Tim Reid in Washington
Download 'Too Hot', an exclusive Specials track from iTunes
The US Supreme Court begins hearing a landmark case today that for the first time will decide if Americans have an individual right to own a gun. At issue is the 27-word, 217-year-old Second Amendment - which includes the phrase “the right of the people ... to bear arms” - which remarkably has never been definitively interpreted.
The politically charged case, which pits gun rights advocates against gun control groups - and even Dick Cheney against the Bush Administration - is focused on Washington DC's strict ban on handgun ownership.
Funded by a wealthy libertarian lawyer, a 65-year-old Washington security guard, Dick Heller, is challenging the handgun ban, arguing that it stops him from keeping one at home and protecting his family. The 1976 law, one of the strictest in America, was passed by the District of Columbia during a gun crime epidemic.
The case has drawn enormous attention because for the first time, the Supreme Court might decide whether gun ownership is an inviolate constitutional right as powerful as the First Amendment's right to free speech.
Such a decision could trigger a flood of lawsuits from the gun lobby, challenging the many restrictions and regulations imposed on gun ownership at a state, city and federal level across America, such as bans on the sale of new machineguns and some assault rifles, or the private ownership of armour-piercing bullets.
The court's decision, expected in June, will also have an impact on the presidential election. John McCain, the Republican nominee, is a staunch Second Amendment supporter. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama support Washington's handgun ban. Yet the subject is an uncomfortable one for Democrats, because a majority of Americans believe in the personal right to own a gun.
At issue is the intention of the Second Amendment, which 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.” Remarkably, despite the widespread private ownership of guns across America, most US courts for the past century have interpreted the Second Amendment as only giving a right to own a gun if the owner is a member of a militia - the “collective rights” approach.
Indeed, until a ruling last year that triggered today's Supreme Court hearing, nine US federal appeals courts that have considered the question since the 1930s embraced the collective rights approach, believing that the Second Amendment granted no individual right to own a gun.
In practice, individual states have allowed individual gun ownership - the gun lobby is particularly powerful in state legislators - but have also passed restrictions and safeguards. Until now, the Supreme Court has largely shied away from taking a stand on the issue.
Last year, however, the US Federal Appeals Court in Washington backed Mr Heller and ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own a handgun. It was the first time in American history that a federal court used the Second Amendment to strike down a gun control law.
The District of Columbia has appealed against that ruling, which is why the case is being heard by the Supreme Court. The DC government argues that the handgun ban is essential because of the high gun crime rate. The gun lobby argues, among other things, that gun control does not curb gun crime. They want gun ownership to be as unfettered as possible.
The Bush Administration, to the fury of the gun lobby, is taking a more moderate approach. The US Solicitor-General, representing the Administration, will argue before the nine justices that individuals have a right to own a gun, but such a right is subject to “reasonable regulations”.
Deaths from guns in the US is far higher than in Britain. In 2002 about four of every 100,000 Americans were killed by guns, compared with 0.15 in England and Wales. In 2004 11,344 Americans were killed by guns, compared with 73 in Britain.
Second Amendment
A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Ratified December 15, 1791
Source: US National Archives
Win a luxury weekend to Newcastle and its neighbour Gateshead, find out more here
Risk, resilience and embracing new technology
Industry sectors news at a glance. Interactive heatmap, video and podcast
Discover the power of collective thinking. Submit a solution and be in with a chance to win a Media Hub Home Entertainment System
The inside track on current trends in the charity, not for profit and social enterprise sectors
Everything the Business Traveller needs to know to make a better trip
Make the most of the summer and enter our fabulous photographic competition, you could win a £5000 holiday
Corsica is an island of beauty and contrast, an ideal holiday destination
Enjoy further reading from Travel to Fashion, Business to Sport, discover more
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles
The clever way to lease a new car is with Car leasing made simple™
2009
per month on 36-month
Personal Contract Hire (PCH)
2008
42850
Car Insurance
£24,250 - £30,346
MI5
London
£60,000
The Environment Agency
Bristol
Up to £90K
Boots
Midlands
OTE £85k
Credit Protection Association
Nationwide Opportunities
Completely London
Luxury Condo's in Manhattan with NYC views
The best new homes in Wimbledon?
Nationwide
Fabulous Cruise And Cruise & Stay Offers Including Virgin Atlantic Flights Prices Start From Only £699pp!
Last Minute Cruise And Cruise & Stay Offers. Med From £499pp, Caribbean From £699pp!
5 star quality at a 3 star price.
8 fabulous Canadian cities ...you won’t find cheaper
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times, or place your advertisement.
Times Online Services: Dating | Jobs | Property Search | Used Cars | Holidays | Births, Marriages, Deaths | Subscriptions | E-paper
News International associated websites: Globrix Property Search | Property Finder | Milkround
Copyright 2009 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
I believe you are incorrect on your interpretation of the findings in former court cases. The individual right has always been supported, time and again. See the legal briefs on this case, siting these instances.
At the time, it is legal for any law abiding citizen in the USA, to own and fire a machinegun. The only restrictions are a transfer tax that must be paid any time ownership changes hands, and no criminal background.
In the areas with the least restrictive gun ordinances, the lower the crime rate. In the case of Washington DC, with some of the most restrictive regulations, the crime and murder rate is much higher than in areas that are armed.
I pray the court re-affirms the God given right, that was recognised as far back as English Common Law. This is a right, not a given priviledge.
Ric Carter, Somers, Montana USA
KD, you are in error.
The most vocal gun control advocates are well-funded liberals who cherry pick senior representatives of law enforcement organizations and police unions to serve as their shills in the gun control debate. Rank-and-file police officers are decidedly in favor of gun ownership by law abiding citizens - what they oppose is the lenient judicial system that puts criminals back on the streets, even after repeated firearms violations.
You are also overstating the position of the NRA and its membership (including me). The NRA recently worked with traditional anti-gun advocates in congress, such as Chuck Schumer of New York, to pass the National Instant Check System Improvement Act. The NRA and its membership would always prefer legislation that keeps unsuitable people away from guns than legislation that keeps guns away from law-abiding citizens.
Mark Worhtington, Southborough, MA, USA
I'm fairly certain that the court will strike down the DC handgun ban, but I don't think they'll go so far as to declare all firearms restrictions unconstitutional; their decision will probably be limited solely to the law in question.
People will now chime in in comments here to say that the second amendment is illogical or that it's misinterpreted. To clarify: The second amendment was inserted into the bill of rights as one of numerous checks and balances within the government. The second was intended as insurance that the people would be able to violently overthrow the government if it grew tyrannical, as many of the nation's founders believed it inevitably would. This might seem out of place in a modern society, but that's the original meaning. The operative word is 'keep' arms, not 'bear' . Those who want to outlaw firearms should get working on a constitutional amendment repealing the second; good luck finding the legislative support that takes!
Matt, Chicago, IL
Here in the States, the most vocal group in favor of the control of guns, especially military style weapons, are the police. Which is easy to understand. It is also, very much an urban versus rural dispute.
The National Rifle Association and its members advocate absolutely no restrictions on firearms, including machine guns and assault weapons.
Interestingly, the US Founding Fathers also were not in favor of having a standing army in peace time. They were nervous about a military coup.
KD Lambird, St. Louis, MO, USA