Almost two years ago, I became President of the Brady Center and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. A great deal has happened in the gun violence prevention movement since then, but one of the most important has been the debate in the Supreme Court over the meaning of the Second Amendment.

I was in the Supreme Court chambers during oral arguments in March, and I listened intently to the dialogue between the attorneys and Justices. I was back in the courtroom on Thursday when Justice Scalia read the majority decision and Justice Stevens read his dissent. Now that the Court has issued their opinions, there are a few points that should be discussed.

By way of introduction to new readers of the blog, I was mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana for 12 years. I was proud to be the 1998 Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Indiana. I have also been for common-sense gun control throughout my life.

Over the years, I have seen the gun lobby effectively thwart efforts to pass many sensible gun laws by arguing that even modest gun control would lead down the path to a complete ban on gun ownership. It is the classic “slippery slope� argument, and it has served the gun lobby well politically.

The “slippery slope,� however, is now gone. The U.S. Supreme Court took it off the table yesterday in their D.C. v. Heller opinion. Government is now barred from “taking away� the guns of law-abiding Americans.

Because of this Court decision, proposals such as Brady background checks on all gun sales, limiting bulk sales of handguns, restricting access to military-style assault weapons, and strengthening the power of law enforcement to shut down corrupt gun dealers can now be debated on their merits without them being seen as a “first step on the road to gun confiscation.�

While the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the District’s ban on handguns, they also made it clear that the Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions on access to firearms. As Justice Scalia said, “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.� When the dust settles, most Americans – and I believe even most in the gun violence prevention movement – will come to see that there are some positives in this decision.

Elected officials will no longer be able to use a mistaken, absolutist misreading of the Second Amendment as an excuse to do nothing about gun violence in our country. Politicians can’t hide behind the Second Amendment anymore.

In public and political terms, gun control advocates “lost� the battle over the Second Amendment a long time ago. According to a recent Washington Post poll, about 75% of the American people believed that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right to own a gun for private purposes before the Heller decision was announced. Given that Senator Obama, Senator Clinton, Mayor Bloomberg and the national Democratic Party platform all said basically the same thing prior to this ruling, a Supreme Court decision to the contrary would really have confused the general public.

What is fascinating, however, is that the same Washington Post poll shows almost 60% of Americans also approving the system of gun laws in the District of Columbia in effect before the Court’s decision.

The American people support an “individual right� and they also support most “gun control� laws.

Unfortunately, this new court ruling will almost certainly embolden criminal defendants as well as the gun lobby to file new legal attacks on many existing gun laws. Prior to Heller, such challenges would have been dismissed out of hand under the Court’s previous interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Nevertheless, with the help of the Brady Center’s legal team, most of those new challenges can be successfully resisted in the interest of public safety. I am also confident we will prevail in advancing good new legislation to make it harder for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons because the battle lines will be drawn not on abstract Constitutional history, but on common sense gun policy in the here-and-now.

Approximately 80 Americans continue to die from guns every 24 hours in this country.

Our weak or non-existent gun laws contribute to the thousands of senseless gun deaths and injuries that occur each year in the United States. Our efforts need to focus on reducing these deaths and injuries.

We must keep up the fight for sensible gun laws to help protect our families and our communities. The Brady Campaign will continue to lead the charge.

(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)

This is an early sampling of the massive coverage of the DC gun case.

This barely scratches the surface, so there will be more to follow over the weekend.

Stay tuned....

News

Washington Post, “Justices Reject D.C. Ban On Handgun Ownership�

Washington Post, “Historic Decision Renews Old Debate�

Washington Post, “D.C. Government Faces a New Reality�

Washington Post, “D.C. Views Shaped by A History Of Violence�

New York Times, “Landmark Ruling Enshrines Right to Own Guns�

LA Times, "Supreme Court affirms gun rights"

AP, “Supreme Court Rules That Individuals Have Gun Rights�

ABC News, “Pro-Gun Groups Plan to Drown Gun Laws in Litigation�

TIME Magazine, “The Future of Gun Control�

NPR, “Supreme Court: Gun Ownership an Individual Right�

AP, “Mayors Pledge to Uphold Gun Control Laws Despite Supreme Court Ruling�

LA Times, “Gun advocates' other weapon: lawsuits�

Wall Street Journal, “It's a New Legal Era For the 2nd Amendment�

Dallas Morning News, “Supreme Court's rejection of handgun ban triggers new debate�

