CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY CHAPTER OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, HASTINGS COLLEGE
OF THE LAW, AKA HASTINGS CHRISTIAN FELLOW-
SHIP v. MARTINEZ ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 08–1371. Argued April 19, 2010—Decided June 28, 2010
Eric Harris, left, and Dylan Klebold
killed 12 students and a
teacher
before taking their own lives in what remains the deadliest school attack in
U.S. history.
July 12, 2010
The New York Times
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
WASHINGTON — Fresh off a string of victories in the courts and
Congress, the National Rifle Association is flexing political muscle outside its
normal domain, with both Democrats and Republicans courting its favor and
avoiding its wrath on issues that sometimes seem to have little to do with guns.
The N.R.A., long a powerful lobby on gun rights issues, has in recent months
also weighed in on such varied issues as health care, campaign finance, credit
card regulations and Supreme Court nominees.
In the health care debate this year, for instance, the N.R.A.’s lobbyists worked
with the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, to include a little-noticed
provision banning insurance companies from charging higher premiums for people
with guns in their homes.
The N.R.A. worked out a deal last month exempting itself from a proposal
requiring groups active in political spending to disclose their financial
donors. Its push this spring for greater gun rights in the District of Columbia
served to effectively kill a measure — once seemingly assured of passage — to
give the district a voting seat in Congress.
With a push from the N.R.A., a popular bill last year restricting credit card
lenders came with an odd add-on: It also allowed people to carry loaded guns in
national parks. And the gun lobby put potential supporters of the Supreme Court
nominee Elena Kagan on notice this month that a vote for her would be remembered
at the ballot boxes in November.
The N.R.A.’s expanding portfolio is an outgrowth of its success in the courts,
Congressional officials and political analysts said. With the Supreme Court
ruling last month for the second time since 2008 that the Second Amendment
guarantees an individual the right to have a gun, the N.R.A. now finds that its
defining battle is a matter of settled law, and it has the resources to expand
into other areas.
When the N.R.A. had a narrower range of targets, it relied on a core group of
political figures and met with stiffer resistance from vocal gun control
advocates in Congress and outside groups. It now has freer rein to leave its
mark politically on issues that once seemed out of its reach.
“The last two years have been a disaster for us,” said Representative Carolyn
McCarthy, a New York Democrat and a longtime advocate of increased gun control.
“A lot of members are just afraid of the N.R.A.”
On Monday, the N.R.A. began broadcasting advertisements urging senators to
oppose or filibuster the Kagan nomination. But the group’s top priority is still
finding ways to use the Supreme Court ruling in cities, states and courts
nationwide to overturn more restrictive gun laws and establish gun rights
measures.
N.R.A. officials say they are determined to protect gun rights even if it means
using the group’s $307 million budget and membership of more than four million
gun owners to influence ancillary issues.
“What you’re seeing is a recognition that support for the Second Amendment is
not only a very powerful voting bloc, but a very powerful political force.”
Chris W. Cox, the N.R.A.’s chief lobbyist, said in an interview last week at the
group’s Washington office, a few blocks from the Capitol.
He pointed to the debate this spring over loosening gun laws in the District of
Columbia after a 2008 Supreme Court ruling found the city’s gun ban
unconstitutional. At the time, advocates for district voting rights saw their
best chance in many years to gain a voting seat in the House, but they abandoned
their own proposal after gun rights supporters attached a provision weakening
local gun laws.
“I honestly don’t care about D.C. voting rights,” Mr. Cox said of the
legislative maneuvering. “I care about reforming D.C. gun laws, and we’re going
to use voting rights or any other vehicle at our disposal to address what we
consider a blatant disregard for the Constitution.”
The N.R.A. was just as aggressive last month in getting Congressional Democrats
to carve out an exemption tailor-made for the group to exclude it from the
so-called Disclose Act, requiring disclosure of donors, rather than risk a
defeat of the whole bill because of opposition from Republicans and conservative
Democrats supportive of gun rights.
“They shot holes in the Disclose Act with such precision and force that it would
make an N.R.A. member proud,” said Kenneth Gross, a Washington lawyer who
specializes in lobbying issues.
But the group’s muscle has generated tensions with some gun owners themselves,
who do not like the idea of the N.R.A. straying into areas outside its core base
and aligning itself with Democrats as it broadens its agenda.
The headline on a recent blog post from a rival faction, the Gun Owners of
America, singling out the N.R.A.’s exemption from the campaign finance bill,
captured the sentiment: “The N.R.A. Sells out Freedom to the Democrats.”
A point of contention on both the left and the right is the N.R.A.’s close
working relationship with Mr. Reid, the Senate leader who helped get a number of
pro-gun rights measures included in broader bills.
That relationship has led some gun rights supporters to lobby against the idea
that the N.R.A. might endorse Mr. Reid in his tough re-election campaign this
November in Nevada.
The N.R.A. is not tamping down speculation. While Mr. Cox said the group had not
decided on any endorsements, he pointed to what he considered an unattractive
alternative if Mr. Reid loses and the Democrats hold power. “I’ll give you four
words: Majority Leader Chuck Schumer,” he said.
Mr. Reid, for his part, does not run from his support for the N.R.A. His office
noted that he had been a longtime “champion of the Second Amendment.”
One reason for the group’s greater political leverage is that battles in
Washington are so closely fought now that powerful interest groups hold more
sway even if they can only deliver a handful of votes.
Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, said in
pursuing an ambitious legislative agenda, President Obama — who has been largely
silent on gun issues — and Congressional Democrats must either work with the gun
lobby or risk losing votes. “They basically end up saying, ‘We’re willing to
capitulate to the N.R.A. to get the greater good of whatever passed,’ ” he said.
That approach bothers him and Ms. McCarthy, who first came to politics on a
pro-gun-control platform after a gunman with a semiautomatic weapon killed her
husband and five others during a rampage on the Long Island Rail Road in 1993.
Ms. McCarthy said the group drew its power from its money — it has donated more
than $17.5 million to federal candidates, mostly Republicans, since 1989, and
spent millions more in lobbying — and the fear of political retribution.
“I’ve told the Democratic leadership, if you give in to them once, you’re going
to see every piece of legislation with a gun amendment added to it,” she said.
“But it’s put the leadership in a very difficult position because they know they
might not get their bill passed.”
N.R.A. leaders say they plan on broadening their efforts.
“I think we’ve done it better than any organization in the country, to be
honest,” said Wayne LaPierre, the N.R.A.’s executive vice president.
Thirteen days ago, the Supreme Court undermined Chicago’s ban on handguns by
applying the Second Amendment to the states, ruling that people have a right to
protect their homes with a gun. Four days after that, Chicago passed another
handgun restriction that edged right up to the line drawn by the court. And on
Tuesday, a group of gun dealers and enthusiasts sued the city again to overturn
the new law.
Bullets are flying on city streets, but the vital work of limiting gun use has
become a cat-and-mouse game. Beleaguered citizens deserve better from both
sides.
We strongly disagreed with the reasoning that led the court to find an
individual right to bear arms in the Second Amendment, ending handgun bans in
Washington, D.C., in 2008 and everywhere else last month. Nonetheless, the law
of the land is now that people have a constitutional right to a gun in their
home for self-defense.
That right can be limited, the court explicitly said, with reasonable
restrictions. But it provided very little guidance as to what is reasonable,
leaving lawyers, lawmakers and judges to thrash it out in a bog of lawsuits that
could take many years to clear.
Cities and states have a need to be extremely tough in limiting access to guns,
but they need to do it with more forethought than went into the Chicago
ordinance. Lawmakers there sensibly limited residents to one operable handgun
per home, with a strict registration and permitting process. But residents are
not allowed to buy a gun in the city. They must receive firearms training, but
ranges are illegal in the city. Chicago lawmakers sloughed off on the suburbs
the responsibility to regulate sales and training. As a result, more people will
travel more miles to transport guns.
The law is likely to draw heightened equal-protection scrutiny from skeptical
judges at all levels. Chicago would have been better off allowing gun sales
under the strict oversight of the police department, which could then better
check the backgrounds and movements of every buyer and seller. The District of
Columbia passed a largely similar ordinance last year after its law was struck
down by the court. But it permits sales at the few gun shops in the district,
and a federal judge upheld that ordinance after it was challenged. It could
stand as a model for other cities.
