34 South Main St., Attleboro, MA - (508) 222-7000
News
Supreme Court finds individuals have constitutional right to own handguns
 (Associated Press)
Top Headlines 'It's a great day for us gun owners'
Local gun-ownership advocates hailed the landmark Supreme Court ruling on Thursday that for the first time said the Constitution protects an individual's right to have a gun in his or her home."It's a great day for us gun owners," said Ted Oven, who owns Northeast Trading Co. in North Attleboro, one of the largest gun stores in the state. "I think all legal firearm owners are very pleased." Gun owners had been closely following the case, which challenged a District of Columbia law banning handgun ownership. The narrowly divided court struck down the 32-year-old law as a violation of the Second Amendment by a single vote. "I'm kind of disappointed in the 5-4 decision," Oven said. "I don't know who would have read that in their right mind and not understood the wording. It's very clear to me, and I'm certainly not a constitutional scholar." The ambiguously phrased amendment, which was added to the Constitution in 1791, 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." However, Oven said he did not think the ruling would have a major impact in Massachusetts. "We have some of the strictest rules in the country already," he said, adding that he supports most of the state's gun-control policies. A spokesman for the Springfield-based gun-maker Smith & Wesson said the company expects only a modest increase in sales as a result of the ruling. However, James Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners' Action League (GOAL), a statewide advocacy group, said he thinks the ruling has significant implications for Massachusetts law. He argued that the ruling makes the state's mandatory trigger-lock rule unconstitutional. "How can people defend themselves in their home with their guns locked in a safe?" Wallace said. But Mansfield Police Chief Arthur O'Neill doesn't think the trigger-lock rule should be thrown out. "I certainly hope (it's) not, because that does prevent accidents," O'Neill said. "There is absolutely no need to keep a loaded weapon in your bedstand or under your pillow." He also expressed continued support for the state's gun laws. "I'm sure groups like GOAL will try to ride the tide and compromise the rules we have, and then I will stand tall against any changes, because I think Massachusetts has a very happy medium, if you will," O'Neill said. U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy said the decision could raise many questions about gun laws across the country. Kennedy spokesman Anthony Coley released the following statement Thursday: "Senator Kennedy has long been committed to reasonable gun control laws, and is concerned that this decision opens Pandora's box. Much of the progress we've made in making Americans safer by placing reasonable restrictions on the possession of firearms is now in doubt." But Wallace said the court's judgment is unambiguous. The ruling makes it "extraordinarily clear what the intention of the court was," he said. "It is extraordinarily clear from this decision that the court ruled for an individual right not attached to a militia." He added, "In the future, any gun laws that are passed will have to give the benefit of the doubt to the lawful citizen." TED NESI can be reached at tnesi@thesunchronicle.com or 508-236-0333.
Post Your Comments jose21 wrote on Jul 21, 2008 3:18 PM: " Oh, and you're right, I have never watched the shooting in the olympics, I'd rather pain a wall and watch it dry. " jose21 wrote on Jul 21, 2008 3:16 PM: " kingston73 - the klan comment was directed at one person, not all gun owners. Are people like me really the reason we have a constitution? I'd bet you don't know much about the constitution then. Does it say that people can't have opinions that oppose yours? As for personal freedom, I was in the military and I did my part, I'm one of the reasons you have that freedom. What exactly have you done? " kingston73 wrote on Jul 17, 2008 9:55 PM: " jose21, I don't even know where to begin with your rambling nonsense. "Guns are weapons of death, nothing more...", apparently you've never watched the Olympics, never been in the BoyScouts, never had to rely on hunting season to get enough food to last you for the winter. Comparing your average bolt action rifle with an M240 is beyond stupid. And are you saying that all gun owners are Klan members? That's like me saying all people named "Jose" are illegal immigrants. Seriously, people like you are the reason we have a Constitution. I'm sure if you don't like the personal freedom the US gives you, Mexico or Canada would let you in. Good luck... " ronbok wrote on Jul 11, 2008 4:05 PM: " "I certainly hope (it's) not, because that does prevent accidents," O'Neill said. "There is absolutely no need to keep a loaded weapon in your bedstand or under your