so many anti-gun laws are based on the acts of the Columbine, Post Office, Mall otherwise-untraceable (By the APA, anyway) "Sleepers" (As myself), then how can ANY OF THOSE LAWS BE VALID AT ALL?

"Telling the truth during times of universal deceit will be a revolutionary act." George Orwell, "1984"

Ah, there's the woodwork, now.

"So? even with guns, you people can’t do a danged thing. Your government isn’t afraid of you. What do you expect to do with your guns? overthrow your government? Even if you wanted to, you chicken turds don’t have the cojones."

I think the Iraqis have proven that a rag-tag band of people making explosives out of milk cartons can put up a fight against the U.S. military.

What in the mile high club do that fact have to do with our own citizens doing something about our government if somethingasdffhglblah blah blah. Over my head with the BS, I couldn't give worth two cow chips :-/ I will have a beer. Imported.

A controversial issue. I respect both opinions, but personally I couldn´t carry a death behind my back.

People like to mention restrictions upon the 1st Amendment when they speak about the second. However, in no jurisdiction must one be licensed before they can speak, in no place is one forbidden to publish lest they libel, in almost no case may one be restrained prior to their actual speech. And yet, in many places within these United States a law abiding private individual simply may not keep and bear a handgun. That amounts to a prior restraint of 2nd Amendment rights and the court justly struck such a prohibition down.

I also see people mentioning a constitutional amendment to do away with the NATURAL RIGHT to keep and bear arms. The 2nd Amendment DID NOT create this right, it was pre-existing and no amendment by any government can make this otherwise, though a tyrannical government might surely try to deny the right... which is sort of the whole point of the 2nd Amendment in the first place.

Molon Labe - From my cold dead hands.

I'm glad to see this decision, but I certainly don't want them to leave it as that. It's important to note that D.C. can still use other methods to restrict, rather than ban guns altogether. It's not hard to imagine a few laws that would effectively restrict access to guns in such a manner that would make it very difficult to own one. This is not quite the same thing as a wild west mentality.

I'm with Sid and Tim on this one.
Couldn't see how the supreme court could rule otherwise.

Mr. Hyatt, I know people like you, and thankfully they are well medicated. Have a nice day you moron and say hello to the little green men for me.

As a European, I can only say that this decision is seriously freaking me out. I don't think I could ever go to the USA without feeling completely paranoid that at any moment, someone could just shoot me with a gun that they have the right to have. This is just unconceivable to me, I live in France and we can't do that, does that mean we lack a constitutional right? I don't think so.
And where it's even more ironic is that if I ever wanted to go to the USA, I'd have to fill out a billion form to prove I'm not dangerous and I'm not going to do anything to harm the country but this country lets its citizens the right to kill without any kind of restrictions.
And you're surprised when there's a school shooting? Give me a fucking break.

Why don't we make it easier for all of us? Everyone who hates guns, please put a sign on the front of your homes and businesses that reads "GUN FREE ZONE" (just like our schools).

Camille0 -

The US government was constructed with the the *consent* of its citizens and one of the things that has kept us on our first republic (I think France is now on its Fifth Republic, no?) has been the right of the public to bear arms to protect ourselves against repressive régimes.

When France was rolled over in weeks to a smaller German Army, Americans were building their then-tiny army for the coming struggle. Your gun-controlled country allowed traitors like Pierre Laval & Marshall Petain to assume power and deport Jews and other "undesireables" to Nazi death camps. Such an oppressive government won't ever gain power here because individuals are self-armed to prevent it. Yes, a kook can go nuts once in a while and kill innocents, but that is the price of liberty. France may hold dear its égalité & fraternité, but they have forsaken liberté...

Straight talk from Sid.

Wow, I never thought I would actually see someone singlehandedly win an argument against a frenchman, with only "World War II f***ers".

Wow...

What? First of all, I'm not talking about WWII, the forties were a long time ago and there are way more "reasons" to this war than just "the people didn't have guns". It's the 21st century now and you can't expect a country to be safe if its people can just wave a gun at any time and any place. It's dangerous! I don't even understand why it must be explained.
Honestly, just because you own a gun doesn't mean you are going to be able to stop the invaders, there are armies and the police for that. And what invaders anyway? You're proud to say that you're still in your first Republic, very well but maybe it's time to move on.
As for the oppressive governement...Sure, because everyone would take their guns and jump in the streets as soon as totalitarianism would appear. If anything, that makes me laugh. I mean, you did have Bush for 8 years.

Camille0 -

I'm aghast that someone like you living in a country with such a rich past can consider 60 or 70 years ago ancient history -- that is VERY short term, and most pertinent to our lives today! You should consider a little better historical perspective on European politics; as an example the ongoing problems in the Balkans have their roots in the fall of the Austro-Hungarian empire and the dissolution of the tenuous peace that they maintained over the many factions within that empire. If we don't understand things like this (and remember the crimes of Laval, et al) we are doomed to relearn some very hard lessons.

That said, I wasn't saying that the reason for WWII itself was that the French citizenry wasn't armed. By the mid-1930s, the war was unavoidable and clearly a result of Nazi aggression (although it's not difficult to make a case that the National Socialism itself was enabled by a very flawed Treaty of Versailles, but I digress).