As flawed as the Chicago regulation is, the lawsuit challenging it is entirely
over the top. It disputes virtually every aspect of the law as a violation of
the Second Amendment and poses ludicrous hypothetical situations to show that
everyone needs a gun. “If an elderly widow lives in an unsafe neighborhood and
asks her son to spend the night because she has recently received harassing
phone calls,” the lawsuit complains, “the son may not bring his registered
firearm with him to his mother’s home as an aid to the defense of himself and
his mother.” Putting granny in the middle of a neighborhood firefight is
preferable to having her simply call the police?
The gun lobby is going to attack virtually every gun ordinance it can find, if
only to see what it can get away with now. (Last week, the same lawyers who
brought the Chicago and Washington cases sued North Carolina, challenging a law
that prohibits carrying weapons during a state of emergency.)
Lawmakers need not match the lobby’s obduracy. Cities and states should counter
with tough but sensible laws designed to resist legal challenges and keep gun
possession to a minimum.
About 10,000 Americans died by handgun violence, according to federal
statistics, in the four months that the Supreme Court debated which clause of
the Constitution it would use to subvert Chicago’s entirely sensible ban on
handgun ownership. The arguments that led to Monday’s decision undermining
Chicago’s law were infuriatingly abstract, but the results will be all too real
and bloody.
This began two years ago, when the Supreme Court disregarded the plain words of
the Second Amendment and overturned the District of Columbia’s handgun ban,
deciding that the amendment gave individuals in the district, not just militias,
the right to bear arms. Proceeding from that flawed logic, the court has now
said the amendment applies to all states and cities, rendering Chicago’s ban on
handgun ownership unenforceable.
Once again, the court’s conservative majority imposed its selective reading of
American history, citing the country’s violent separation from Britain and the
battles over slavery as proof that the authors of the Constitution and its later
amendments considered gun ownership a fundamental right. The court’s members
ignored the present-day reality of Chicago, where 258 public school students
were shot last school year — 32 fatally.
Rather than acknowledging Chicago’s — and the nation’s — need to end an epidemic
of gun violence, the justices spent scores of pages in the decision analyzing
which legal theory should bind the Second Amendment to the states. Should it be
the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, or the amendment’s immunities
clause? The argument was not completely settled because there was not a
five-vote majority for either path.
The issue is not trivial; had the court backed the immunity-clause path
championed by Justice Clarence Thomas, it might have had the beneficial effect
of applying more aspects of the Bill of Rights to the states. That could make it
easier to require that states, like the federal government, have unanimous jury
verdicts in criminal trials, for example, or ban excessive fines.
While the court has now twice attacked complete bans on handgun ownership, the
decision left plenty of room for restrictions on who can buy and sell arms.
The court acknowledged, as it did in the District of Columbia case, that the
amendment did not confer “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” It cited a few examples of what it
considered acceptable: limits on gun ownership by felons or the mentally ill,
bans on carrying firearms in sensitive places like schools or government
buildings and conditions on gun sales.
Mayors and state lawmakers will have to use all of that room and keep adopting
the most restrictive possible gun laws — to protect the lives of Americans and
aid the work of law enforcement officials. They should continue to impose
background checks, limit bulk gun purchases, regulate dealers, close gun-show
loopholes.
They should not be intimidated by the theoretical debate that has now concluded
at the court or the relentless stream of lawsuits sure to follow from the gun
lobby that will undoubtedly keep pressing to overturn any and all restrictions.
Officials will have to press back even harder. Too many lives are at stake.
The New York Times
June 28, 2010
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court held Monday that the
Constitution's Second Amendment restrains government's ability to significantly
limit "the right to keep and bear arms," advancing a recent trend by the John
Roberts-led bench to embrace gun rights.
By a narrow, 5-4 vote, the justices signaled, however, that less severe
restrictions could survive legal challenges.
Writing for the court in a case involving restrictive laws in Chicago and one of
its suburbs, Justice Samuel Alito said that the Second Amendment right "applies
equally to the federal government and the states."
The court was split along familiar ideological lines, with five
conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and four liberals opposed.
Chief Justice Roberts voted with the majority.
Two years ago, the court declared that the Second Amendment protects an
individual's right to possess guns, at least for purposes of self-defense in the
home.
That ruling applied only to federal laws. It struck down a ban on handguns and a
trigger lock requirement for other guns in the District of Columbia, a federal
city with a unique legal standing. At the same time, the court was careful not
to cast doubt on other regulations of firearms here.
Gun rights proponents almost immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging gun
control laws in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill, where handguns have
been banned for nearly 30 years. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence says
those laws appear to be the last two remaining outright bans.
Lower federal courts upheld the two laws, noting that judges on those benches
were bound by Supreme Court precedent and that it would be up to the high court
justices to ultimately rule on the true reach of the Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court already has said that most of the guarantees in the Bill of
Rights serve as a check on state and local, as well as federal, laws.
Monday's decision did not explicitly strike down the Chicago area laws, ordering
a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling. But it left little doubt that
they would eventually fall.
Still, Alito noted that the declaration that the Second Amendment is fully
binding on states and cities "limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability
to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values."
November 6, 2009
The New York Times
By ROBERT D. McFADDEN
An Army psychiatrist facing deployment to one of America’s war zones killed
12 people and wounded 31 others on Thursday in a shooting rampage with two
handguns at the sprawling Fort Hood Army post in central Texas, military
officials said.
It was one of the worst mass shootings ever at a military base in the United
States.
The gunman, who was still alive after being shot four times, was identified by
law enforcement authorities as Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, 39, who had been in the
service since 1995. Major Hasan was about to be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan,
said Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas.
Clad in a military uniform and firing an automatic pistol and another weapon,
Major Hasan, a balding, chubby-faced man with heavy eyebrows, sprayed bullets
inside a crowded medical processing center for soldiers returning from or about
to be sent overseas, military officials said.
The victims, nearly all military personnel but including two civilians, were cut
down in clusters, the officials said. Witnesses told military investigators that
medics working at the center tore open the clothing of the dead and wounded to
get at the wounds and administer first aid.
As the shooting unfolded, military police and civilian officers of the
Department of the Army responded and returned the gunman’s fire, officials said,
adding that Major Hasan was shot by a first-responder, who was herself wounded
in the exchange.
In the confusion of a day of wild and misleading reports, the major and the
officer who shot him were both reported killed in the gun battle, but both
reports were erroneous.
Eight hours after the shootings, Lt. Gen. Robert W. Cone, a base spokesmen, said
Major Hasan, whom he described as the sole gunman, had been shot four times, but
was hospitalized off the base, under around-the-clock guard, in stable condition
and was not in imminent danger of dying.
Another military spokesman listed the major’s condition as critical. The
condition of the officer who shot the gunman was not given.
Major Hasan was not speaking to investigators, and much about his background —
and his motives — were unknown.
General Cone said that terrorism was not being ruled out, but that preliminary
evidence did not suggest that the rampage had been an act of terrorism. Fox News
quoted a retired Army colonel, Terry Lee, as saying that Major Hasan, with whom
he worked, had voiced hope that President Obama would pull American troops out
of Iraq and Afghanistan, had argued with military colleagues who supported the
wars and had tried to prevent his own deployment.
As a parade of ambulances wailed to the scene of the shootings, officials said
the extent of injuries to the wounded varied significantly, with some in
critical condition and others lightly wounded. General Cone praised the
first-responders and the medics who acted quickly to administer first aid at the
scene.
“Horrible as this was, I think it could have been much worse,” the general said.
The rampage recalled other mass shootings in the United States, including 13
killed at a center for immigrants in upstate New York last April, the deaths of
10 during a gunman’s rampage in Alabama in March and 32 people killed at
Virginia Tech in 2007, the deadliest shooting in modern American history.
As a widespread investigation by the military, the F.B.I., and other agencies
began, much about the assault in Texas remained unclear. Department of Homeland
Security officials said the Army would take the lead in the investigation.
A federal law enforcement official said the F.B.I. was sending more agents to
join the inquiry. On Thursday night, F.B.I. agents were interviewing residents
of a townhouse complex in the Washington suburb of Kensington, Md., where Major
Hasan had lived before moving to Texas.
Mr. Obama called the shootings “a horrific outburst of violence” and urged
Americans to pray for those who were killed and wounded.
“It is difficult enough when we lose these men and women in battles overseas,”
he said. “It is horrifying that they should come under fire at an Army base on
American soil.”
The president pledged “to get answers to every single question about this
horrible incident.”