pillow." Apparently our Chief doesn't read his own Police logs... " Bristol County Fan wrote on Jun 27, 2008 9:01 PM: " If all guns were suddenly banned in the US, all the hospitals would close down for lack of business, Health care insurance premiums would cost us as much as porn phone call-by-the-minute rates, people would all live to 100+ and social security would go bust in two weeks and there would be such a huge population explosion that food prices would rise with a hairy rubbery carrot in the supermarkets empty vegetable aisle costing as much as a diamond necklace, all the highways would be cluttered with all the wild animals blocking traffic and mooching food over at the various truck and rest stops. Conversely, if everybody was 'forced' to carry firearms 24/7 and there were no laws preventing their use we could rename the U-S-A to the more appropriate and distinguished title N-R-A, and then we could all go overseas together and surround the Arab States borders in a gigantic mob and then force all of the OPEC ministers to watch Pee-wee Herman movie reruns and make them keep repeating: "Tell'em Large Marge sent 'ya!" over and over until they finally go insane, give in and agreed to sell us the gas for 15 cents a gallon! " harry hindsight wrote on Jun 27, 2008 5:03 PM: " Jose21, right on! " jose21 wrote on Jun 27, 2008 4:41 PM: " Harry, well either way someone is getting killed, right? But yes, I understand the point of wanting a gun for self defense. I'm not a fan of guns, I don't own one, and if they could all be banned and removed from the country I'd be all for it. But that isn't going to happen, the wrong people are always going to have guns, so you can't take them away from the people that need protection from the bad people. However, it seems like the people that suffer from these gun laws are the people the laws are meant to protect. I don't think there really is a right answer, guns wouldn't be a problem if we didn't live in a country saturated with thugs that have no value for human life; and those thugs wouldn't be so scary if there were no guns for them to use to kill random people every time they need 20 dollars to buy crack... So what do you do? " Harry Hindsight wrote on Jun 27, 2008 3:50 PM: " Jose21, would you also make the statement that guns are for the prevention of killing? " jose21 wrote on Jun 27, 2008 3:29 PM: " Yes, same Klan. No need to get into the topic of Robert Byrd or some of his quotes, I'm sure you have them all memorized anyway. You throw his name out there as if your defending or glorifying the klan? My statement was that guns are weapons of death and nothing more. I didn't say i was for or against them, so I'm not exactly sure what your point was? Do you argue that they are not weapons of death? I spent 5 years in the infantry and I've shot pretty much every weapon that military personnel can shoot. I'm no expert on guns, but I've seen what they can do first hand. They are for killing and nothing else. " kevin h. wrote on Jun 27, 2008 3:04 PM: " The Klan. Isn't that the group whose high profile member became a honored Democrat leader, Robert Byrd? " Harry Hindsight wrote on Jun 27, 2008 3:02 PM: " So Realist, you are saying the British have found that even an unarmed population does need an armed police force to protect it from armed criminals? You are right in the fact that the article is about the right for legal gun ownership. Everything else surrounding the topic is speculative. " jose21 wrote on Jun 27, 2008 2:18 PM: " Kevin - thanks for sharing your opinion. Shouldn't you be out shooting beer cans with the rest of the klan? " realist wrote on Jun 27, 2008 1:34 PM: " Harry - it is my understanding that many police officers in Britain are now armed. They used to believe a criminal would not shoot an unarmed cop - not sporting you know. That is no longer true. " realist wrote on Jun 27, 2008 1:32 PM: " Two points here - the first is that story is about the right of the people to bear arms. The court was asked to interpret the second amendment and they did. This is not a morality issue but a legal one. The second, laws trying to restrict the average person from legally owning a gun have failed. DC's extremed handgun law correlates to a rise in homicides. Is there a causal relationship? Maybe, maybe not - but in some neighborhoods otherwise law abiding people have armed themselves to protect their homes and families from real criminals. I don't know why we have a high homicide rate in the US but a close examination of the statistics show that few gun crimes are committed by a person who legally purchased and registered their handgun. (Yes I know about VA Tech but the Virginia University system probably lost more students and staff to traffic accidents than to one mass shooting). " Harry Hindsight wrote on Jun 27, 2008 1:26 PM: " So if guns are now illegal, those that have them are criminals. Much as crack and herion is illegal, only those breaking