Legal Times, “Supreme Court Strikes Down D.C. Gun Ban�

Houston Chronicle, “Gun ruling won't change much, ATF chief says�

The Buffalo News, “New York gun laws face no quick challenge under Supreme Court ruling�

Bloomberg News, “Handgun Approval Applauded By Some in Washington�

Baltimore Sun, “Justices back gun owners�

Christian Science Monitor, “Supreme Court asserts broad gun rights�

San Francisco Chronicle, “Ruling’s Ricochet�

Schenectady Daily Gazette, “Supreme Court decision on guns little surprise to some�

AP, “Candidates react to Supreme Court's handgun ruling�

KSBI-TV (Oklahoma), “Supreme Court Rules for Bearing Arms�

Maryland Daily Record, “Md. prosecutors see little impact from gun ruling�

San Jose Mercury News, “Gun ruling presents challenges�

Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, “Court's gun ruling means no changes in Texas statutes�

The Daily Texan, “Supreme Court lifts firearms ban, citing Second Amendment�

U.S. News & World Report, “Behind the Supreme Court's Gun Decision�

Newsday, “NJ law chief says NJ laws not threatened by ruling�

Dallas Morning News, “Supreme Court strikes down D.C. handgun ban�

The Economist, “The Supreme Court opens fire�

Wall Street Journal Washington Wire, “Gun Ruling Lets Both Sides Claim Victory�

Chicago Tribune Clout Street, “Illinois lawmakers: ruling to make it tougher to pass gun restrictions�

Commentary

Washington Post, “Handguns Supreme�

New York Times Editorial, “Lock and Load�

Boston Globe Editorial, “High noon for gun control�

Dallas Morning News Editorial, "Supreme Court right on gun ruling" (new addition)

E.J. Dionne, “The D.C. Handgun Ruling: Originalism Goes Out the Window�

Mike Madden, “Supreme Court gun ruling could backfire�

Brian Doherty, “The gun-rights fight isn't over�

Sam Donaldson, “Sam Backs Court's Gun Ruling�

As you can imagine, the news today is awash in coverage of the Court's decision (almost 6,800 articles on Google News), and likely you have already seen and heard the most visible examples of it.

We'll be posting as comprehensive a sample as possible of the Heller news later today, hopefully including some things you may not have run into yet.

Thanks for bearing with us, and stay tuned.

Our fight to enact sensible gun laws will be undiminished by the Supreme Court’s decision in the Heller case. While we disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling, which strips the citizens of the District of Columbia of a law they strongly support, the decision clearly suggests that other gun laws are entirely consistent with the Constitution.

For years, the gun lobby has used fear of government gun confiscation to thwart efforts to pass sensible gun laws, arguing that even modest gun laws will lead down the path to a complete ban on gun ownership. Now that the Court has struck down the District’s ban on handguns, while making it clear that the Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions on access to dangerous weapons, this ‘slippery slope’ argument is gone.

The Court also rejected the absolutist misreading of the Second Amendment that some use to argue ‘any gun, any time for anyone,’ which many politicians have used as an excuse to do nothing about the scourge of gun violence in our country and to block passage of common sense gun laws. Lifesaving proposals such as requiring Brady background checks on all gun sales, limiting bulk sales of handguns, and strengthening the power of federal authorities to shut down corrupt gun dealers can now be debated on their merits without distractions of fear or ideology.

The Heller decision, however, will most likely embolden criminal defendants, and ideological extremists, to file new legal attacks on existing gun laws. With the help of the Brady Center’s legal team, those attacks can, and must, be successfully resisted in the interest of public safety.

After the Heller ruling, as before, approximately 80 Americans will continue to die from guns every day. Our weak or non-existent gun laws contribute to the thousands of senseless gun deaths and injuries in this country that occur each year. We must continue to fight for sensible gun laws to help protect our families and our communities.

(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)

Per SCOTUSblog:

Heller affirmed.

The Court has released the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), on whether the District’s firearms regulations – which bar the possession of handguns and require shotguns and rifles to be kept disassembled or under trigger lock – violate the Second Amendment. The ruling below, which struck down the provisions in question, is

affirmed.

Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg. We will provide a link to the decision as soon as it is available.

UPDATE:

In case you haven't seen the decision, read the slip opinion here.

Brady Center President Paul Helmke's statement is here.

Massive coverage expected. Early pieces here and here.

Much, much more to follow....

UPDATE 2

The New York Times 1 hour ago (about 12:30 pm):

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 in 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.�

[more]