Military records indicated that Major Hasan was single, had been born in
Virginia, had never served abroad and listed “no religious preference” on his
personnel records. Three other soldiers, their roles unclear, were taken into
custody in connection with the rampage. The office of Representative John
Carter, Republican of Texas, said they were later released, but a Fort Hood
spokesman could not confirm that. General Cone said that more than 100 people
had been questioned during the day.
Fort Hood, near Killeen and 100 miles south of Dallas-Fort Worth, is the largest
active duty military post in the United States, 340 square miles of training and
support facilities and homes, a virtual city for more than 50,000 military
personnel and some 150,000 family members and civilian support personnel. It has
been a major center for troops being deployed to or returning from service in
Iraq and Afghanistan.
The base went into lockdown shortly after the shootings. Gates were closed and
barriers put up at all entrance and exit checkpoints, and the military police
turned away all but essential personnel. Schools on the base were closed,
playgrounds were deserted and sidewalks were empty. Sirens wailed across the
base through the afternoon, a warning to military personnel and their families
to remain indoors.
Military commanders were instructed to account for all personnel on the base.
“The immediate concern is to make sure that all of our soldiers and family
members are safe, and that’s what commanders have been instructed to do,” said
Jay Adams of the First Army, Division West, at Ford Hood.
General Cone said the shooting took place about 1:30 p.m., inside a complex of
buildings that he called a Soldier Readiness Processing Center. The type of
weapons used was unclear, and it was not known whether the gunman had reloaded,
although it seemed likely, given that 43 people were shot, perhaps more than
once.
All the victims were gunned down “in the same area,” General Cone said.
As the shootings ended, scores of emergency vehicles rushed to the scene, which
is in the center of the fort, and dozens of ambulances carried the shooting
victims to hospitals in the region.
Both of the handguns used by Major Hasan were recovered at the scene, officials
said. Investigators said the major’s computers, cellphones and papers would be
examined, his past investigated and his friends, relatives and military
acquaintances would be interviewed in an effort to develop a profile of him and
try to learn what had motivated his deadly outburst.
Major Hasan was assigned to the Darnall Army Medical Center at Fort Hood.
The weapons used in the attack were described as “civilian” handguns. Security
experts said the fact that two handguns had been used suggested premeditation,
as opposed to a spontaneous act.
Rifles and assault weapons are conspicuous and not ordinarily seen on the
streets of a military post, and medical personnel would have no reason to carry
any weapon, they said. Moreover, security experts noted, it took a lot of
ammunition to shoot 43 people, another indication of premeditation.
It appeared certain that the shootings would generate a whole new look at
questions of security on military posts of all the armed forces in the United
States. Expressions of dismay were voiced by public officials across the
country.
The Muslim Public Affairs Council, speaking for many American Muslims, condemned
the shootings as a “heinous incident” and said, “We share the sentiment of our
president.”
The council added, “Our entire organization extends its heartfelt condolences to
the families of those killed as well as those wounded and their loved ones.”
General Cone said Fort Hood was “absolutely devastated.”
News of the shooting set off panic among families and friends of the base
personnel. Alyssa Marie Seace’s husband, Pfc. Ray Seace Jr., sent her a text
message just before 2 p.m. saying that someone had “shot up the S.R.P.
building,” referring to the Soldier Readiness Processing Center. He told her he
was “hiding.”
Ms. Seace, 18, who lives about five minutes from the base and had not been
watching the news, reacted with alarm. She texted him back but got no response.
She called her father in Connecticut, who told her not to call her husband
because it might reveal his hiding place.
Finally, 45 minutes later, her husband, a mechanic who is scheduled to deploy to
Iraq in February, texted back to say that three people from his unit had been
hit and that a dozen people in all were dead.
By late afternoon, the sirens at Fort Hood had fallen silent. In Killeen, state
troopers were parked on ridges overlooking the two main highways through town.
In residential areas, the only signs of life were cars moving through the
streets. In the business districts, people went about their business.
In 1991, Killeen was the scene of one of the worst mass killings in American
history. A gunman drove his pickup truck through the window of a cafeteria,
fatally shot 22 people with a handgun, then killed himself.
Fort Hood, opened in September 1942 as America geared up for World War II, was
named for Gen. John Bell Hood of the Confederacy. It has been used continuously
for armor training and is charged with maintaining readiness for combat
missions.
It is a place that feels, on ordinary days, like one of the safest in the world,
surrounded by those who protect the nation with their lives. It is home to nine
schools — seven elementary schools and two middle schools, for the children of
personnel. But on Thursday, the streets were lined with emergency vehicles,
their lights flashing and sirens piercing the air as Texas Rangers and state
troopers took up posts at the gates to seal the base.
Shortly after 7 p.m., the sirens sounded again and over the loudspeakers a
woman’s voice that could be heard all over the base announced in a clipped
military fashion: “Declared emergency no longer exists.”
The gates reopened, and a stream of cars and trucks that had been bottled up for
hours began to move out.
Reporting was contributed by Michael Brick from Fort Hood, Tex., Michael Luo
from New York, and David Stout from Washington.
June 26, 2009
The New York Times
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
LOUISVILLE, Ky. — Ken Pagano, the pastor of the New Bethel Church here, is
passionate about gun rights. He shoots regularly at the local firing range, and
his sermon two weeks ago was on “God, Guns, Gospel and Geometry.” And on
Saturday night, he is inviting his congregation of 150 and others to wear or
carry their firearms into the sanctuary to “celebrate our rights as Americans!”
as a promotional flier for the “open carry celebration” puts it.
“God and guns were part of the foundation of this country,” Mr. Pagano, 49, said
Wednesday in the small brick Assembly of God church, where a large wooden cross
hung over the altar and two American flags jutted from side walls. “I don’t see
any contradiction in this. Not every Christian denomination is pacifist.”
The bring-your-gun-to-church day, which will include a $1 raffle of a handgun,
firearms safety lessons and a picnic, is another sign that the gun culture in
the United States is thriving despite, or perhaps because of, President Obama’s
election in November.
Last year, the National Rifle Association ran a multimillion-dollar advertising
campaign against Mr. Obama, stoking fears that he would be the most antigun
president in history and that firearms would be confiscated. One worry was that
a Democratic president and Congress would reinstitute the assault-weapons ban,
which expired in 2004.
But there is little support for the ban. Mr. Obama and his party have largely
ignored gun-control issues, and the president even signed a measure that will
allow firearms in national parks.
Still, the fear remains that Mr. Obama, and his attorney general, Eric H. Holder
Jr., will crack down on guns sooner or later. That — along with the faltering
economy, which gun sellers say has spurred purchases for self-defense — has
fueled a record surge in gun sales.
“Every president wants to be re-elected, and gun bans are pretty much a
nonstarter for getting re-elected,” said Win Underwood, owner of the Bluegrass
Indoor Range here. “What I suspect is going to happen is, Obama’s going to cool
his jets until he can get re-elected, and then he’ll start building his legacy
in these hot-button areas.”
When Mr. Obama was elected in November, federal instant background checks, the
best indicator of gun sales, jumped 42 percent over the previous November. Every
month since then, the number of checks has been higher than the year before,
although the postelection surge may be tapering off, as all surges eventually
do. While the number of checks in April increased 30 percent from the year
before, the number of checks in May (1,023,102) was only 15 percent higher than
in May 2008.
The National Rifle Association says its membership is up 30 percent since
November. And several states have recently passed laws allowing gun owners to
carry firearms in more places — bars, restaurants, cars and parks.
“We have a very active agenda in all 50 states,” said Chris W. Cox, legislative
director of the N.R.A., widely considered the country’s most powerful lobby. “We
have right-to-carry laws in over 40 states; 20 years ago, it was in just six.”
Of the 40 states with right-to-carry laws, 20 allow guns in churches.
Public attitudes also seem to be turning more sympathetic to gun owners. In
April, the Pew Research Center found for the first time that almost as many
people said it was more important to protect the rights of gun owners (45
percent) than to control gun ownership (49 percent). Just a year ago, Pew said,
58 percent said gun control was more important than the rights of gun owners (37
percent).
Gun-control advocates say they feel increasingly ineffective, especially after a
recent spate of high-profile shootings, including last month’s murder, inside a
church in Kansas, of a doctor who performed late-term abortions.
“We’ve definitely been marginalized,” said Pam Gersh, a public relations
consultant here who helped organize a rally in Louisville in 2000, to coincide
with the Million Mom March against guns in Washington.