the law would be in possession of those items. Would people with guns be the new drug users? If you make guns illegal for private ownership, what need would police have for firearms. If the general public is unarmed, what would police need to defend themselves from? I beleive in England, where the general public is restriced in private gun ownership, the police do not carry guns. If the APD agrees to not carry, then the public should have the same rules. How many police departments would agree to that? " kevin h. wrote on Jun 27, 2008 1:16 PM: " Jose, you underthink as much as Spamloaf overthinks. But neither of you have common sense. " kevin h. wrote on Jun 27, 2008 1:14 PM: " Oh no...Spammy the commie. " jose21 wrote on Jun 27, 2008 1:13 PM: " Guns are weapons of death, that's all they are. " Harry Hindsight wrote on Jun 27, 2008 12:03 PM: " Spamalot01, simply stated. If you banish guns, only the criminals will have them. The reason Canada imports our weapons, is because the criminals cannot get them in their own country. I'm willing to bet that the percentage of crimes commited using illegal in Canada as compared to the number of leagl gun owners is similar to the ratio in the US. The true test of your statements, would be how many gun offenses are commited in Canada by legal gun owners of that country as compared to the same for legal US gun owners. That is your argument. " Spamalot01 wrote on Jun 27, 2008 11:50 AM: " Knowing full well the futility of expressing my views to this forum, I'll open this up with the obvious: How is it that, in the US, which has the guaranteed right of gun ownership, we have the undisputed highest rate of gun-related homicides that are NOT war or domestic terrorism/dictatorship-related in the entire world? In comparable nations such as Canada or the UK where personal gun ownership is either banned or severely restricted, the murder rate per capita is approximately one third that of this country? In Canada, the murder rate as of 2006 (latest stats available) was 1.85 murders per 100,000 citizens (http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/legal12b.htm), 30% of which were gun related. In the US, the rate is 5.9 murders, per 100,000 (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/totalstab.htm) with 72% committed with guns. Please note that of the 30% homicides committed with guns in Canada, the majority of those guns used and found by police were obtained in the US and brought into Canada illegally. I'm sure the Canadian people and the Canadian government just love knowing that bit of information. So the question here is, how, exactly, does personal gun ownership keep us safer than in other places in the world? Statistical information doesn't support any such supposition. In fact, it would seem that quite the opposite is true. " realist wrote on Jun 27, 2008 10:32 AM: " To Harry Hindsight -- You're question is the one that's been debated for decades. For some reason the politicians think they can control people who have no qualms about ignoring the law by restricting the rights of the law-abiding. I'm waiting for the gun control advocates to weigh in with wringing hands on how we will be returning to the ways of the old west. " Harry Hindsight wrote on Jun 27, 2008 10:28 AM: " Why is the focus regarding gun control always focused on the legal gun owners? Isn't it those that have and use guns illeagally more of a tax on our police than the firearms owned legally. " Auk wrote on Jun 27, 2008 9:51 AM: " Some good news for 2nd amendment advocates finally. here's a snippet from the decision "Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional." Sounds to me that Massachusetts law about gun storage is covered by this. " realist wrote on Jun 27, 2008 9:34 AM: " The WSJ had a poll about this, albeit unscientific. The vast majority thought that the SJC was right (five members anyway). One person posted a note that guns are unnecessary in a civilized society. He may be right. Unfortunately it does not take much for civil authority to break down. Hurricane Katrina is a recent example. Who can forget the Kafkaesque scenes of NOPD officers collecting legally owned guns, leaving the criminals armed. Right now the criminals in most large cities realize that the odds are in their favor when they choose a victim. That may change soon The next step in Massachusetts is to get uniform processes across the state on gun purchasing and licensing. Local police chiefs have too much leeway. " Harry Hindsight wrote on Jun 27, 2008 8:00 AM: " It just drives home the fact that lawfull ownership of a firearm is to be attacked by those that don't understand. Kevin h, you are right, someone seems to be unhappy. Then again, there may be some people out there that see that picture and think it's a cute as a kitten. " kevin h. wrote on Jun 27, 2008 7:48 AM: " Who and why did you choose a pic of a pistol aimed at the viewer? Upset about the decision? " or
|
