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."

[Nervous Tick]

>>We already have one. The 2nd. No child should be promoted beyond the 4th grade without the ability to understand sentence structure well enough to understand the 2nd Amendment.

Really.

But, just in case the Black Robed Nine turn out not to be “smarter than a fourth grader” and rule that the 2nd means a community RKBA... are you gonna muster up all your self righteous arrogance and trundle off to DC and school ‘em?

Or are you gonna work with the rest of us to clean up the amendment to mean what the founders meant it to mean?

[catman67]

They can’t produce a narrow interpretation limited to DC. Currently there is a conflict between appelate courts, with the 9th Circuit ruling in favor of a collective right, while the 5th Circuit ruled in favor of an individual right.

The Supreme Court needs to produce a ruling that will apply uniformely throughout the US.

I suspect, though, if DC loses, they will just write regulations that will produce the same effect as a ban and just start the process again from scratch.

[MrB]

I’ve heard of this potential disarmament scenario:

You get an audit notice to appear at X date and time.

While you’re there, your house is searched and stuff confiscated.

Feds avoid a confrontation and get your guns.

[Petronski]

How did we go from "well regulated", which means able to march as a group and keep internal order, all the way to "state regulated"?

Intellectual corruption.

[MrB]

The whole indoctrination focus of the public school system these days is to promote the virtue of the few ruling the masses by right of their intellectual infallibility.

[ctdonath2]

Or are you gonna work with the rest of us to clean up the amendment to mean what the founders meant it to mean?

Anyone who doesn't get its meaning now isn't going to get it when worded differently.

[ctdonath2]

That scenario was the basis for the book Unintended Consequences.
The result was the basis for the name of the book.

[RebelTex]

I agree with Triple, but not for the same reason.  The question itself contains the answer in the first part of the question.

“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 ..."

This is a firm affirmation that individuals have a Second amendment right and it is not limited to specific groups or 'collectives'.   The second part of the question,

"... who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”,

merely identifies which group of people are being targeted by the obnoxious DC law and whether as a consequence of that targeting, may have been denied  those rights.

OTOH, if the SC wanted to signal a willingness to consider a collective right, then the question might have been phrased this way:

Do 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, have Second Amendment rights which are violated by the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02?"

[ctdonath2]

Nicely put.

[pierrem15]

My guess is they will strike down the power of the Federal gov to place outright bans on ownership, but NOT incorporate the 2nd Amend. as applicable to the states AND allow plenty of room for "reasonable gun control".

In brief, they will uphold an "individual" RKBA, but allow so many restrictions as to render it moot and not change the effect of existing law: e.g., the DC bans will be ruled unconstitutional, but the SCOTUS will allow police authorization to be required, registration, blah, blah, blah.

So you'll have a nominal RKBA, but no existing gun control regimes will be disturbed and no future ones prohibited except outright bans by the Feds.

[xsrdx]

Then why include anything about affiliation with state-regulated militias in the question?

Post 104 captures my perspective... but your interpretation is understandable.

[mad_as_he$$]

You should file that as a “friend of the court” brief.

[Nervous Tick]

>> Anyone who doesn’t get its meaning now isn’t going to get it when worded differently.

I respectfully disagree.

Hopefully, the justices will make a correct and helpful ruling and it won’t be an issue, anyway.

If not... I’m just offering that writing the amendment with clarity is something we CAN work towards.

[pierrem15]

Breyer's foreign citations were just a fig-leaf to hide the fact that the decision was simply the imposition of their own policy preferences under color of law, i.e. abuse of authority.

If the House won't step in, we need an executive to have them arrested for abuse of authority and misappropriation of funds for wasting taxpayer dollars promulgating their own opinions as law.

[gridlock]

It is peculiar, because a plain reading would indicate that perhaps the Court is implying that people who are affiliated with state-regulated militias might not have individual rights under the Second Amendment. While this might be a valid argument, in my view, not even I think this is where the Court is heading.

[M203M4]

As practiced several times in different nations during the 20th century. Very effective in those instances, though, today it would require more rapid execution together with media collusion and control of other communication channels (phone, internet) to prevent people from hiding/burying some firearms before the friendly NKVD DHS/ATF visit.

[pierrem15]

Intellectual corruption.

Heh. Quite true, however.

What any educated person would have once recognized as sophistry.

[djf]

Uh oh.

They could have simply let the appeals court decision stand, and that would have affirmed the individual right, but only in DC.

The fact that they want to take it means they will either reverse the appeals court or reaffirm it, but expand it to include all the circuits.

I wish this case had come out of a state instead of DC...

[MrB]

I read it, but it was quite a while back.

That book was good, but could have used a good editor. After editing it would have probably been about 1/3 shorter.

[gridlock]

To me this is a rock solid explanation of everything in the 2nd Amendment.

I agree.

When you look at the effectiveness of the American foot soldier, IMHO a fair portion of that can be attributed to familiarity and comfort with weapons that comes from a lifetime of experience. The rest, of course, comes from superior training, competent leadership, and a native intelligence and initiative that comes naturally to free men.