Posted on 05/02/2007 2:14:58 PM PDT by neverdem
There is a case working its way to the Supreme Court that might settle one of the biggest unanswered questions in constitutional law: Does the Second Amendment guarantee an individual right to own a gun? Whether or not you own a gun, this is a case you should care about.
I’m not just saying that because I’m the immediate past president of the National Rifle Association. (Last month I completed my two-year term as president and nine years as an officer of the NRA.) I’m also saying it as an attorney who’s been arguing cases in federal court for more than 30 years, and who understands how a clear precedent on a constitutional question can determine the outcome of a case.
There is a case moving towards the High Court that will likely give us such a precedent on your right to own a gun – a precedent that is either good or bad, depending on your point of view. That case is Parker v. District of Columbia.
I often get asked why there is such a passionate debate on whether the right to own a firearm is a civil right. Everyone agrees that the Constitution speaks about firearms. The Second Amendment speaks of, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”
The disagreement is over what those words mean. Most people believe what is called the individual rights view of the Second Amendment, meaning that all law-abiding, peaceable citizens have the individual right to own firearms. The opposing interpretation is called the collective rights view, meaning that the Second Amendment is only a right of state governments to arm their National Guard units.
Polls show that more than 70% of Americans (correctly) believe that they have a civil right under the Constitution to own a gun. But in America we don’t decide constitutional controversies by taking a poll.
Only federal courts—and ultimately the Supreme Court—have the power to interpret the Constitution in a binding way. The Supreme Court has never spoken definitively on the scope or meaning of the Second Amendment. And the Court’s silence has allowed cities and states to enact broad, sweeping laws hostile to gun ownership.
The worst of these laws is the District of Columbia gun ban. If you live in our nation’s capital, you cannot have a handgun or a readily-usable rifle or shotgun in your own home for self-defense. No ifs, ands or buts. It is a near-blanket prohibition on firearms and self-defense.
That brings us to the Parker case. The named plaintiff, Shelly Parker, lives in the high crime area of DC and has been threatened by thugs and drug dealers. She wants to be able to protect herself and she sued the city government over the gun ban. It’s shocking to realize that in one of the most violent cities in America, a woman is denied the tool that might save her life.
But it’s the law in the District, so she took the District to court.
On March 9, in a landmark ruling the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down the DC gun ban as unconstitutional in a 2-1 decision. The DC Circuit Court held that the Second Amendment protects a citizen’s civil right to own firearms, adopting the individual rights view, and invalidated the DC law.
As you would expect, the DC government is appealing the ruling. Earlier this month DC petitioned for what is called an en banc rehearing. That means that all eleven eligible judges on the DC Circuit would hear the case, instead of the usual three-judge panel. As you read this we are waiting to see if the circuit court grants or denies that petition.
Regardless of whether the full DC Circuit Court hears the case en banc, the losing party will certainly appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. And without going into all the legal rules and reasons that help determine whether the Court takes a given case, let me just say the odds are good that the Court will take this one.
This case is monumental. Already the DC Circuit Court opinion—if left untouched—will totally change gun ownership rights in the District of Columbia. And the DC Circuit is one of the most respected and well-credentialed courts in America. Its opinions and rulings have a major impact on courts and lawmakers all over the country.
But as important as the DC Circuit is, it pales in comparison to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court takes this case, it could have a huge impact all across our land.
There’s so much more to be said regarding this case. I’ll have more to write on this once the DC Circuit decides whether to rehear en banc. In the meantime, this is a case you want to be watching. There’s a lot at stake, not just for gun owners but for all who believe in upholding the Constitution and enforcing our civil rights.
Sandy Froman is the immediate past president of the National Rifle Association of America, only the second woman and the first Jewish American to hold that office in the 136-year history of the NRA.
He just can't help himself, he's just that way. That is the reason that I have reported him to the moderator for abuse. The man should be banned from FR forthwith. He takes up too much time and bandwidth.
See post 69. He starts to apologize and manages to get another insult in.
Did you even read the Parker decision? Do you know what it's about? Do you have an opinion?
Or are you simply a professsional whiner, following me around from thread to thread?
LOL! There’s nothing like proving Possoms point right off the bat.
Your attitude is golden. Because we are only slowly losing our rights to own firearms, one small chip at a times, steadily and relentlessly, you want to just keep your head down and let that process continue to its obvious conclusion.
