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.
That's what the citizens of the State of New York want, hard as it might be for you to believe.
This country was formed as a federated republic. Each state had its own constitution and its own laws. The people of each state decided how they will live together.
You're saying they should not be allowed to do that? That one set of laws should apply to every citizen nationwide? That you prefer a centralized government? Washington, DC knows what's best for all of us?
Well, you may end up getting your wish -- just don't be surprised when those laws aren't the laws you thought they would be.
That's what the citizens of the State of New York want
Is it? I lived there for 37 years, deeply studied the text and history of NY gun laws, and never once were the citizens of NY given a chance to vote directly on the subject. They were allowed to choose their masters, who then went straight on to increasingly infringe NY Civil Right #4 "The right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed" by making possession of firearms a crime, then dolling out exceptions.
Since when is a "right" subject to the whim of a majority? or of a tiny elite minority?
But back to the point: you accused a poster of lying. He has been proven correct, and your absurd notion that "a right may be protected while regulated into oblivion" is once again shown stupid.
If the U.S. Supreme Court says that the second amendment protects an individual right, do you think a) an M4-style AR-15 will be legal in every state or b) an M4-style AR-15 will be legal in no state?
You do agree that once the U.S. Supreme Court accepts this case, it has to be "a" or "b" to be constitutional.
“The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism.” —Thomas Jefferson
They won’t be satisfied until the the 2nd Amendment is nationalized and every state is subject to a national concealed carry ban,
Poor moronic you. To be so limited in your debate skills must be frustrating.
There are only TWO States that are currently in-line with the US Constitution on RKBA. Alaska and Vermont. And Vermont just barely. All other have restrictions in place that are blatant violations of individual RKBA protected via the Second Amendment, Art 4 Sect 2, and Art 6 para 2.
In the States Constitution. As stipulated. You said "name one" that didn't. I did. So yes, you are AGAIN proven out to be a liar.
While that may be the current "consensus opinion", it ain't the law.
As with the first amendment, the second amendment may be reasonably regulated.
"and never once were the citizens of NY given a chance to vote directly on the subject."
No, that would be a pure democracy -- "mob rule", as one poster described it. Surely you don't favor 51% of the people deciding the fate of the other 49%? Or do you?
"Since when is a "right" subject to the whim of a majority?"
Our right to keep and bear arms may be reasonably regulated by the duly elected legislatures of each state, reflecting the will of the people, provided those regulations don't violate the state constitution.
Now, what would you prefer? The people of each state vote to decide? Congress tells the states what they may and may not allow? The U.S. Supreme Court decides?
What do you want?
"to increasingly infringe NY Civil Right #4 "The right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed"
Hmmmmm. That's not what NY Civil Right #4 says, does it? New York Civil Rights Law, Art. II, § 4 provides: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed."
Now, The New York Supreme Court clarified that in Guida v. Dier, 375 N.Y.S.2d 826, 828 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1975) when they said:
"The right guaranteed by the Second Amendment…and further defined in Section 4 of Article 2 of the (New York -rp) Civil Rights Law does not extend to pistols or other readily concealable hand weapons. Rather, those guarantees protect only the right to be armed with weaponry suitable for use by the militia in warfare and for the general defense of the community."
"He has been proven correct, and your absurd notion that "a right may be protected while regulated into oblivion"
No, actually, he has been shown to lie. I said there is not one state where an individual’s right to keep and bear arms is not protected. Every state protects the individual right to own pistols (revolvers and automatics), rifles (bolt-action and semi-auto), and shotguns. Some states extend this right to include concealed carry or the possession of machine guns. Other states regulate the right to exclude certain weapons. But all states protect an individual right to keep and bear arms.
I get all my info from constitution.org or thomas.loc.gov, but Bobby likes to quote from Mounts crap because it keeps him in-line with the gun control talking points.
Er... no. It can't. "Shall not be infringed". Don't bring up the "'fire' in a crowded movie theater" again. It didn't work then it doesn't work now...
False. And no quote, naturally.
Every state provides protections for the RKBA, some by state constitutions, some by statute.
Your dream of complete centralized government hasn't been realized yet.
You mean that the Founding Fathers had state laws against libel and blasphemy? How dare they!
It isn't "centralized" government. It's RESTRICTED AND LIMITED Government starting from the top down that is my goal. Funny, it's what the Founders wanted as well...
You dream of States being returned to the days of slave ownership will never be realized either...
You still aren't very good at this. Maybe you should go back to your friends at DU and practice some more. Put down the bong first...
Still no quote. Who are you hoping to take in, anyway?
For starters.
Wait until some future liberal U.S. Supreme Court says that handguns are not "Militia-type" weapons. Impossible?
In Moore v. Gallup, 45 N.Y.S.2d 63 (N.Y. App. Div. 1943), the New York court rejected a Section 4 challenge to state handgun possession and concealed carry permitting law declaring that "arms" referred to in the Second Amendment, which Section 4 mirrors, are arms used by a militia, not handguns.
Now, if some liberal U.S. Supreme Court defines "arms" this way, imagine how they will define "keep".
Which is why there were laws against such speech. Poor you.
And I noticed that you cringed and crawled away from the fact that the states had blasphemy laws. Poor you.
The national concealed carry ban came to mind because DC loves to post a decision claiming that concealed carry bans are consistent with the 2nd Amendment.
How many States have infringements in place? Every State except TWO are in direct violation of the Constitutions Art 4 Sect 2 and Art 6 para 2 as they related to the Second Amendment.
You aren't fooling anyone you Kalifornia gun grabber...
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.