“The Brady Campaign and other similar organizations who advocate sensible gun
responsibility laws don’t have the money and the political power — not even
close,” she said. “This pastor is obviously crossing a line here and saying ‘I
can even take my guns to church, and there is nothing you can do about it.’ ”
Ms. Gersh said she was not aware that a group of local churches and peace
activists were staging a counterpicnic — called “Bring your peaceful heart,
leave your gun at home” — at the same time as Mr. Pagano’s event.
But news media attention — some from overseas — has focused on Mr. Pagano, who
has been planning the event for a year, in celebration of the Fourth of July.
Cameras will not be allowed in the church, he said, to protect the
congregation’s privacy.
The celebration will feature lessons in responsible gun ownership, Mr. Pagano
said. Sheriff’s deputies will be at the doors to check that openly carried
firearms are unloaded, but they will not check for concealed weapons.
“That’s the whole point of concealed,” Mr. Pagano said, adding that he was not
worried because such owners require training.
Mr. Pagano said the church’s insurance company, which he would not identify, had
canceled the church’s policy for the day on Saturday and told him that it would
cancel the policy for good at the end of the year. If he cannot find insurance
for Saturday, people will not be allowed in openly carrying their guns.
Arkansas and Georgia recently rejected efforts to allow people to carry
concealed weapons in church. Watching the debate in Arkansas was John Phillips,
pastor of the Central Church of Christ in Little Rock. In 1986, Mr. Phillips was
preaching in a different church there when a gunman shot him and a parishioner.
Both survived, but Mr. Phillips, 51, still has a bullet lodged in his spine.
In a telephone interview, he said he found the idea of “packing in the pew”
abhorrent.
“There is a movement afoot across the nation, with the gun lobby pushing the
envelope, trying to allow concealed weapons to be carried in places where they
used to be prohibited — churches, schools, bars,” Mr. Phillips said.
“I don’t understand how any minister who is familiar with the teachings of the
Bible can do this,” he added. “Jesus didn’t say, ‘Go ahead, make my day.’ ”
Mr. Pagano takes such comments as a challenge to his faith and says they make
him more determined.
“When someone from within the church tells me that being a Christian and having
firearms are contradictions, that they’re incompatible with the Gospel —
baloney,” he said. “As soon as you start saying that it’s not something that
Christians do, well, guns are just the foil. The issue now is the Gospel. So in
a sense, it does become a crusade. Now the Gospel is at stake.”
A year ago, the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark decision
establishing the constitutional right of Americans to own guns. But the justices
did not explain what the practical effect of that ruling would be on city and
state gun laws.
Could a city still ban handguns? The justices said the District of Columbia
could not, but only because it is a special federal district. The question of
the constitutionality of existing city and state gun laws was left unanswered.
That left a large vacuum for the lower courts to fill. Supporters of gun rights
filed a flurry of lawsuits to strike down local gun restrictions, and now
federal appeals courts have begun weighing in on this divisive issue, using very
different reasoning.
One court this month upheld Chicago’s ban on automatic weapons and concealed
handguns, while in April a California court disagreed on the constitutional
issue.
The differing opinions mean that the whole issue of city and state gun laws will
probably head back to the Supreme Court for clarification, leading many legal
experts to predict a further expansion of gun rights.
The new cases are fallout from last year’s Supreme Court case, District of
Columbia v. Heller, which struck down parts of Washington’s gun control
ordinance, the strictest in the country, and stated for the first time that the
Second Amendment gives individuals a right to keep and bear arms for personal
use. But the court declined to say whether the Second Amendment in general
applies to state and local governments.
In January, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New
York, in a ruling joined by Judge Sonia Sotomayor, declined to apply the Second
Amendment to a New York law that banned the martial arts device known as chukka
sticks. The ban was allowed to stay in place.
Then in April, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, ruled
that the Second Amendment did apply to the states, even though it allowed a
California county to ban guns on government property like state fairgrounds.
That case, Nordyke v. King, is being considered for a rehearing by the full
Ninth Circuit.
Those two conflicting cases set the stage for two other cases that were heard as
one in the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, testing that city’s handgun ban. On June
2, a three-judge panel of the court, led by Chief Judge Frank H. Easterbrook, a
well-known conservative, ruled that there was no basis for the court to apply
the Second Amendment to the states. Such a decision, Judge Easterbrook wrote,
should be made only by the Supreme Court, not at the appellate level.
The right of states to make their own decisions on such matters, Judge
Easterbrook wrote, “is an older and more deeply rooted tradition than is a right
to carry any particular kind of weapon.”
The lawyers for the plaintiffs, including the National Rifle Association, have
asked the Supreme Court to take up the Chicago cases.
A split among the federal appeals circuits, especially on constitutional issues,
invites Supreme Court action, said Adam Winkler, a law professor at the
University of California, Los Angeles.
“Californians, Hawaiians and Oregonians have a Second Amendment right to bear
arms, but New Yorkers, Illinoisans, and Wisconsinites don’t,” Professor Winkler
said. “The Supreme Court will want to correct this sooner rather than later.”
The process of applying amendments of the Bill of Rights to the states, known as
incorporation, began after the Civil War but had its heyday in the activist
Supreme Court of the Earl Warren era. Much of the Bill of Rights, including the
First Amendment’s freedom of speech and some rights of criminal defendants, have
been applied to the states, but other elements have not, including the Seventh
Amendment right to a civil jury trial and the Second Amendment.
Incorporation fell out of favor after the 1960s, but a new generation of largely
liberal scholars of law and history have brought it back into the intellectual
mainstream, said Akhil Reed Amar, a law professor at Yale University, who
supports the process.
“The precedents are now supportive of incorporation of nearly every provision of
the Bill of Rights,” Professor Amar said. “Now what’s odd is that the Second
Amendment doesn’t apply to the states.”
Sanford Levinson, a law professor at the University of Texas, said he would be
surprised if the Supreme Court accepted these gun cases, because some of the
conservative justices on the court had scoffed at incorporation arguments in the
past and might not want to set a precedent.
Professor Amar, however, argued that the justices would not only take up the
case but would also ultimately vote for incorporation of the Second Amendment.
Even if the Second Amendment becomes the controlling law of every state and
town, constitutional scholars say it is still unlikely that gun laws would be
overturned wholesale. The Supreme Court’s Heller decision last year, notes
Nelson Lund, a law professor at George Mason University, “clearly indicates that
governments will still have wide latitude to regulate firearms.”
Even the Ninth Circuit in California, while applying the Second Amendment to the
states, still upheld the gun ordinance that gave rise to the lawsuit.
Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles,
said the view of the Ninth Circuit reflected what polls have said was, by and
large, the view of the American people.
“There is a right to bear arms,” Professor Volokh said, “but it’s not absolute.”
December
26, 2008
The New York Times
By SOLOMON MOORE and ANAHAD O’CONNOR
COVINA,
Calif. — A man in a Santa Claus outfit opened fire on a Christmas Eve gathering
of his in-laws in this Los Angeles suburb and then methodically set their house
ablaze, killing at least eight people and injuring several others, the
authorities said Thursday.
Shortly after the attack, the gunman, identified as Bruce Jeffrey Pardo, 45,
killed himself with a single shot to the head at the home of his brother in the
Sylmar section of Los Angeles, the police said.
In addition to the eight people whose bodies were found in the ashes of the
house here, none of whom were identified, at least one other person was thought
to be missing, and perhaps as many as three. Among the total of dead or missing
were the couple who owned the home and their daughter, the estranged wife of the
gunman, the police said.
Investigators continued to search the charred structure Thursday, and coroners
said dental records would be needed to identify some of the remains.
The frenzied shooting occurred just before midnight Wednesday at the two-story
house, set on a cul-de-sac in this middle-class town about 22 miles east of Los
Angeles. Lt. Pat Buchanan of the Covina Police Department said Mr. Pardo, armed
with one or two handguns and fire accelerant, had gone to the house looking for
his former wife, Sylvia, with whom he was finalizing a contentious divorce after
only a year of marriage.
People who escaped the house got out by smashing through glass and jumping. One
woman broke an ankle when she leapt from a second-floor window.
The house was owned by James and Alicia Ortega, an elderly couple who were
retired from their spray-painting business and who often invited their large
extended family over for parties, particularly around Christmas.
Relatives said about 25 people, among them many children, were inside the home
celebrating when Mr. Pardo knocked on the door around 11:30 p.m. He had
apparently disguised himself as a hired entertainer for the children in order to
gain access.
