Posted on 07/01/2002 4:29:05 PM PDT by 45Auto
Two hundred twenty-seven years ago, British troops advanced on Concord to confiscate their arms. As we know, at the North Bridge, the embattled farmers stood to defend their freedoms and drove the British aggressors back to their fort in Boston.
More than three years ago, Concord Police Officers illegally searched the home of Concord resident Alec S. Costerus and unlawfully seized his firearms. Costerus has battled the injustice ever since. Costerus filed a petition today to the nation's highest court in his bid to have Massachusetts' discretionary gun law declared unconstitutional.
Massachusetts enacted its current gun control law in 1998. Among others, the new law requires firearms owners to obtain a license to carry - even to possess a firearm in the home, where a non-discretionary firearms identification card was formerly required. "Under the current law," Costerus says, "that requires a license in order to exercise constitutionally protected rights, one should not be subject to the standardless discretion of 351 local licensing authorities throughout the state." Ten other states also have similar so-called "may issue" statutes. "Discretionary statutes are subject to the arbitrary interpretation or the capricious abuse of discretion of licensing authorities. Worse, they are ripe for discrimination."
The Costerus v. Swift petition asks the Court to determine whether the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, and whether the Second Amendment embodies a fundamental right made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. Costerus also challenges the state's statute as violating both the 'Due Process' and 'Equal Protection' clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Costerus acknowledges the longshot. "Only 1% of the 7,000+ cases brought to the Supreme Court are ever accepted for review." "But," he adds, "we will all lose our rights if, in the face of this aggression, whether in the form of British guns or a legislative pen, we fail to defend our rights."
If the Court grants certiorari, it will mark the first time that the Supreme Court will take a case based on direct review of the Second Amendment. "There have been other cases that discussed the 'Right to Keep and Bear Arms,' but those cases were brought to the Court primarily on other grounds."
The most recent case involved a Texas case, United States v. Emerson, in which the Fifth Circuit ruled that the Second Amendment confers an individual right. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in the Emerson case allowing the Fifth Circuit ruling to stand. "The First Circuit in my case ruled directly opposite to Emerson, so we have a circuit conflict," Costerus says. "The time is ripe for review."
Representing himself, the former two-time state shooting champion and certified firearms instructor filed a 46-count civil rights suit in October, 2000, in federal court against Concord officers for their illegal search of his home without a warrant and the seizure of his lawfully possessed firearms, in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. His suit also seeks prospective injunctive relief against the state for enacting a statute that violates the Second, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
Most importantly, it protects those rights from Govermental infringement. Or it's supposed to, legislation and judicial rulings since about 1934 not withstanding.
If the Supreme Court had decided to hear the Emerson case, it would have had to rule in favor of the U.S. by saying the Second Amendment does not convey the right to KABA. One would hope that the court would have gone further if it did hear the case by finding that the Second Amendment guarantees that right, recognizing and confirming pre-existing rights.
I think the Costerus v. Swift petition may be unique enough to be heard, but I'm not going to hold my breath either. It's one thing that government does not want to resolve, because it wants to retain the upper hand on gun control at any cost.
What other states have horrible "may issue" statute laws for the 2nd Amendment?
I hope that the ruling determines that the State's and Fed's rights to limit arms can be no more restrictive than the right of the state to control the ownership and carry of a Bible or newspaper.
For example, owning a newspaper is fine but if you use it to start an illegal fire..... (use of a firearm to commit a crime)
Time to return some common sense to the gun issue.
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.