[neverdem]

Parker v. District of Columbia in HTML courtesy of zeugma.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Man, I didn't think the DC would appeal to the USSC.

The gun-grabbers have steered as far away from that as they possibly could for years, because they know if they lose it will be really bad for them.

They would prefer passing 2,000,000 local gun control laws and wear us down to losing one USSC case and being finished.

[thiscouldbemoreconfusing]

bump and bookmark

[Joe Brower]

[CIDKauf]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1799459/posts

[goldstategop]

A people without the means to preserve their existence and ultimately their rights - have no rights at all. The most important right is the right to life, without which all the rest are rendered meaningless.

"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

[antiRepublicrat]

Does the Second Amendment guarantee an individual right to own a gun?

I thought you only had to be able to read English to figure that one out, but then I usually don't over-analyze things.

[NonValueAdded]

Nice little dig at the Ninth Circus in there.

[Toadman]

It's funny how the the Bill of Rights is about Individual Rights but that persnickity 2nd is "States" right. What a crock. Only Ten refers to States rights and that states they can make laws that aren't covered or contravened by the consitution

[NonValueAdded]

My take is that the "militia" argument is rendered false by the events of April 19, 1775. If we look at the excerpt from the 2nd militia act "The reader will note that the [2nd militia] Act's first requirement is that the 'free able-bodied white male' population between eighteen and forty-five enroll in the militia" then all those elderly gentlemen whose contributions proved important if not pivotal in the Battles of Lexington and Concord would never happen again. No White Horseman (Hezekiah Wyman) to harass the retreating lobsterbacks, no group of men late to the action to intercept Percy's reinforcing supply train.

One Old Yankee Woman
Meanwhile, word got out that General Percy's supply train was moving in advance of his men, and without much protection. A dozen older men of Menotomy -- too old for the regular militia -- set up to surprise the wagons in the center of their town. The wagons arrived and the old men demanded surrender. When their command went unheeded, they opened fire on the wagons, killing soldiers and horses. The survivors ran off, abandoning their weapons and eventually surrendering in a field to an old woman, Mother Batherick. She delivered her prisoners to a minute man captain and told them, "If you ever live to get back, you tell King George that an old woman took six of his grenadiers prisoners." The story did get back and one English paper asked, "If one old Yankee woman can take six grenadiers, how many soldiers will it require to conquer America?"

Without arms, Percy's supplies would have gotten through and we'd have no Second Amendment unless Parliament deemed one necessary for we colonials still.

[Ancesthntr]

Only federal courts—and ultimately the Supreme Court—have the power to interpret the Constitution in a binding way.

Not so - the USSC took that power in Marbury v. Madison.

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.

True enough, but Sandy leaves out that her part of the suit was dismissed - it was a security officer who was also one of the plaintiffs who actually won it, a tribute to the attorney who plotted strategy in this case.

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.

While I'd like to see that, I don't agree. Of course, the plaintiffs will appeal if they lose. However, the DC gov't will be under enormous pressure from the national anti-gunners to not appeal, because they fear that a declaration that the 2nd protects an individual right is the death knell of gun control (and I believe that to be a correct analysis). Plus, who knows, maybe Stevens will be gone by the time the case gets to the USSC?

Maybe Sandy can explain why the NRA is strongly pushing a Congressional bill that would remove the DC ban - and simultaneously make the Parker case moot? It would seem that the best strategy is to: 1) See what happens in the court(s); and 2) if our side loses, THEN push a bill through Congress to help DC residents. If the votes are there, the votes are there - and perhaps a loss in the USSC would mobilize lots of support to kill gun control via legislation.

Mooting out Parker would be a huge mistake - it is damned near a perfect case, since it involves an actual ban (not mere "reasonable restrictions") on gun ownership, and naturally leads to a decision on the question of whether the right protected by the 2nd is an individual or collective one (and I still don't even understand the concept of a "collective right" that cannot be enforced by any individual through the courts because of lack of standing - but that's another issue). Further, ALL of the plaintiffs in Parker are law-abiding citizens, so there's no chance that a court would rule against them using the reasoning that "it is reasonable to regulate guns so that scumbags like this guy can't get them."

Sandy, get on the phone and tell the NRA to hold off on the DC Personal Protection Act until the courts rule on Parker. To NOT do that, to allow this bill to go forward, it to stick a knife in the heart of efforts to protect our most valuable Constitutional right.

[philman_36]

IMO the final decision will eventually be the equivalent of the Lexington Green. Either we'll have to muster on the green to protect our rights or we won't have to.
Either way, we'll know if we're considered to be Citizens or nothing more than subjects.

[looscnnn]

I really wish that people would stop using the word interpert when used with the Constitution. There is no interpertation needed, it is not in a foreign language. It says what it says and means what it says. If we keep using interpert with Constitution it is just going to make it tolerated when it is done by judges that want to legislate from the bench.

[bvw]

Only federal courts—and ultimately the Supreme Court—have the power to interpret the Constitution in a binding way.

While that may be the current "consensus opinion", it ain't the law.

[Panzerlied]

This may, indeed, represent the last desperate chance of the statist/collectivist crowd to get a favorable ruling on gun control.

Their shrill predictions about “bloodbaths” with respect to liberalized gun laws have proved to be so much hogwash and I think they sense the tide moving against them.

If they were in the majority, they would not hesitate to push for a constitutional amendment that eliminates the Second Amendment.

I only wish that it did not have to be a thing decided by SCOTUS, but an axiomatic right recognized by all.

[epow]

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.

No ifs, ands, or buts UNLESS you happen to be a very liberal and very anti-gun Afro-American columnist named Carl Rowan and use an illegally owned revolver to shoot a boy who you think is vandalizing your pool. Then you get a pass from the D.C. jury who hears your case and the heartfelt sympathy of the DC government for the inconvenience you had to endure.

[Bryan24]

IMO, here is one of the STRONGEST arguments for the individual right to keep and bear arms.

Amendments to the Constitution

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PROPOSED BY CONGRESS, AND RATIFIED BY THE LEGISLATURES OF THE SEVERAL STATES, PURSUANT TO THE FIFTH ARTICLE OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION (See Note 12)

Article [I.]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article [II.]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Article [III.]

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article [IV.]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article [V.]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article [VI.]

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article [VII.]

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Article [VIII.]

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Article [IX.]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article [X.]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Bryan24]

I would like to see this argument explored and commented on....

The First and Fourth Amendments are recognized by the government as being nearly absolute. The only recognition of limitations is pretty much for safety of the populace as a whole (can’t yell “FIRE” in a crowded theatre, etc...)

Here in Alabama, there is a bill that has been introduced by a liberal lesbian legislator that would place a huge license tax on any firearm. Essentially, the move would be to tax guns out of ownership. WE expect this ball to fail spectacularly. But.....

Here’s my question - Can you tax a constitutional right?

Can the government erect a fence around a church and charge admission? No.

Can the government place muzzles on people and force them to pay in order to freely speak? No.

Can the government prohibit you from owning a firearm? If the Parker case gos to the SCOTUS and they say “No, it is an individual’s right”, then....

Can the government pass an exhorbitant tax that will deny you the right to own a firearm?

[M0sby]

PING

[M0sby]

PING...

Sorry to the author for the last errant PING!