When a guest opened the door, Lieutenant Buchanan said, Mr. Pardo stepped inside
the house, drew a semiautomatic handgun and immediately started shooting,
beginning with an 8-year-old girl who was hit in the face but who survived, as
did an older girl who was shot in the back.
As Mr. Pardo unleashed a barrage of gunfire in the living room, relatives
smashed through windows, hid behind furniture or bounded upstairs. Then he
sprayed the room with accelerant, using a device made of two pressurized tanks,
one of which held pressurized gas. Within seconds, the house was ablaze.
Joshua Chavez of Seattle was visiting his mother’s house, which sits behind the
Ortegas’, when he heard a loud explosion. “Then I saw black smoke and this large
flame,” he said.
Mr. Chavez ran out to the backyard and heard three girls, including the one who
had been shot in the back, trying to climb over his mother’s wall. “There’s some
guy shooting in there,” he said one of the girls told him.
“About 20 seconds after that,” he continued, “the house was totally on fire. One
girl said that a guy dressed as Santa started shooting.”
Another neighbor, Jeannie Goltz, 51, saw three more partygoers fleeing the
burning home. One of them, a young woman, had escaped upstairs from the living
room but broke her ankle when she jumped out a second-story window.
SWAT teams arrived shortly after Ms. Goltz had shepherded these three survivors
into another neighbor’s house, but by that time Mr. Pardo was on his way back to
Los Angeles.
Police officers said they could not recall so horrific a crime in Covina, and
neighbors said they would never have imagined anything so grisly on their quiet
block.
The Ortegas had lived in the house for more than two decades and were known for
their family spirit, their generosity and their dog, which frequently escaped
their yard.
“I would generally play Santa for the family every year,” said Pat Bower, a
neighbor of the Ortegas for 25 years. “The family was always together. Brothers
and sisters, aunts and uncles were always in the house. They were a gigantic
family. We all envied them, actually.”
Robert and Gloria Magcalas lived next door to the Ortegas for 11 years but were
celebrating Christmas Eve with relatives in Los Angeles. Their own home was
barely spared the flames.
“They were a big, loving family,” Mrs. Magcalas said. “We usually exchanged
gifts with them today. They gave us tamales and cookies every Christmas.”
The police said they had found two handguns in the ruins, and an additional two
pistols at the scene of Mr. Pardo’s apparent suicide. Officials said they would
continue to search the crime scene Friday, seeking information about the
identities of the dead.
Solomon Moore reported from Covina, and Anahad O’Connor from New York.
November 11, 2008
The New York Times
By JOHN DOUGHERTY and ANAHAD O’CONNOR
An 8-year-old Arizona boy charged with premeditated murder in
the deaths of his father and another man shot each victim at least four times
with a .22-caliber rifle, methodically stopping and reloading as he killed them,
prosecutors said Monday.
Although investigators initially said they thought the boy might have suffered
severe physical or sexual trauma, they have found no evidence of abuse, said Roy
Melnick, the police chief in St. Johns, Ariz., where the shootings occurred.
Psychologists say such abuse is often a factor in the extremely rare instances
in which a small child murders a parent.
An investigation found no evidence that the boy had had disciplinary problems at
school or shown signs that he was troubled, Chief Melnick said. “That’s what
makes this case somewhat puzzling,” he said, adding that the court had ordered a
psychological evaluation for the boy. “Our goal is to get him some help.”
Kathleen M. Heide, a criminology professor at the University of South Florida,
said the odds of such killings “are so infinitesimal, it’s really hard to even
comprehend.”
From 1976 to 2005, there were 62 cases in the United States in which a 7- or
8-year-old was arrested on murder charges, said Dr. Heide, who analyzed F.B.I.
data. Only two of those cases involved a child killing a parent. Children
younger than 7 who commit killings are not charged in most states.
In cases in which a child kills a parent, the child is typically a teenager and
usually acts for one of three reasons, psychologists say. Most often, the child
has suffered years of physical or sexual abuse. Others kill because of severe
mental illness. And some have extreme antisocial or psychopathic tendencies — a
child who is used to getting his way and kills out of anger.
“The wrinkle here,” Dr. Heide said, “is that this boy is so young, it could
possibly be immaturity and impulsivity.” In children as young as 8, parts of the
brain that weigh decisions and consequences are so underdeveloped that a child
might not understand the finality of death.
The boy in Arizona was no stranger to weapons — his father, an avid hunter,
reportedly trained his son to shoot prairie dogs — and psychologists said that
might have played a role.
The shootings occurred Wednesday afternoon in the two-story home in St. Johns,
about 200 miles northeast of Phoenix, where the boy lived with his father,
Vincent Romero, 29. The deputy attorney for Apache County, Brad Carlyon, said
Monday that the boy was taken to the police by his grandmother and initially
considered a victim because he was believed to have discovered the men’s bodies.
But about 45 minutes into an hourlong police interview, Mr. Carlyon said, the
boy confessed to shooting his father and a man who rented a room in the house,
Timothy Romans, 39, of San Carlos, Ariz.
Mr. Carlyon said the boy told the police that he had been spanked at home the
night before because he was having trouble at school. But, the prosecutor said,
the boy “did not say that was the reason he committed any of the acts.”
Prosecutors said the murder weapon was a single-action .22-caliber hunting rifle
that requires reloading before each shot. “He had to eject the shell from the
rifle and put in a new shell each time he fired,” Mr. Carlyon said.
Mr. Carlyon and Chief Melnick spoke to The New York Times shortly before an
Apache County judge placed a gag order on lawyers and the police a little before
noon Monday.
Mr. Romero, who was divorced from the boy’s mother, had recently remarried and
had custody of his son. Mr. Romero was the first victim, investigators said,
shot in the head and chest as he walked up a staircase inside the house shortly
after 5 p.m.
Mr. Romans was outside the house talking on his cellphone to his wife, Mr.
Carlyon said, when he heard some commotion inside. Mr. Carlyon said the rifle
produced only a “muffled, soft popping” sound, making it likely that Mr. Romans
had no idea what had happened inside. Mr. Carlyon said Mr. Romans had told his
wife that the boy was calling for him. He was on the porch on his way into the
house when he was shot in the chest and head, the authorities said.
The police arrived at the house one minute after receiving a phone call from a
neighbor at 5:08 p.m., Chief Melnick said. Both men were dead. The chief said
the boy was not immediately taken into custody. “He was considered a witness,”
Chief Melnick said.
A secretary for the boy’s lawyer, Benjamin Brewer, said Mr. Brewer was in court
all day Monday and could not be reached for comment. Mr. Brewer has said that
neither he nor the boy’s family was present for the questioning and that the boy
was not read his rights. He is being held at the Apache County Juvenile
Detention Center.
August 29, 2008
The New York Times
By JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr.
HARROLD, Tex. — Students in this tiny town of grain silos and ranch-style
houses spent much of the first couple of days in school this week trying to
guess which of their teachers were carrying pistols under their clothes.
“We made fun of them,” said Eric Howard, a 16-year-old high school junior.
“Everybody knows everybody here. We will find out.”
The school board in this impoverished rural hamlet in North Texas has drawn
national attention with its decision to let some teachers carry concealed
weapons, a track no other school in the country has followed. The idea is to
ward off a massacre along the lines of what happened at Columbine High School in
Colorado in 1999.
“Our people just don’t want their children to be fish in a bowl,” said David
Thweatt, the schools superintendent and driving force behind the policy.
“Country people are take-care-of-yourself people. They are not under the
illusion that the police are there to protect them.”
Even in Texas, with its tradition of lenient gun laws and frontier justice, the
idea of teachers’ taking guns to class has rattled some people and sparked a
fiery debate.
Gun-control advocates are wringing their hands, while pro-gun groups are
gleeful. Leaders of the state’s major teachers unions have expressed stunned
outrage, while the conservative Republican governor, Rick Perry, has endorsed
the idea.
In the center of the storm is Mr. Thweatt, a man who describes himself as “a
contingency planner,” who believes Americans should be less afraid of protecting
themselves and who thinks signs at schools saying “gun-free zone” make them
targets for armed attacks. “That’s like saying sic ’em to a dog,” he said.
Mr. Thweatt maintains that having teachers carry guns is a rational response to
a real threat. The county sheriff’s office is 17 miles away, he argues, and the
district cannot afford to hire police officers, as urban schools in Dallas and
Houston do.
The school board decided that teachers with concealed guns were a better form of
security than armed peace officers, since an attacker would not know whom to
shoot first, Mr. Thweatt said. Teachers have received training from a private
security consultant and will use special ammunition designed to prevent
ricocheting, he added.
