Supreme Court to rule on right to keep handguns at home

Supreme Court to rule on right to keep handguns at home

The Supreme Court announced that it would decide whether the Constitution grants individuals the right to keep guns in their homes for private use, plunging the justices headlong into a divisive and long-running debate over how to interpret the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the “right of the people to keep and bear arms.

This is clearly going to be one of the biggest ... cases decided this year," said Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett. "It is one of the very few times when the Supreme Court has the opportunity to interpret a provision of the Constitution ... unencumbered by previous Supreme Court rulings.

Washington banned handguns in 1976, saying it was designed to reduce violent crime in the nation's capital. The Second Amendment of united state constitution 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."

Clearly, it is one of the most important decisions by court, on the other hand this decision shall change the relations between peoples and government as a security organization.

There are two different views exist about Firearms rights as one of the most controversial and intractable issues in American politics:

The first view may be found among proponents of gun rights. The idea considers "individual rights advocates” which argue that individual rights are more important than social control. It tends to increase civil rights. This is traditionally associated with liberalism. From this point of view Freedom means people should have fewer laws restricting whatever they want to do. Then people should have their own guns to defend their homes, because they feel they need them, people should be free to own an effective weapon to defend their homes against dangers. According to this opinion, this decision limits government and increases personal rights.

As an instant I can refer to Dick Anthony Heller, an armed security guard, who said:   "I want to be able to defend myself and my wife from violent criminals, and the Constitution says I have a right to do that by keeping a gun in my home. The police can't be everywhere, and they can't protect everyone all the time".

On the other hand, individual rights can be described as rights which government should protect for citizens and it is the duty of the government to prepare security for people and made them safe against crimes. They believe the second amendment of the Constitution of the United States which was written to protect the individual’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Adrian M. Fenty, Washington Mayor, who is one of the followers, says “I hoped the high court would uphold the city's ordinance. The council enacted the handgun ban more than 30 years ago because it would reduce handgun violence. It has saved many lives since then and will continue to do so if allowed to remain in force."

  While there is no doubt on this statement which said "individual rights are commonly assumed to be inversely related to social control" but the subject is still open to argue that how protection of individual rights actually makes social control by the government more effective

http://news.google.com/?ned=us&topic=n. (2007/nov/21)

http://news.yahoo.com/i/718;_ylt=At_fj0.P.IAa4Z24UDM7DvKs0NUE (2007/nov/21)