Second Amendment

WASHINGTON -- A U.S. appeals court struck down yesterday a strict ban on owning firearms in the nation's capital, setting the stage for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the scope of the Second Amendment and whether it expressly protects a person's right to own a gun. Lawyers on both sides of the gun-control debate called the decision significant - the first time a federal appeals court has voided a gun law on the basis of the Second Amendment. For that reason, the case is expected to reach the nation's highest court.

ANOTHER springtime mass murder, another ritual invocation of the Second Amendment. The problem: Few conservatives or liberals really understand what it means."

EVER SINCE the Colorado school shooting put the debate about guns on the front burner of American discourse, the advocates of a guaranteed individual right to own firearms, led by the National Rifle Association, have been put on the defensive.NRA spokesmen have continued to declare the Second Amendment's stipulation that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is not merely a collective right, despite numerous lower court rulings and one 60 years ago by the Supreme Court to the contrary.

I COULD KISS that Rosie O'Donnell. I really could. She may have started a trend. Because of O'Donnell, television talk shows may become worth viewing again.O'Donnell is host of a show that airs locally at 3 p.m., opposite the dreadful "Jerry Springer Show." Before last week, O'Donnell was dubbed the queen of nice. Typically, she interviews celebrities, lobs them softball questions and sits by while they promote whatever it is they've come on Rosie's show to promote.That ended when actor Tom Selleck appeared on the show to plug his new movie.

Amendment's right to bear arms refers to militiasIn order to understand how complete has been the takeover of the asylum by the inmates, one only has to consider how gun lobby misinformation has contributed to the current public misunderstanding of the Second Amendment.Each time employees of the National Rifle Association (federal, state and local politicians) argue the case for gun ownership, they patriotically parrot the phrase "the right to keep and bear arms.In fact, this phrase, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, is chiseled on the wall at the NRA national headquarters in Washington.

Twisting Constitution to suit the purposes of gun rights boostersI am irritated and incensed that Gregory Kane is allowed to continue such a myth as he wrote on Oct. 17 ("Glendening ads attacking Sauerbrey liable to misfire"). History and the Second Amendment are not on the side of the National Rifle Association and its supporters as Mr. Kane suggested in his column.Our federal law distinguishes between the organized militia (the National Guard) and the unorganized militia. The Second Amendment states clearly: "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."

FOR A MAN WHO claims he's so adamantly against slots in Maryland, Gov. Parris Glendening seems to be taking a reckless gamble. The entire Glendening campaign has one theme: portray Ellen Sauerbrey as an extremist candidate supported by the gun nuts.Glendening's television ads have charged that Sauerbrey was the National Rifle Association's point woman when she was in the state legislature. The NRA, according to Glendening spots, gave Sauerbrey money to legally challenge the results of the 1994 election.

Death-penalty foes forget about victims of convicted killersRegarding the article "Death penalty opponents aim protest rally at Glendening" (Nov. 1), kudos to Gov. Parris N. Glendening for refusing to meet with condemned killer Tyrone D. Gilliam Jr.Why is it that death-penalty opponents always want us to feel sorry for people like Gilliam while once again forgetting about the victims?Gilliam's attorney, Jerome H. Nickerson Jr., said of the governor's refusal to meet with the convicted murderer, "If you're going to kill a man, have the moral courage to look him in the eye and tell him he is going to die."

When the U.S. Supreme Court declared a portion of the Brady Bill unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment last year, Justice Clarence Thomas concurred, but questioned whether the federal handgun law might also run afoul of the Second Amendment, a question the court had not been asked to decide."

Governor is off track proposing tax money for racing industryOnce again, our kind-spending governor wants to take taxpayers' money out of the hands of working people and build yet another stadium in Maryland.Recently, Gov. Parris N. Glendening proposed spending $120 million to build a horse-racing track to promote the industry in Maryland.Never mind that most Marylanders disagree with Mr. Glendening's giving away of $200 million to a multimillionaire to build a stadium for the Baltimore Ravens.