Harrold, about 180 miles northwest of Dallas, is a far cry from the giant
districts in major Texas cities, where gang violence is the main concern and
most schools have their own police forces. Barely 100 students of all ages
attend classes here in two brick buildings built more than 60 years ago. There
are two dozen teachers, a handful of buses and a football field bordered by
crops.
Yet the town is not isolated in rustic peace, supporters of the plan point out.
A four-lane highway runs through town, bringing with it a river of humanity,
including criminals, they say. The police recently shut down a drug-producing
laboratory in a ramshackle house near school property. Drifters sometimes sleep
under the overpass.
“I’m not exactly paranoid,” Mr. Thweatt said. “I like to consider myself
prepared.”
Some residents and parents, however, think Mr. Thweatt may be overstating the
threat. Many say they rarely lock their doors, much less worry about random
drifters with pistols running amok at the school. Longtime residents were
hard-pressed to recall a single violent incident there.
Others worry that introducing guns into the classroom might create more problems
than it solved. A teacher tussling with a student could lose control of a
weapon, or a gun might go off by accident, they said.
“I don’t think there is a place in the school whatsoever for a gun unless you
have a police officer in there,” said Bobby G. Brown, a farmer and former school
board chairman whose two sons were educated at the school. “I don’t care how
much training they have.”
His wife, Diane Brown, added: “There are too many things that could happen. They
are not trained to make life-and-death-situation judgments.”
Mr. Thweatt declined to say how many teachers were armed, or who they were, on
the theory that it would tip off the bad guys. He also declined to identify the
private consultant who provided teachers with about 40 hours of weapons
training.
Most critics question whether teachers, even with extra training, are as
qualified as police officers to take out an armed attacker.
“We are trained to teach and to educate,” said Zeph Capo, the legislative
director for the Houston Association of Teachers. “We are not trained to tame
the Wild West.”
Texas gun laws ban the weapons on school property. But the Legislature carved
out an exception allowing school boards to permit people with concealed handgun
licenses to carry their weapons. No local district had taken advantage of the
exception until the Harrold school board acted.
Debbie Ratcliffe, a spokeswoman for the Texas Education Agency, said the state’s
hands were tied. “We have really tried not to get involved in this,” Ms.
Ratcliffe said. “Frankly, it’s a matter of local control.”
Gun-control advocates say, however, that while the school district may be
complying with state gun laws, it appears to be violating the education statute.
That law says “security personnel” authorized to carry weapons on campuses must
be “commissioned peace officers,” who undergo police training.
“It seems to us not only an unwise policy but an illegal one,” said Brian
Siebel, a lawyer in Washington for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
The school district has countered that teachers are not “security personnel” and
so do not need to become peace officers.
As a general rule, the seven school board members — a collection of farmers and
oil workers led by an ambulance medic — have referred all questions from
reporters to Mr. Thweatt. But one member, Coy Cato, gave a short interview. “In
my opinion, it is the best way to protect our kids,” Mr. Cato said. Asked if
others in the community shared his view, he said that he had not taken a poll,
but “I think so.”
Still, several residents complained that the board made little or no effort to
gather public opinion on the matter. Some said they did not hear about the plan
until reporters started asking questions about it in early August.
Mr. Thweatt said the board discussed the proposal for nearly two years and
considered several options — tranquilizer guns, beanbag guns, Tasers, Mace and
armed security guards — but each was found lacking in some way. “We
devil-advocated it to death,” Mr. Thweatt said.
That discussion went unnoticed by many parents.
Traci McKay, a 34-year-old restaurant employee, sends three children to the
school, yet said she had not heard about the pistol-carrying teachers until two
weeks before the start of the semester. She was stunned.
“I should have been informed,” Ms. McKay said. “If something happens, do we
really want all these people shooting at each other?”
Ms. McKay said Mr. Thweatt had yet to explain why a town with such a low crime
rate needed such measures. She is afraid, however, that her children might face
repercussions if she takes up a petition against the idea.
“We are pretty much being told to deal with this or move,” Ms. McKay said.
WASHINGTON
— The Supreme Court declared for the first time on Thursday that the
Constitution protects an individual’s right to have a gun, not just the right of
the states to maintain militias.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the landmark 5-to-4
decision, said the Constitution does not allow “the absolute prohibition of
handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.” In so declaring, the
majority found that a gun-control law in the nation’s capital went too far by
making it nearly impossible to own a handgun.
But the court held that the individual right to possess a gun “for traditionally
lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home” is not unlimited. “It is
not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and
for whatever purpose,” Justice Scalia wrote.
The ruling does not mean, for instance, that laws against carrying concealed
weapons are to be swept aside. Furthermore, Justice Scalia wrote, “The court’s
opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the
possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the
carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government
buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale
of arms.”
The decision upheld a federal appeals court ruling that the District of
Columbia’s gun law, one of the strictest in the country, went beyond
constitutional limits. Not only did the 1976 law make it practically impossible
for an individual to legally possess a handgun in the district, but it also
spelled out rules for the storage of rifles and shotguns. But the court did not
articulate a specific standard of review for what might be a reasonable
restraint on the right to possess a firearm.
The court also said on Thursday that the district law’s requirement that lawful
weapons be rendered essentially inoperable, by trigger locks or disassembly, was
unconstitutional because it rendered the weapons useless for self-defense.
Joining Justice Scalia were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices
Clarence Thomas, Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito Jr.
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.”
Joining him were Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G.
Breyer.
The high court’s ruling was the first since 1939 to deal with the scope of the
Second Amendment, and the first to so directly address the meaning of the
amendment’s ambiguous, comma-laden text: “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.”
Not surprisingly, Justice Scalia and Justice Stevens differed on the clarity (or
lack thereof) of the Second Amendment. “The amendment’s prefatory clause
announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second
clause,” wrote Justice Scalia. “The operative clause’s text and history
demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.”
Not at all, Justice Stevens countered, asserting that the majority “stakes its
holding on a strained and unpersuasive reading of the amendment’s text.” Justice
Stevens read his dissent from the bench, an unmistakable signal that he
disagreed deeply with the majority.
Indeed, it was clear from the conflicting opinions of Justices Scalia and
Stevens that the case had generated emotional as well as intellectual sparks at
the court.
Justice Scalia devoted page after page of his opinion to the various state
constitutions and to the use of language in the 18th and 19th centuries to
support his view that an individual right to bear arms is embodied in the
Constitution. And Justice Scalia, who clearly takes pride in his writing as well
as his reasoning, used adjectives like “frivolous” and “bizarre” to describe the
other side’s arguments.
Not to be outdone, Justice Stevens called the majority’s interpretation of the
Second Amendment “overwrought and novel” and said it “calls to mind the parable
of the six blind men and the elephant,” in which each of the sightless men had a
different conception of the animal.
“Each of them, of course, has fundamentally failed to grasp the nature of the
creature,” Justice Stevens wrote.
The ruling on Thursday will surely not quiet the debate about guns and violence
in the United States, where deaths by firearm take a far higher toll than in
many other countries, as Justice Scalia acknowledged.
“We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country,” he wrote,
saying that he took seriously the concerns of those who believe that
“prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution.”
Lawmakers in the District of Columbia and across the country may look to the
decision as a blueprint for writing new legislation to satisfy the demands of
constituents who say there is too much regulation of firearms now, or too
little, depending on the sentiments in their regions. (Washington’s Mayor,
Adrian M. Fenty, will instruct the police department to issue new
handgun-registration rules within 30 days while city officials study the ruling,
The Washington Post reported on its Web site.)
Nor was there any suggestion that the court’s ruling would lead to a
proliferation of deadly, military-style assault weapons. Alluding to the 1939
Supreme Court decision, which held that the weapons protected under the Second
Amendment were those “in common use at the time,” Justice Scalia said, “We think
that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting
the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”
The White House issued a statement saying that President Bush “strongly agrees
with the Supreme Court’s historic decision today that the Second Amendment
protects the individual right of Americans to keep and bear arms.”
The Supreme Court ruling is likely to play out in this year’s elections, as
Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican nominee for
president, made clear. “I applaud this decision as well as the overturning of
the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns and limitations on the ability to use
firearms for self-defense,” Mr. McCain said in a statement, which contained a
reminder that his Democratic nominee, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, refused
to join him in signing an amicus brief in support of overturning the district’s
law.
