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.
Meant to ping you to #140.
"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
Sarah Brady loves such useful idiots.
NEWS RELEASE
Citizens Committee for the
Right to Keep and Bear Arms
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005ANTI-GUNNERS WRONG (AGAIN) ABOUT MINNESOTA CARRY – CCRKBA
For Immediate Release: March 30, 2007
BELLEVUE, WA – Data released by the Minneapolis, Minn. Star Tribune Friday showing that anti-gunners were wrong in their predictions about Wild West shootouts and blood in the streets is a vindication of every armed citizen in the state, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said.
According to the newspaper, people with gun permits are far less likely to be involved in a crime, whether it is a physical assault, a drug crime or even drunken driving. Authorities have confirmed that the hysterical predictions about gunfights at traffic stops and danger to children simply have not materialized.
“You will not hear an apology or any kind of acknowledgement from the anti-self-defense crowd about the statistics,” predicted CCRKBA Executive Director Joe Waldron. “No doubt they will try to blame the law for crimes committed by people carrying guns illegally. But the newspaper did a good job of sorting out fact from fiction, and it has found that only a miniscule number of licensed citizens have been involved in serious crimes, and a tiny fraction of armed citizens have had their permits revoked.
“We knew all along what Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek told the newspaper,” he continued. “The worst predictions of gun control advocates who bitterly fought to keep this law off the books just haven’t come true. We’re delighted that the press, which did not support the law, has at least acknowledged the public’s right to know how the law is working.
“Minnesota is just one more state where people have been given the opportunity to pass a law and see how it really works,” Waldron observed. “The state’s legally-armed citizens have proven not only that they are overwhelmingly responsible with firearms, the data shows that providing the means for citizens to go armed is not a threat to public safety, and never has been.
“The Personal Protection Act has succeeded in destroying the myth that legally-armed citizens are somehow a threat to the general public,” Waldron said. “We knew they were wrong, and now everybody else knows it, too.”With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation's premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States. The Citizens Committee can be reached by phone at (425) 454-4911, on the internet at www.ccrkba.org or by email to InformationRequest@ccrkba.org.
-END-
Nor does your idiot attempt at misdirection negate my premise.
Disrupters. Trolls. Anything to break up arguments and prevent agreement. This is their modus operandi.
Thanks for the non sequitur.
Nice attempt at yet another slanderous accusationto hide your anti-firearms agenda...
“Minnesota is just one more state where people have been given the opportunity to pass a law and see how it really works,” Waldron observed. “The state’s legally-armed citizens have proven not only that they are overwhelmingly responsible with firearms, the data shows that providing the means for citizens to go armed is not a threat to public safety, and never has been.Poor you.“The Personal Protection Act has succeeded in destroying the myth that legally-armed citizens are somehow a threat to the general public,” Waldron said. “We knew they were wrong, and now everybody else knows it, too.”
"In siding with the gun owners, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge James Warren said a local government cannot ban weapons because the California Legislature allows their sale and possession."No wonder your initials are DC.
Poor you...
The question, which you're predictably afraid to address, is the protection of a right.
"...Judge James Warren said a local government cannot ban weapons because the California Legislature allows their sale and possession."
“Shall not be infringed” should have taken care of that long ago. But for people likeyou, iy would have...
Self enforcing laws? Unprotected rights?
Sarah Brady loves such useful idiots.
Nicegoing sh*tbag.... What next? Some imagined "State Right" to bring back slavery? I wouldn't be surprised at anything coming from you....
Bzzzzt. Wrong.
SAN FRANCISCO - A state trial judge sided Monday with the National Rifle Association in overturning a voter-approved city ordinance that banned handgun possession and firearm sales in San Francisco.Measure H was placed on the November ballot by the San Francisco County Board of Supervisors, who were frustrated by an alarmingly high number of gun-related homicides in the city of 750,000. The NRA sued a day after 58 percent of voters approved the law.
In siding with the gun owners, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge James Warren said a local government cannot ban weapons because the California Legislature allows their sale and possession.
We all know the definition of "unreasonable". We're looking for the court's legal interpretation of "unreasonable".
The second amendment is a limitation only on the federal government. States are guided by their state constitution on gun issues.
"The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government ..."
-- US v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
"The Supreme Court has specifically rejected the proposition that the entire Bill of Rights applies to the states through the fourteenth amendment. Since we hold that the second amendment does not apply to the states, we need not consider the scope of its guarantee of the right to bear arms."
-- Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 532 F.Supp. 1169 (N.D.Ill. 1981)
"In almost every convention by which the Constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government -- not against those of the local governments. In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them."
-- Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)
"We have examined the record in vain, however, to find where the defendant was denied the benefit of any of these provisions, and, even if he were, it is well settled that the restrictions of these amendments operate only upon the federal power, and have no reference whatever to proceedings in state courts."
-- Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894)
Plus, there are numerous lower federal Circuit Court decisions that say the same thing -- the second amendment only applies as a restriction on the federal government.
Unless, of course, the U.S. Supreme Court, all 11 lower federal Circuit Courts, and all the District Courts they serve are wrong and you're right.
"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."
It would confirm that the citizens of Washington, DC have their individual RKBA protected -- but the DC Circuit already ruled that. So, yes, it would be without effect.
Now, IF the U.S. Supreme Court took further action and incorporated the second amendment and made it applicable to the states, then there would be a small effect. Cities in Illinois like Chicago, Morton Grove, Wilmette, and New York and LA, would be forced to protect that individual right.
Then there's the negative effect. As mentioned in Parker, the U.S. Supreme Court could also say the second amendment doesn't protect concealed carry. Sarah Brady would have a field day with that one, huh?
"But to show your unlimited ignorance, San Francisco voted to BAN all handguns ..."
Since Mojave addressed that, I see no reason to pile on.
Correct. Our rights are inherent. They come from no person or government.
The people, however, when forming a society, decide which rights they will protect and to what extent. These protections are listed in a constitution.
"Every state SHOULD allow it"
Sure. I think so. But isn't that up to the citizens of each state? Isn't it for them to decide?
Whoa! I made that claim. You're calling me a liar? Then tell me one state where an individual’s right to keep and bear arms is not protected. You can't. Which makes YOU the liar.
"New York City and Chicago have defacto bans on handguns"
There are two gun laws that make Chicago different than the rest of the State of Illinois. One, ALL guns must be registered with the city. Two, handguns are not allowed within city limits (unless they were owned prior to 1983).
That's it. In Chicago you can own long guns, shotguns, any gun that's legal anywhere else in the state (except, of course, handguns).
"Funny, but if robertpaulson moved to Chicago and had to post how well the State of Illinois protected his right to own and carry firearms for his protection ..."
I live outside of Chicago and can still say that Illinois has probably the worst gun laws in the nation. But I live in Hastert country and can walk outside to my range and practice with my handguns, rifles and shotguns to my heart's content.
New York.
Can’t have any unregistered gun in NYC.
And if I move back into NY with my latest AR15, or even my latest magazine for it, I’m subject to a felony.
So much for “keep”.
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.