Posted on 07/19/2007 12:26:04 PM PDT by looscnnn
In March of this year, firearms owners everywhere celebrated the Parker decision, in which the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declared the D.C. gun law unconstitutional to the extent that the law prohibits all firearms possession. You can read our original analysis here: http://www.jpfo.org/alert20070312.htm . In May, the full D.C. Court refused to hear the case "en banc", paving the way for a Supreme Court decision.
The Harvard Law Review recently published an article discussing the ramifications of the Parker decision, and what the Supreme Court might do if they hear the case. You can read the article at http://www.law.harvard.edu/alumni/bulletin/2007/summer/feature_3.php or http://tinyurl.com/3artc9.
Despite optimism from pro-gun circles, it doesn't look good. As the article states, "The ruling—in Parker v. District of Columbia—marked the first time a gun law has been found unconstitutional based on the Second Amendment, and it set up a direct conflict among the circuits. Nine federal appeals courts around the nation have adopted the view that the amendment guarantees only the collective right of organized state militias to bear arms, not an individual’s right. (A 5th Circuit panel found that individuals have gun rights but upheld the regulation in question, so both sides claim that ruling as a victory.)"
Former District of Columbia Mayor Anthony Williams is quoted as saying, "“Let’s take [Justice Antonin] Scalia’s approach. I think the framers’ intent was to see to it that [through] militias, states as sovereign entities had a right to arm themselves. To me, it’s not about individuals -- it’s about groups.”
Harvard Professor Mark Tushnet says, "My gut feeling is that there are not five votes to say the individual-rights position is correct. [Justice Anthony] Kennedy comes from a segment of the Republican Party that is not rabidly pro-gun rights and indeed probably is sympathetic to hunters but not terribly sympathetic to handgun owners. Then the standard liberals will probably say ‘collective rights.’”
Even if the Supreme Court does deem firearms ownership as an individual right, we still aren't safe. Says Tushnet, “Once you recognize [gun ownership] as an individual right, then the work shifts to figuring out what type of regulation is permissible.”
So what's the bottom line according to one of Harvard's Constitutional experts? In a sidebar ( see http://www.law.harvard.edu/alumni/bulletin/2007/summer/feature_3-side1.php or http://tinyurl.com/2x79sc), Professor Tushnet states, "Gun-control proponents have a significantly stronger case than their adversaries if we treat the question of interpreting the Second Amendment as an ordinary constitutional question and use all the interpretive tools judges ordinarily use.”
We encourage our readers to continue to watch the Parker case closely. You can read or download our interview with author and attorney David T. Hardy at http://www.jpfo.org/tta070531.htm, in which we discuss the case at length.
- The Liberty Crew
Bang!
Libs whistling past the graveyard.
I know the NRA didn’t want this case to go forward as the test case for individual gun owner rights. I’m surprised by Scalias remarks though.
Socialist, nanny state, commie rats.
This article dances around the unpleasent elephant in the living room. If SCOTUS finds that the 2nd is a collective right, who bells the cat, and will the cat have claws? Personally, I’m going to aim for between the eyebones...
The article doesn’t quote Scalia. DC mayor invokes Scalia’s name to justify a position that is probably the opposite of Scalia’s.
And that belief, if the holder is intellectually honest, is utterly demolished by the original writings of the framers of the Constitution.
Good catch. I skimmed right over that and thought the guy was quoting Scalia. Still, does he have any justification from Scalia’s prior comments about the second to suggest he thinks this way?
Why is it liberals believe all of the Bill of Rights pertain to individual citizens except for one? They are a loony bunch.
The way I read the above quote is that the party making the statement is saying the COURTS should use Scalia’s statement about original intent being a guiding light on Constitutional interpretation and ergo that the Founding Fathers’ original INTENT was that the Second Amendment guaranteed the right to bear arms to support State Militias.
I think its important to parse the words of libs very carefully on this subject. The Second Amendment is the lynch pin of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
OBVIOUSLY, the Constitution makes a VERY DISTINCTION between the State, the Federal Government and the People.
Equally obvious is the fact that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the people, not the Militia to keep and bear arms. In a society such as that which existed in the 1700’s the mere thought that anyone would question the right of a Militia to be armed is laughable. Having just emerged from a war with a tyrant who was trying to disarm the public makes understanding the Second Amendment that much easier.
Libs never let facts get in the way of their preconceived ideologies.
On the other hand, the Supremes are just as vacillating as they always were. We KNOW how Scalia, Thomas and probably Roberts will vote on the Second Amendment. I’m not sure how Alitto, coming from New Jersey, will. Kennedy is an unpredictable entity. The rest will vote against the sky being blue if it furthered a liberal world agenda.
Its crucial the next Supreme Court Judges appointed be conservatives. Which why I’m so ticked off at the current administration and its gross ineptitude on so many fronts, and why I don’t want a Democrat, or a Republican who thinks like one, e.g. JulieAnnie or McCainez nominated.
F M C D H! Bump
You’re safe as far as McCain is concerned. He’s toast. I would also add Romney to your list. His past stands on gun control aren’t encouraging.
I thought this case was SPECIFICALLY set up as a test case.
You’re right. Romney, while the best of the worst, is still bad.
Hopefully Thompson or Hunter will save us from the gun grabbers.
When I was a law student Mark Tushnet kept a hammer and sickle poster in his office. Out and out Marxist. Legal crit.
The ramifications Dear Harrrrvvvvvard is we will all be safer.
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.