Indeed, Mr. Obama’s view, expressed in a statement, was more nuanced than Mr.
McCain’s. “I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right
of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged
communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets
through common-sense, effective safety measures,” Mr. Obama said, predicting
that the ruling would provide needed guidance for lawmakers.
The National Rifle Association and other supporters of rights to have firearms
are sure to use the decision as a launch pad for lawsuits. The N.R.A. said it
would file suits in San Francisco, Chicago and several Chicago suburbs
challenging handgun restrictions there. “I consider this the opening salvo in a
step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere
that have been deprived of this freedom,” Wayne LaPierre, executive vice
president of the N.R.A., told The Associated Press.
Reaction on Capitol Hill differed sharply. Representative John A. Boehner of
Ohio, the Republican minority leader in the House, applauded the ruling. “The
Constitution plainly guarantees the solemn right to keep and bear arms, and the
whims of politically correct bureaucrats cannot take it away,” he said in a
statement.
But Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California and a former mayor of San
Francisco, said she was disappointed in the ruling. “I speak as a former mayor,”
she said at a session of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “I speak as somebody
who has gone to homicide crime scenes.”
The last time the Supreme Court weighed a case involving the Second Amendment,
in 1939, it decided a narrower question, finding that the Constitution did not
protect any right to possess a specific type of firearm, the sawed-off shotgun.
By contrast, the issues in the District of Columbia case seemed much more
“mainstream,” if that term can be used in reference to gun-control issues. When
the justices announced on Nov. 20 that they were accepting the case of District
of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290, they indicated that they would go to the
heart of the long debate.
The question, they said, is whether the district’s restrictions on firearms
“violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with
any state-regulated militia but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for
private use in their homes.”
Dick Anthony Heller, a security guard who carries a handgun for his job
protecting federal judiciary offices, challenged the District of Columbia’s law
after his request for a license to keep his gun at home was rejected.
There have been debates about the efficacy of gun-control efforts in the
capital. Those district residents who want guns — and are willing to risk
punishment if caught with them without bothering to apply for permits — can get
them easily enough, across the Potomac River in Virginia and in other nearby
states.
Washington’s homicide rate, while high by world standards, is sharply lower than
it was in the early 1990s. Last year, there were 181 homicides in Washington,
down from a peak of 479 in 1991, when crack cocaine was a huge problem in some
sections of the city.
Concluding his opinion, Justice Scalia wrote, “Undoubtedly some think that the
Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride
of our nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and
where gun violence is a serious problem.”
“That is perhaps debatable,” Justice Scalia wrote, “but what is not debatable is
that it is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment
extinct.”
When the Heller case was argued before the justices on March 18, Mr. Heller’s
lawyer, Alan Gura, did not assert that the Second Amendment precluded any kind
of ban related to gun possession. He said that a ban on the shipment of machine
guns and sawed-off shotguns would be acceptable, and in answer to a question
from the justices, so, too, might be a prohibition on guns in schools. Some of
the justices signaled during arguments that they thought the District’s
near-total ban on handguns went too far.
A legislature “has a great deal of leeway in regulating firearms,” Mr. Gura
argued, but not to the extent of virtually banning them in homes.
The Washington law not only established high barriers to the private possession
of handguns, it also required that rifles and shotguns be kept either in a
disassembled state or under a trigger lock.
Walter Dellinger, the lawyer who argued for the district on March 18, asserted
that “the people” and “the militia” were essentially the same, and that the
Second Amendment gave people the right to bear arms only in connection with
their militia service.
Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, representing the federal government, argued
on behalf of the individual-rights position, which has been the Bush
administration’s policy. But he said that the appeals court had also gone too
far in overturning the ordinance and that the right to bear arms was always
subject to “reasonable regulations.”
(Reuters) -
A gunman opened fire from a balcony in a shopping mall in Omaha, Nebraska, on
Wednesday, killing eight people, wounding five before taking his own life,
police said.
Following is a chronology of some of the deadlier mass shootings in the United
States in recent years:
March 1998 - At Westside Middle School in Jonesboro, Arkansas, two boys aged 13
and 11 pulled a fire alarm and began shooting teachers and classmates as they
left the school, killing four students and a teacher.
April 1999 - Two students shot to death 12 other students and a teacher at
Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, before killing themselves.
July 1999 - A day trader killed his wife and two children before shooting nine
people to death at two Atlanta brokerages. He then killed himself.
September 1999 - A 47-year-old loner killed seven people in a Fort Worth, Texas,
Baptist church. Then he killed himself.
November 1999 - A Xerox copier repairman in Honolulu gunned down seven
co-workers before fleeing, triggering one of the biggest manhunts in Hawaii
history. He was located and surrendered to police after a five-hour armed
standoff.
March 2005 - A 16-year-old high school student gunned down five students, a
teacher and a security guard at Red Lake High School in far northern Minnesota
before killing himself. He also killed his grandfather and his grandfather's
companion elsewhere on the Chippewa Indian reservation.
October 2, 2006 - A local milk truck driver who was not Amish, tied up and shot
10 Amish schoolgirls aged 6 to 14 in their classroom, killing five of them
before turning the gun on himself in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, about 60
miles (97 km) west of Philadelphia.
April 16, 2007 - A university in Blacksburg, Virginia, Virginia Tech, became the
site of the deadliest rampage in U.S. history when a gunman killed 32 people and
himself.
December 5, 2007 - A gunman opened fire from a balcony in a shopping mall in
Omaha, Nebraska, killing eight people and wounding five, before taking his own
life, police said.
(Writing by Paul Grant, Washington Editorial Reference Unit, editing by Philip
Barbara)
Saturday, November 25, 2006
Remarks by Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly
Police Headquarters
The New York Times
I AM GOING TO GIVE YOU ALL OF THE FACTS AS WE KNOW THEM AT
THIS POINT.
THERE IS SOME INFORMATION WE DON’T HAVE. THAT’S BECAUSE WE ARE
PRECLUDED FROM INTERVIEWING ALL OF THE OFFICERS INVOLVED UNTIL THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY FINISHES HIS REVIEW. THE SHOOTING HAPPENED AT 4:14 THIS MORNING IN
JAMAICA, QUEENS.
ONE PERSON WAS SHOT AND KILLED AND TWO OTHERS WERE WOUNDED BY
POLICE GUNFIRE. A TOTAL OF SEVEN POLICE OFFICERS WERE INVOLVED IN THE INCIDENT,
FIVE OF WHOM FIRED THEIR WEAPONS. THE OTHER TWO, WHO DID NOT SHOOT, A LIEUTENANT
AND AN UNDERCOVER OFFICER, HAVE BEEN INTERVIEWED.
THE EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE SHOOTING UNFOLDED AT THE CLUB KALUA AT 143-08 94TH
STREET IN JAMAICA. A CLUB ENFORCEMENT TASK FORCE HAD BEEN ASSIGNED TO MONITOR
THE CLUB BECAUSE OF A CHRONIC HISTORY OF NARCOTICS, PROSTITUTION AND WEAPONS
COMPLAINTS THERE. IT HAD BEEN CLOSED THROUGH NUISANCE ABATEMENT IN JULY 2005 FOR
PROSTITUTION AND UNDER AGE DRINKING.
IT WAS ALLOWED TO RE-OPEN IN OCTOBER 2005. SINCE THEN, IT HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT
OF NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS. THERE WERE TWENTY-SIX 9-1-1 CALLS TO THE CLUB IN THE
LAST 12 MONTHS, AND 8 ARRESTS THERE FOR WEAPONS, NARCOTICS AND PROSTITUTION. THE
MOST RECENT ARRESTS THERE FOR NARCOTICS AND PROSTITUTION WERE MADE ON TUESDAY.
TWO UNDERCOVER OFFICERS WERE INSIDE THE CLUB AT ABOUT ONE A.M... TODAY TO
DOCUMENT ANY ILLICIT ACTIVITY THERE. WITH ONE MORE DOCUMENTED VIOLATION, THE
CLUB WOULD FACE ANOTHER NUISANCE ABATEMENT CLOSURE.
AT ABOUT 3:00 A.M., ONE OF THE UNDERCOVER OFFICERS OVERHEARD ONE OF THE CLUB’S
DANCERS COMPLAIN TO A MAN THAT SHE HAD BEEN BOTHERED BY ONE OF THE PATRONS. THE
MAN INDICATED BY PATTING HIS WAISTBAND THAT HE HAD A GUN, AND HE TOLD THE WOMAN
WOULD TAKE CARE OF THE PROBLEM. THE UNDERCOVER WHO HEARD THE EXCHANGE LEFT THE
CLUB TO NOTIFY HIS SUPERVISOR AND BACK-UP TEAM OF POSSIBLE TROUBLE.