You are delusional and make as much sense as your imbecilic statement that every state already guarantees a right to bear arms. Bullcrap. That is a completely false statement. California HAS ABSOLUTELY NO protection in its written constitution guaranteeing a right to own firearms. NONE.
In fact, the ONLY thing guaranteeing a right to keep and bear arms for Californians is the federal constitution.
You are less than worthless. Your solution is to keep your head below the level of the executioners blade while every decade it is swung lower and lower. Good luck. People like you are EXACTLY why we have lost as much freedom as we have. Your solution is to lie low, pretend a problems doesn’t exist and just hope and pray they don’t come for you.
A lot of good you would have been in Nazi Germany when the SS came for your neighbors, and all the while saying you still have your house, still have your job, still have your family.
Great solution. Lets pretend there is no problem and it will just go away. Bravo! You are my hero!
Guess what? Activist judges don’t FOLLOW the law. The entire fact is that the 2nd Amendment to the US constitution guarantees an inviolable right to carry arms for protection, as in “bear”. Many state courts are not following the law now. Just how much worse would it be if we win this ruling???
If we lose it, what does it matter?? All it will mean, very sadly, is that the right is not protected to all US citizens and residents but it will still be protected by your state, if your state’s constitution explicitly states so, which many states do.
It is like abortion. Overturning “Roe vs. Wade” does not end abortion. It only lets states decide whether abortion will be legal in their states, as should be the case with abortion, assuming it is not a violation of a person’s constitutional right to life — which it most certainly is a violation of the baby’s right to live.
Those of you in pro-gun states have little to lose with a negative ruling. Yes, it will hurt overall 2nd Amendment rights, but with so many courts behaving as if the 2nd Amendment does NOT protect an individual right to keep and bear arms, a negative ruling merely keeps the status quo. People in Vermont and Alaska are not going to find out their guns are all banned the next day. Those states are already reasonable with respect to RKBA protections.
But those of us in Communist states like California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and cities like D.C., Chicago and NYC have our RKBA rights SEVERELY INFRINGED. Only a favorable ruling by SCOTUS can help us.
To hell with your concern that it is not the final salvo in the war against gun control. We are trying to get back our RKBA rights one step at a time, and this is a very vital step.
Keep your head down, buried deep in the sand, while those of us in Socialist states steadily lose all of our God-given rights from what we say, what we own, and even our right to self defense. Your kind of scum will be crying the loudest when they finally come to take your rights away.
“First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out.
“Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out.
“Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out.
“And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.”
Knock it off!
Well Said!
Thank you very much! BTTT!
Gee, it seemed to me that over the last ten years or so, every time I read the headline one more state was adding concealed carry. What are we up to now? 45? 48? That was SCOTUS?
The federal AWB was allowed to expire in 2004. That was SCOTUS?
More and more states are switching from "Duty to Retreat" laws and passing "Stand Your Ground" laws. Close to half the states now have either passed these laws or are considering them. That's SCOTUS?
The progress we are making is being done at the state level. SCOTUS hasn't helped one iota. The second amendment hasn't helped one iota. Your invidivual gun rights are being protected and enhanced at the state level. That's the point you don't seem to grasp.
" that every state already guarantees a right to bear arms"
I believe I used the word "protect" not "guarantee". We don't get our rights from the states.
Your individual right to keep and bear arms is indeed protected by each state -- perhaps you can tell me one state where you can't keep and bear arms. In every state except six (I think), that right is protected by the state constitution; in the others (like California) it is protected by statute (and vulnerable to repeal).
"In fact, the ONLY thing guaranteeing a right to keep and bear arms for Californians is the federal constitution."
Nope. See, that's where the problem is. You'd have Californians believe that the second amendment is protecting their gun rights when case after case after case* has ruled that the second amendment doesn't protect against state laws.
The FACT is that the ONLY thing guaranteeing a right to keep and bear arms for Californians is state law. Period. Though you don't accept this, if it fortunate that Californians do -- they're working on amending the California State Constitution -- the RIGHT way to approach it. They listen to you and they'll lose their guns.
"Many state courts are not following the law now"
That's one explanation. The other is that the second amendment doesn't apply to the states. Now, which of those two statements is more believable?
* Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002); Fresno Rifle & Pistol Club v. Van de Kamp, 965 F. 2d 723 (9th Cir. 1992); Hickman v. Block, 81 F. 3d 998 (9th Cir. 1996), cert denied, 519 U. S. 912 (1996); San Diego County Gun Rights Committee v. Reno, 98 F. 3d 11121 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Mack, 164 F.3d 467, 474 (9th Cir. 1999).
Yes, every state. Most protect the right via the state constitution. The rest by statute.
I can't think of one state where an individual's right to keep and bear arms is not protected. Can you?
Guess what? -- The erroneous old 'states right' defense, -that somehow the BOR's and the second amendment doesn't apply to States in the union-, is again trotted out as a believable concept.
We fought a civil war to end that concept. -- We passed the 14th Amendment to end that concept. -- Yet still the socialists & prohibitionists among us ~insist~ that if a majority so chooses, they can infringe on our rights to life, liberty, or property, without using due process, and ignoring the Law of the Land; "-- any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary, notwithstanding. --"
Article VI has always been very clear. States are bound by the Constitution as Amended.
This constitutional fact has never been refuted.
Tell me something, do you want an interpretation of what they mean or do you want them defined? I would rather have them defined, as they are english words so I don’t need them interpreted.
Even Penn & Teller know the truth see http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5001380249576962921&q=bullshit&pl=true for the facts.
Oh, I think we all know the definition of those words, so defining them doesn't help at all.
“Oh, I think we all know the definition of those words, so defining them doesn’t help at all.”
How can that be if you don’t understand english? If you have to have them interpreted for you then you can’t know what their definitions are.
Masses of people like him are allowing us to race into defacto slavery as we lose more of our rights. He is so terrified to upset the apple cart and risk losing anything, that he will just let the state and federal government bodies continue to restrict the freedoms we have left.
I don’t profess to be an expert on any legal matters and the current makeup of the Supreme Courts scares the daylights out of me, regarding this ruling.
But what happens when Hillary or Giuliani gets elected. NEITHER party will add RKBA friendly people to the Supreme Court. The SCOTUS may never be more fertile toward this decision than it is right now. This case is not the be-all and end-all, but a Supreme Court ruling that upholds decisively an individual right protected by the 2nd Amendment would be an ominous turn of events for the gun grabbers.
The 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to the states? What kind of tripe do you regurgitate with this lie? Every single line of the Constitution applies to the states, including every Amendment?
So the 16th Amendment doesn’t force the people in the various states to pay taxes?
So the 13th Amendment prohibits federal slavery but allows state slavery.
I’m sure you also think the 11th Amendment instituted only federal prohibition on alcohol, but didn’t affect any states or their cities.
Don’t say things that are clearly false and idiotic. The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution very clearly applies to the PEOPLE of America and that means the PEOPLE of the STATES. Don’t be dim.
As for what impact the 2nd Amendment has and favorable rulings therewith. Are you kidding me? I guess you forget that abortion was legal in many states before Roe vs. Wade was passed. I hate abortion, but anyone who supported it and had your point of view would have said, “my state allows it so we don’t need a right protected by the constitution.” After the Supremes ruled for Roe for a right not mentioned, not even hinted at in any shape or form in the constitution, all further efforts to restrict access to abortion were completely shattered.
And you say that a decisive ruling by the SCOTUS that the 2nd Amendment constitutes an INDIVIDUAL right would be without affect. My head hurts just trying to imagine where you come up with your illogical conclusions.
You cite many states that do not severely restrict firearms ownership and use for self defense, while you very conveniently and intentionally ignore several states that severely restrict firearms ownership and use. You have no answer to that, and I frankly don’t want one from you.
But to show your unlimited ignorance, San Francisco voted to BAN all handguns from within city limits, along with draconian restrictions on possession and use of rifles and ammunition. That ban was challenged in court and declared “UNCONSTITUTIONAL”.
Now just where the hell do you think the basis was for disallowing the voted-for ban? It sure as hell was not the California constitution, which specifies NO rights to firearms ownership, use, or protections. NONE.
Absent the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, which CLEARLY APPLIED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, in contrast to your deluded claim that it does not, handguns would be no less banned within the city limits of San Francisco than they have been within the District of Columbia.
You are clueless. You are vacuous in your profound cluelessness. I refuse to continue to beat my head against a wall trying educate the ignorant.
Ask for a jury trial in small claims court.
Excellent points.
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.