Posted on 11/20/2007 10:17:40 AM PST by 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Yeah - while a great read, most readers are looking for the last 100 pages.
The 2A doesn’t give you a right to keep and bear arms. It affirms that right.
It couldn’t have come from a state. Similar have been tried, but state laws obfuscate the issue too much. This case makes it crystal clear at the federal level; once THAT is clarified, THEN we can move to the states.
The thought is not implausible to me that disarmament would be popularly supported in response to some convenient pretext (wot, gangs, illegals) that most Americans would be nominally behind. The sacrifice of liberties for "security" seems to, in general, be rejected by only a minority (again, I hope it is a flaw in my perception, and not reality).
Of course.
Very well put...
[“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?”]
They better define what “state” “run” and “militia” all mean WRT the several states. Those defs have been the sticking point for the states for one hundred years. If not, I hope they rule that the issue of states rights in the matter are yet to be determined. IOW a very narrow decision (DC ONLY).
Else, when they go with the DC interpretarion, we may be HOSED.
Those who will not be persuaded by the plain meaning of words will not be persuaded by more, or different, words.
I was considering one. I think the DC law is fatally flawed because it grandfathers pre-1976 owners who are permitted to possess handguns. By doing so the law violates the equal protection clause, as it effectively discrimates against new residents.
In addition I think it violates the 14th Amendment in that it has the effect of discriminating against (take your pick) women, older people, law abiding citizens, etc. by denying them the right to protect themselves. Ironically the only people who are not affected by the law are criminals, who are free to purchase and posses handguns.
Even though the court has narrowly tailored the question to the 2nd Amendment, I think these argument should be raised as you never know what will sway a justice, or end up as a footnote.
As a side note, the Court seems to focus more these days on empirical data. In this case, the data shows that the ban has been completely ineffective and in fact detracts from public safety. So the supposed rational basis for the law is really a myth. This fact will definitely help our side.
Two courts have already proven that DC cannot ban weapons. I don’t see the SC turning over those decisions.
[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.]
I hope the supremes took this to get it in before Hillary wins and stacks the court with ultra-libs. In that regard, the republicans damn well better filibuster any and all appointments she makes (presuming it IS a dem).
drpix,
the court might take this to clear up a division between the circuits over how to interpret the last gun case decided by the SC (Miller v. US). Since then both sides view Miller as affirming their views, and the current Chief Justice has said that the Miller Court side-stepped the issue then. If his view carries the day the Court will probably find an individual right.
All, try to remain positive, I am currently attending Law School, and even in this highly Leftist arena most HONEST legal minds will say the 2A is an individual right. Most have now shifted the argument to what reasonable restrictions can be put on that right (sort-of like the old like you can’t yell “fire”in a crowded theater 1A notwithstanding).
Anyway, if they do screw this up, what state are we all moving to to secede from the union?
Thankyou.
I wouldn’t hold your breath. The first amendment is now used as a club to beat down any expression of religion in the public sphere, eminent domain has been redefined into something barely recognizeable, etc etc.
Surely the 2nd really means only the government can have firearms ;)
It appears that the supreme court is recognizing that DC is claiming that the Second Amendment only covers state regulated militias, and that is not the only definition of a militia.
I think that wording may be telling us that the Supreme Court is skeptical of that interpretation.
It hasn't been left alone for a very long time. Instead it's been chipped away at little by little while it's opponents work to render it meaningless.
It is risky, because we are allowing a group of Judges decide if we legally retain this fundamental right, and the Supreme Court doesn't exactly have a great track record for supporting the Constitution as written.
However, the alternative is to allow that right to be stripped away little by little.
> “Two courts have already proven that DC cannot ban weapons. I don’t see the SC turning over those decisions”
At least twice that many Federal courts have decided the collective meaning is correct.
You are right. The irony is that the case puts the leftist-legal scholars (excluding the crits, who don’t believe precendent applies to them) in a difficult pickle. On the one-hand the libs hate guns and love this law. On the other hand, most of the liberal decisions of the warren court and beyond rest upon interpretation of the bill of rights as individual rights, particularly the privacy and abortion decisions. So the lib thinkers are caught between a rock and a hard place.
I agree that this Court is not the best, but it is clearly the best we are going to see for the forseeable future, particularly after 2008. The Brady bunch libs are going to make sure that gun control is addressed by SCOTUS, so it might as well be done sooner rather than with a Clintonista packed court.
It’s time for the NRA to get serious.
How about some articles showing that low crime areas are right to carry areas etc.? You know, information based on facts instead of on emotion.
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.