AT ABOUT 4 AM OUTSIDE IN FRONT OF THE CLUB, A GROUP OF APPROXMAILEY 8 MEN BEGAN
TO ARGUE WITH A LONE MALE, THREATENING TO ASSAULT HIM. ONE OF THE MALES IN THE
GROUP OF 8 YELLED “YO, GET MY GUN.” AND ANOTHER THREATENED TO ASSAULT THE LONE
MALE. THE GROUP OF 8 ULTIMATELY LEFT THE MAN ALONE.
THEY BROKE INTO TWO GROUPS OF 4 AND PROCEEDED EAST ON 94TH
AVENUE,
ABOUT A HALF BLOCK TO LIVERPOOL STREET, WHERE THEY TURNED SOUTH.
ONE OF THE UNDERCOVER OFFICERS, WHO I’LL CALL UNDERCOVER NUMBER ONE, STAYED
CLOSE BEHIND THE SECOND GROUP OF FOUR. UNDERCOVER OFFICER TWO REMAINED IN FRONT
OF THE CLUB. MEANWHILE, THE BACK UP TEAMS FOLLOWED UNDERCOVER OFFICER ONE AS HE
STAYED CLOSE BEHIND THE GROUP OF FOUR. THE BACK UP TEAMS WERE COMPRISED OF A
LIEUTENANT AND TWO OTHER OFFICERS IN AN UNMARKED TOYOTA CAMRY, AND TWO OTHER
OFFICERS IN A FORD “FREESTAR” MINIVAN.
UNDERCOVER OFFICER ONE CROSSED FROM THE WEST SIDE TO THE EAST SIDE OF LIVERPOOL
STREET, AS THE FOUR MEN HE WAS OBSERVING ENTERED A NISSAN ALTIMA. AS THE
UNDERCOVER OFFICER APPROACHED THE FRONT OF THE CAR, THE CAR MOVED FORWARD,
STRIKING THE UNDERCOVER. IT THEN PLOWED INTO THE FRONT OF THE POLICE MINIVAN
THAT HAD JUST TURNED SOUTH ON LIVERPOOL STREET. THE DRIVER OF THE ALTIMA PUT THE
CAR IN REVERSE AND DROVE BACKWARD ONTO THE SIDEWALK, SLAMMING INTO A ROLL-DOWN
GATE OF THE BUILDING THERE, CLOSE TO WHERE THE UNDERCOVER OFFICER WAS
LOCATED.THE DRIVER PUT THE CAR INTO FORWARD AND RAMMED THE POLICE MINIVAN A
SECOND TIME.
FIVE POLICE OFFICERS FIRED A TOTAL OF 50 ROUNDS AT THE THE ALTIMA. THE DRIVER,
SEAN BELL, WAS STRUCK TWICE, IN THE RIGHT ARM AND NECK. HE WAS PRONOUNCED AT
JAMAICA HOSPITAL. JOSEPH GUZMAN, WHO WAS IN THE FRONT PASSENGER SEAT, WAS STRUCK
MULTIPLE TIMES…AS MANY AS 11 TIMES. HE IS IN CRITICAL CONDITION AT MARY
IMMACULATE IN QUEENS. TRENT BENEFIELD, WHO WAS IN THE BACK SEAT, WAS SHOT THREE
TIMES, IN LOWER LEGS AND THE RIGHT REAR BUTTOCKS. HE IS IN STABLE CONDITION AT
MARY IMMACULATE HOSPITAL.
THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A FOURTH INDIVIDUAL IN THE CAR WHO FLED.
THE POLICE OFFICER WHO WAS STRUCK BY THE VEHICLE WAS TREATED AND RELEASED FOR AN
ABRASION TO HIS RIGHT SHIN. ONE OF THE DETECTIVES ASSIGNED AS BACK UP REMAINS AT
NORTH SHORE HOSPITAL IN NASSAU COUNTRY FOR OBSERVATION BECAUSE OF HYPERTENSION.
TWO PORT AUTHORITY POLICE OFFICERS WERE TREATED AND RELEASED FOR MINOR FACIAL
INJURES FROM GLASS FROM A WINDOW IN THE NEARBY AIR TRAIN FACILITY. THE WINDOW
HAD BEEN SHATTERED BY AN ERRANT ROUND. ANOTHER ERRANT ROUND PENETRATED THE
WINDOW OF A PRIVATE HOUSE NEARBY. THERE WERE NO INJURIES ASSOCIATED WITH IT,
HOWEVER.
THE TWO OFFICERS IN THE MINIVAN, EXITED THEIR VEHICLE AND FIRED AT TOTAL OF 34
SHOTS BETWEEN THEM. ONE OF THE TWO, A 12-YEAR VETERAN OF THE DEPARTMENT, FIRED
31 TIMES. THE OTHER, A 5-YEAR VETERAN, FIRED THREE TIMES.
THE TWO OFFICERS WITH THE LIEUTENANT IN THE CAMRY EXITED THE VEHICLE AND FIRED A
TOTAL OF 5 TIMES. ONE OFFICER, A 17-YEAR VETERAN, FIRED FOUR TIMES.
THE OTHER, A 9-YEAR VETERAN, FIRED ONCE. UNDERCOVER OFFICER, A FIVE-YEAR
VETERAN, FIRED 11 TIMES. ALL OF THESE OFFICERS WERE ARMED WITH 9MM
SEMI-AUTOMATIC PISTOLS. NONE HAD BEEN INVOLVED IN SHOOTINGS PREVIOUSLY.
NEITHER THE LIEUTENANT NOR UNDERCOVER OFFICER TWO FIRED.
OUR BALLISTICS TEAM HAS RECOVERED 40 SHELL CASINGS SO FAR. THEY FOUND THE NISSAN
ALTIMA HAS BEEN STRUCK 21 TIMES.
AT ABOUT 2:30 THIS AFTERNOON, A SEARCH WARRANT WAS OBTAINED FOR THE ALTIMA. NO
WEAPON WAS RECOVERED.
AS I MENTIONED, WE ARE PRECLUDED FROM INTERVIEWING THE SHOOTING OFFICERS UNTIL,
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY COMPLETES HIS INVESTIGATION. WE HAVE QUESTIONED THE TWO
NON-SHOOTING OFFICERS, INCLUDING UNDERCOVER OFFICER TWO. UNDERCOVER OFFICER TWO
WAS IN FRONT OF THE CLUB WHEN HE HEARD AN INDIVIDUAL LATER IDENTIFIED AS THE
DRIVER OF THE ULTIMA, SEAN BELL, SAY “LET’S F… HIM UP,” IN REFERENCE TO AN
UNIDENTIFIED MALE STANDING BY A BLACK SUV IN FRONT OF THE CLUB. THE UNDERCOVER
OFFICER SAID THAT HE HEARD THE INDIVIDUAL LATER IDENTIFIED AS JOSEPH GUZMAN SAY
“YO, GO GET MY GUN.”
THE LIEUTENANT, IN HIS INTERVIEW SAID, THAT UNDERCOVER OFFICER ONE CALLED HIM
JUST PRIOR TO THE SHOOTING TO REPORT THAT, QUOTE: “IT’S GETTING HOT ON
LIVERPOOL, FOR REAL, I THINK THERE’S A GUN.” AT THIS POINT, THE LIEUTENANT WAS
PRECEDING EAST ON 94TH AVENUE IN THE TOYOTA CAMRY ABOUT AT BLOCK FROM LIVERPOOL
STREET. THE POLICE MINIVAN FOLLOWED HIM ONTO THE BLOCK
AS THE LIEUTENANT TURNED SOUTH ONTO LIVERPOOL, AND PROCEEDED DOWN THE BLOCK, HE
PASSED THE ALTIMA, AND THEN HEARD THE ALTIMA CRASH INTO THE MINIVAN AND THEN THE
SHOTS FIRED. A CIVILIAN WITNESS DESCRIBED THE ULTIMA CRASH INTO THE POLICE
MINIVAN AND THE ENSUING SHOOTING.
WE WILL LEARN MORE ABOUT THIS SHOOTING WHEN WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO INTERVIEW
THE OFFICERS WHO FIRED. NOW, I’LL TAKE QUESTIONS.
