Second Amendment case headed to Court (DC appeals Parker case to SCOTUS)

SCOTUSBLOG ^ | Monday, July 16, 2007

[ctdonath2]

Local government officials in Washington, D.C., decided on Monday to appeal to the Supreme Court in a major test case on the meaning of the Second Amendment. The key issue in the coming petition will be whether the Amendment protects an individual right to have guns in one's home.

[ZULU]

“One has to wonder who these people are and why they are here in America..”

Globalists, internationalists, RINOs, and liberals.

They want to remake America into a western European socialist state with castrated males, and with open borders to maximize internationalist coporate profits.

[Mariebl]

The supremes have been avoiding 2nd amend issues for decades. I'd be surprised if they heard this one.

Obviously, they haven't heard any significant cases since back in the 30s. However, I also haven't heard anyone mention significant cases that they refused to hear. Has anyone done any research that I've overlooked, to point out previous cases of this weight that were appealed, but not heard?

I disagree

You'll have to forgive me if I find that argument less than persuasive.

[ctdonath2]

PLEASE TAKE THAT OFF-TOPIC ARGUMENT OFF MY THREAD.
Either PM your offender or start a separate thread.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

Thank you for clearing that up!

[BlackElk]

It takes only 4 judges to grant certification (agree that the SCOTUS hear the case). Of CJ Roberts and Js Scalia, Alito, Thomas, which do you think will refuse cert and why?

Granted that they need Sandra Day O'Kennedy to make a majority to uphold the 2nd Amendment, and that Ruth Buzzi, Swish Souter, Dead Hand of the Past Stevens and the other guy who was appointed by Clinton will vote against gun rights, it still takes only 4 to grant a hearing.

[ctdonath2]

English please!

PM = Private Message (aka "private reply", next to the "post reply" link you keep hitting). Sends a message only to the person you're replying to, not the rest of us.

Separate thread = A "thread" is a group of messages linked to a single lead article/post. Discussion board ettiquite (sp?) requires one stick to the main topic, or closely related topics, in the discussion. An argument about one poster's anti-Mexican bias is NOT on-topic for a discussion about breaking Supreme Court & 2nd Amendment news.

Upshot: do not derail this discussion with personal attacks regarding an off-topic non-offense. You are free to discuss it, just not welcome to do so here.

End of that discussion. Any more and I'm hitting "abuse".

[Americanexpat]

Where in the hell in the constitution does it say you can only have a gun in your home or carry it with a permit? I thought the constitution was very clear the right to keep and bare arms period. All these other laws putting constraints on ownership and the right to carry are un constitutional.

[BlackElk]

Kennedy may well vote the right way on this one which is a minimal case involving the mere right to possess a gun in one’s own home (presumably without violating other,laws like the Federal Firearms Act of 1934). We need one more judge to be confident that the 2nd Amendment RTKBA will be fully upheld.

[Publius Valerius]

Nothing will happen except more people will bitch about it.

Bingo. People will whine and moan and gnash their teeth, but that's it. Anything else is just saber rattling.

[BlackElk]

#61 “rosins”= response

[ctdonath2]

Agreed. SCOTUS hasn’t taken any good RKBA cases in 70+ years precisely because there haven’t been any. Each potential case has been clouded by other issues, and doesn’t help that most involved criminals. It took this long before a pure RKBA case showed up initiated by upstanding citizens. Justice Thomas has alluded to this, indicating that he wanted a real RKBA case, but had yet to see one.

[AnnaZ]

If they’re not careful, we’ll burn DC to the ground.

[robertpaulsen]

In my opinion, this is not good.

What's the upside? They vote an individual right and D.C. allows handguns. I'm not sure the USSC would even incorporate.

We know the downside.

[Mariebl]

Not sure about that. As it stands, there is (aside from post-'86 machineguns) practically no gun ban on the federal level. The AWB having expired, the DC ban was about it - and very limited geography at that.

A ruling against RKBA would tell Congress they CAN ban the heck out of things (if you can't have a functioning gun in your home, nearly all other restrictions are more "reasonable") and our opposition would be hugely motivated. We'd also lose any chance to get the 2nd "incorporated to the states".

Of course, SCOTUS specializes in unpredictably bizzare rulings.

You're right that it would be an extremely painful decision for us, and motivate our opposition. However, the fact remains that House members have to get voted into office every two years.... And, in a climate where a high majority of the states have loosened their 'concealed carry' restrictions, with no ill effects following, and where Democrat politicians, I believe, have been a lot more cautious about anti-gun rhetoric than they were, say, 20 years ago, I think that we'd still be in a strong position.

Also, the opposition would have a precedent, but I feel confident that it'd be the darndest, poorly reasoned illogical precedent imaginable. So, precedents like that were made to be overturned.... We wouldn't lose 'any chance' for improvement in the future.

My biggest concern, actually, is that they'll bring in a decision so narrowly worded that it doesn't accomplish anything--and all our stress and worry will be for nothing.

[BlackElk]

Are you under the impression that I began what you deem irrelevant or was I responding to a post you also deem irrelevant? I also was not aware that the initiator of a thread has the right to control the responses. Silly me, I had thought this was a forum. When the 2nd Amendment is violated by government, is it violated against all of us or only against some of us?

[from occupied ga]

So the folks who jammed Congress' phone lines opposing amnesty, who were those then, automated robots?

You prove my point - jamming the phone lines is just talk after all.

[Clam Digger]

So wtf is the reasoning behind your post 36?

[brityank]

Woo-hoo!

It’s about time that we get this issue resolved.

Yeah -- right !!

This "resolution" you seek; would this be from the same fraternity:

• That has members who can't tell what "IS" is?
  
  
• The same as those who believe that "PROPERTY" can be taken against the Lawful Owners will for purely Tax Income reasons?
  
  
• Have allowed the civil police powers to become "a Standing Army" with limited Public oversight?
  
  
• Have allowed Corporations to acquire the same rights as Man?
  
  
• Has in several cases been noticed that "the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void," yet have allowed the UN to mandate actions by other Departments of our Government, incuding The Supreme Court?

You mean that gang of oligarchs will craft a Constitutional response that holds "shall not be infringed." will not be restricted to government use only?

I won't hold my breath !!