Supreme Court Will Hear D.C. Guns Case

AP via SFGate ^ | 11/20/7 | MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer

[SmithL]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the District of Columbia can ban handguns, a case that could produce the most in-depth examination of the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" in nearly 70 years.

The justices' decision to hear the case could make the divisive debate over guns an issue in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections.

The government of Washington, D.C., is asking the court to uphold its 31-year ban on handgun ownership in the face of a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban as incompatible with the Second Amendment. Tuesday's announcement was widely expected, especially after both the District and the man who challenged the handgun ban asked for the high court review.

The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment of the Constitution protects an individual's right to own guns or instead merely sets forth the collective right of states to maintain militias. The former interpretation would permit fewer restrictions on gun ownership.

Gun-control advocates say the Second amendment was intended to insure that states could maintain militias, a response to 18th century fears of an all-powerful national government. Gun rights proponents contend the amendment gives individuals the right to keep guns for private uses, including self-defense.

The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. That decision supported the collective rights view, but did not squarely answer the question in the view of many constitutional scholars. Chief Justice John Roberts said at his confirmation hearing that the correct reading of the Second Amendment was "still very much an open issue."

[Still Thinking]

< nervously crosses fingers >

[DuncanWaring]

IBrp.

[JohnLongIsland]

Levin should have fun with this one later.

[oldfart]

If it goes the wrong way, we’d better cross our legs.

[Red Badger]

If they side with the “state”, the Republic will fall.................

[Oberon]

Should we take this to mean that the SCOTUS has granted certiorari?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

This is what we've been waiting for.

One way or the other, it's going to be a whole new ballgame after this.

[Filo]

Game On!

So much for my planned stress-free holiday season.

[Lexington Green]

Every Prez candidate must answer this question”:

Do you think the 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right?

The wrong SCOTUS opinion is a declaration of civil war.

[Stonewall Jackson]

This could prove to be very interesting.

[Jack Black]

It’s too late. I’m long, long, past caring what our pseudo-masters in black robes say.

Affirmation of our right is certainly to be desired. However I seriously doubt that it will slow the gun-banners in their quest. So at best it will be a hollow victory.

If I agreed that the SC had the right to decide this, then I would agree that should they decide that gun-banning is Constitutional it would be legitimate.

Conversely if the SC rules against the individual right I will completely ignore this law, as it is absurd. My rights are not negotable.

I don’t care how many justices Lady Hillary eventually gets to appoint, nor how they rule on this. It’s just not open to furhter discussion.

[jim_trent]

Yes

Here is the way the Supreme Court phrased the granted issue:

“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”

I don’t see how they can duck on this one, but whatever the outcome, it will be a whole new world after they make their decision.

[nralife]

Courtesy of oldfart:

“Here is the way the Court phrased the granted issue:

“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”” “

Hopefully the unorganized militia will be taken into consideration... along with the words The People...

[Flintlock]

Anybody out there TRUST the SCOTUS?
Me neither.
Lock and load, boys and girls. It’s going to be time to fight.
As in “bang bang.”

[WackySam]

Will the NRA actually try to help this time?

[Resolute Conservative]

I am with you and am not making false bravado. I will always have my weapons and they will not take them. If this is ruled the wrong way it could be the spark that lights the fuse that leads to a revolution.

[gridlock]

I’m with you, Jack. It is abhorrent that the Supreme Court should be permitted to consider the question. The answer is obvious.

[drpix]

[M203M4]

Assuming the worst case judicial scenario followed by a few dozen worst case scenarios at the state level, would most Americans go quietly through involuntary disarmament? What is your (asking everyone) sense on how far gone the people are from the notions that founded the country? IOW, aside from political backlash (voting for the ‘other’ party, woopdeedoo), do the powers that be have anything to fear if such a policy was enacted?