Should the Supreme Court allow state and local gun control laws to be challenged under the Second Amendment? Yes 60% No 37% Not sure 3% (700 votes, results not scientific) Next poll: : Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, has asked President Barack Obama to quickly send tens of thousands more troops to fight al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Should the president do it? Vote at baltimoresun.com/vote

What Maryland thinks : Should filmmaker Roman Polanski be extradited from Switzerland to the U.S. in connection with his 30-year-old conviction for having sex with a minor? Yes 79% No 18% Not sure 3% (1,145 votes, results not scientific) Next poll: : Should the Supreme Court allow state and local gun control laws to be challenged under the Second Amendment? Vote at baltimoresun.com/vote

WASHINGTON - -The Supreme Court set the stage for a historic ruling on gun rights and the Second Amendment by agreeing Wednesday to hear a challenge to Chicago's ban on handguns. At issue is whether state and local gun-control ordinances can be struck down as violating the "right to keep and bear arms" in the Second Amendment. A ruling on the issue, expected by summer, could open the door to legal challenges to gun-control measures in other cities and states. The case also will decide whether the Second Amendment protects a broad constitutional right, similar to the First Amendment right to free speech or the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Every so often I find myself stepping into the minefield that is public discussion of guns, gun violence, gun control and how these things relate to the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Because of misleading public statements by the president of the United States and his secretary of state, it's now time to do so again. President Barack Obama said on April 16 that 90 percent of Mexico's recovered crime guns came from the United States. The comment came during a joint press conference with Mexican President Felipe Calderon addressing the raging violence south of the border, as Mexican drug gangs battle each other and the government in gruesome fashion.

The Supreme Court's invalidation of the District of Columbia's handgun ban powerfully shows that the conservative rhetoric about judicial restraint is a lie. In striking down the law, Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion, joined by the court's four other most conservative justices, is quite activist in pursuing the conservative political agenda of protecting gun owners. If the terms "judicial activism" and "judicial restraint" have any meaning, it is that a court is activist when it is invalidating laws and overruling precedent, and restrained when deferring to popularly elected legislatures and following prior decisions.

WASHINGTON -- The Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" finally had its day in the Supreme Court yesterday, and the long-held view that it protects the rights of gun owners appeared poised to win a historic victory. Five justices, a bare majority, signaled that they believe the amendment gives individuals a right to have a gun for self-defense. It is not limited to arms for "a well-regulated militia" for the common defense, they said. By adopting that view, the justices probably will strike down the nation's strictest gun-control law, a ban on handguns in the District of Columbia.

WASHINGTON -- For years, Dick Heller lived across the street from a crime-ridden public housing project where the top drug dealer marked the close of business every morning at 2 o'clock by emptying his 9 mm pistol into the air. Tucked in bed below the windowsill of his brick rowhouse in Southeast Washington, Heller tried to assure himself that the brick walls would protect him as he slept. Still, the bullet mark to the right of his front door and the bullet hole in the first-floor window were reminders that eroded his peace of mind.

An individual right to keep, bear arms It appears that some law professors are even more adept at twisting the Constitution than the pro-gun scholars Kenneth Lasson takes to task ("Pro-gun scholars twist Constitution," Opinion Commentary, Nov. 21). The key phrase of the Second Amendment concerns "the right of the people" to bear arms. By concluding that "of the people" refers to a collective right, Mr. Lasson undercuts other constitutional rights reserved to the individual. Should our First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights, and the right to elect representatives and senators (each of which are granted specifically to "the people")

The Supreme Court says it will review a lower court's blockbuster opinion in Parker v. District of Columbia, the first federal appellate opinion to overturn a gun control law - Washington, D.C.'s - on the ground that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals. Oral arguments likely will be held this spring, with a decision expected before June 30. I am co-counsel for the plaintiffs and am one of the attorneys who initiated the lawsuit. The stakes are immense. Very few legal questions stir the passions like gun control.

In the endless war of words about gun rights, the academic community has done little but pock the discourse with vague, theoretical utterances. Unfortunately, the courts have been listening. Earlier this year, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia became the first federal tribunal to strike down a local gun-control law, holding that the Founding Fathers would have allowed all private citizens to arm themselves. In so doing, Judge Laurence H. Silberman adopted the National Rifle Association's selective history of the Second Amendment.