The point I was attempting to make is that an unarmed populace lets despotic or collaborationist governments (as Vichy was) take power. Laval eventually got what he deserved of course, but how many innocents (including French) died first? A well-armed general population keeps the government honest and enables the weak to defend themselves against scoundrels within and without. A well-armed citizenry is *essential* to maintaining liberty. To provide a good French example, Charlotte Corday was courageous enough to rid France of the butcher Marat during your Revolution. Nowadays, though, despots don't frequently open themselves up to knife attacks in their bathtubs, so firearms in the hands of the public are essential.

Finally, whether or not you disagree with the policies of our current administration, I'm not sure how you can compare it to "totalitarianism" as you do. Pres. Bush was legally elected per the Constitution via the electoral college and terms completed, is stepping down shortly, per law. When in office, the other 2 branches of government maintained their authority -- there was no power grab by the Executive branch and certainly a lot of things (inlcuding Supreme Court decisions) did not always go the way Bush may have wished. Further, Bush is not becoming "Prime Minister" so as to wiggle the strings of a new puppet "president" as is the case in Russia right now. He's moving to the sideline, as did Clinton, Reagan, and many retiring presidents before them. What is the problem? Where's the totalitarianism? I didn't like Clinton, but he was legitimately elected twice and left when his term expired. Same deal here.

Straight talk from Sid.

@ Camille0

I'm glad to see at least one other european that is freaked out over this decision. I am Swiss and be asured that we both will take the heat here.

Firstly let me say that we are NOT talking about WW2 here. That has nothin to do with this discussion at all.

I really feel bad for all those US citicens who have to fear for their lives everytime they approach a public street. Or even in their homes! Yikes!
I heard they cannot longer let their children go to school alone. How awful.
I remember my childhood. When I was six. My first day in school. My father accompanied me to school because I didn't know the way. He did so for a few days. Then the parents organised us into a group of four to go to school together. It worked out perfectly. We were taught how to avoid cars and certainly not to go with strangers. It all worked out. Fine. We were allowed to go to the forest. Do whatever we wanted to do. And you know what? Nothing bad happened. And you know why? Because our parents taught us the way. Were there for us. Taught us the basics in a natural way. By being there for us. And by doing so raised us into NORMAL AND DECENT people. All my childhood long I have never seen a firearm. All the time I never had ANY whatsoever contact with a gun. So did the chaps around me. Most of them had their first gun handed over to them when they were drawn into the military. They were at least 18 years old back then.

Well; this is the general story of most people here. And the statistics speak for themselves: We (Switzerland) are amongst those countries that have a very high rate of firearm per person. Every soldier has to keep his (SIG 550 or for the officers his SIG 75)gun along with a sealed package of ammo at home.

Yet, with a neglectable amount of exceptions, we have no shootings around here.

I can say that I am probably one of the very lucky ones that have never come into contact with firearms. That might be the reason why I am so utterly alienated by the idea of everyone being allowed to carry a gun.

Furthermore I want to add that I totally agree to weapons as sporting or hunting equipment. No complaints about that at all. I consider joining a sports club myself. I think It might be fun afterall.

But if I had to consider buying a weapon for my protection - I would prefer to change country...

i couldn't (wouldn't) read all the comments, but to me it boils down to this:

i have a right to protect myself.

to protect myself from criminals that intend to cause me harm. see, criminals, by definition, break laws. therefore gun laws really don't matter to them. thusly, gun laws only effect law abiding citizens.

all the same, i believe that guns should only be allowed to citizens that have not committed violent crimes.

Sid, that was scathing! and I loved it.

now we can move onto more important things like marijuana's legalization and the legalization of the harmless magic mushrooms which grow in cow poop.

So, Americans can continue shooting each other into the grave because they still imagine themselves in a log cabin surrounded by Indians. Oh well. How about the right to bear bazookas, explosives and chainsaws? (Also for your children - they need protection, too, after all) Couldn't that be added in some extra amendment?

"It still will be illegal to carry handguns outside the home,"

I always seem to aggree most with the side that actually reads the news and statistics, and doesn't just gloss over them so they can move on to proving how stupid everyone else is.

It's a good thing guns are outlawed in most other countries, or else people would be crazy. it's not like they would stab someone or something.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-stab9-2008jun09,0,4629101.story

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/World/2008/06/27/6000611-sun.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/07/01/asia/AS-China-Police-Killed.php

http://www.itv.com/News/Articles/Man-killed-in-knife-attack-89198418.html

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20080630/NEWS01/809057264/1005/BIZ

It's too bad we all don't live in California, where their guns laws are the most strict in the US.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/DN-baby_16nat.ART.State.Edition1.4d4f3b7.html

http://thevitalvoice.com/node/613

My condoleances.

(Actually, this may well be what the writers of the constitution meant. Not having the balls to change that to something sane and modern 200+ years later says something about the progressiveness of America, though.)

NO one should be allowed to have guns in their house. If guns were illegal the death toll of American youth would be so much lower. It's a tragedy that this is still allowed.