Here we go, folks, and hang on -- it's going to be a wild ride.
Posted on 11/20/2007 10:14:54 AM PST by ctdonath2
After a hiatus of 68 years, the Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to rule on the meaning of the Second Amendment — the hotly contested part of the Constitution that guarantees “a right to keep and bear arms.” Not since 1939 has the Court heard a case directly testing the Amendment’s scope — and there is a debate about whether it actually decided anything in that earlier ruling. In a sense, the Court may well be writing on a clean slate if it, in the end, decides the ultimate question: does the Second Amendment guarantee an individual right to have a gun for private use, or does it only guarantee a collective right to have guns in an organized military force such as a state National Guard unit?
The city of Washington’s appeal (District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290) is expected to be heard in March — slightly more than a year after the D.C. Circuit Court ruled that the right is a personal one, at least to have a gun for self-defense in one’s own home.
The Justices chose to write out for themselves the question(s) they will undertake to answer. Both sides had urged the Court to hear the city’s case, but they had disagreed over how to frame the Second Amendment issue.
Here is the way the Court phrased the granted issue:
“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — 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?”
IBrp.
Here we go, folks, and hang on -- it's going to be a wild ride.
They need to atone for the eminent domain ruling.
LOL!
Bump and Bump!
One wonders if the SCOTUS will cop out with a narrow ruling that only applies to DC.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — 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?”
Indeed, the question is rather narrow - without being unfair. This could well establish grounds for "incorporation" and overturning 922(o).
They’ll have to atone for a lot more if they rule that there is one lone amendment out of ten that does not apply individually.
If we get a fair ruling on the meaning of “the people,” then it wouldn’t be too much more work to get a fair ruling on the meaning of “infringed.”
Kindly append “(SCOTUS takes Heller)” to title for clarity.
What's the over/under?
This will be both interesting and historic.
“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — 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?”
Seems they agree it is an individual right.
This is indeed great news! We all look forward to a polite society...
Awesome. Enough of this piecemeal state and local infringement... Let’s bring things to a head and settle it once and for all.
question reads funny....if I do belong to a state regulated militia, can i now keep handguns & firearms in the home ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.