By a 3-2 vote, the court issued a ruling (.pdf) that supports the opinion that the long-debated Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals, rather than a group or militia, to own firearms.
The provisions of D.C.'s gun control law struck down by the court banned the carrying of handguns inside private homes and required that all privately-owned, licensed firearms be kept locked or disassembled.
Writing in the court's majority opinion (.pdf), Senior Judge Laurence Silberman wrote, "There are too many instances of 'bear arms' indicating private use to conclude that the drafters intended only a military sense." Silberman's ruling was considered a challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court to review its landmark 1939 decision in United States v. Miller, which held that the Second Amendment bestowed gun ownership rights on a militia, rather than on individual citizens.
Gun Rights Back to Supreme Court?
In a Legal Times article by Tony Mauro, Cato Institute's Roger Pilon is quoted as stating, "The issue has been teed up by Judge Silberman in such a way that no honest court can avoid dealing with it head-on," referring to D.C.'s probable appeal of the decision. "He has cut through all the fog surrounding the Second Amendment."
It's ruling in United States v. Miller, stands today as the only definitive decision ever rendered by the Supreme Court on true meaning and legal effect of the Second Amendment, which states, "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." In tying gun ownership rights to a state militias, United States v. Miller, established the government's right to limit, through gun control laws, what types of firearms the public can legally "keep and bear."
Also See:
Gun Control Laws - What Gives Congress the Right?
High Court Opts Out of Gun Rights Debate (2002)
Does the Second Amendment Protect the Right to Bear Arms? (Civil Liberties)
Cesare Beccaria on the Right to Bear Arms (Civil Liberties)
Full Text of U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
Comments
Did anyone ever actually READ Miller vs. US??? It actually says people have the right to own weapons, so long as they would contribute to the common defense. They incorrectly ruled (since the defendant was dead at the time and had little to no representation) that a short barreled shotgun was not a military type weapon. In fact it has been in the military arsenal as a trench gun and urban warfare weapon for almost a century. Miller effectively says people should only own weapons that would be used in a military capacity, such as assault rifles, sniper rifles, military type sidearms (at the time of the ruling semi-automatic handguns and rifles were decades old) I don’t know if any journalists have read the ruling, or if they choose to believe what others tell them it says, or if they are fabricating a summary to push their own agenda. The accused “Miller” would not have been charged if he had a high powered rifle or handgun. It had nothing to do with an individuals’ right to own a weapon, rather what type of weapon an individual could own.
I don’t disagree with that. However, the fact remains that US v. Miller forms the legal underpinning of federal gun control laws. I’d say it’s high time the Supreme Court revisit Miller.