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 ...
It already means what it means. There’s nothing self-righteous about that.
OK, how about FEWER words, then?
"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Short, sweet, and simple. More clear now, yes?
Since D.C. is not a state, they could easily make any ruling only apply there.
I'm more hopeful of this case than I have been in a while. Time will tell.
“18th century fears of an all-powerful national government.”
And of course, we have no such concerns now!
Especially not with Hillary at the helm!
Not really. As has been stated, it’s an “individual Right”. Regardless of where in the US said individual is.
Cripes man, what makes them think that everyone keeps all their weapons in one place?
>> It already means what it means. There’s nothing self-righteous about that.
With all due respect — to offer a circular justification that satisfies yourself (”it means what it means”), while ignoring the simple FACT that many in “government” read the same sentence and find the wiggle room to implement a totally DIFFERENT meaning then the one intended by the Founders, is not only self-righteous, it’s also a little bit delusional.
I apologize for beating this to death, however: we’re in heated agreement about what the 2nd amendment actually means!
There have been some very good academic studies by professors at Florida State and elsewhere. I’m sure they will be cited in the briefs.
Unfortunatley there is an inherent difficulty in measuring the # of crimes prevented by guns, as opposed to the crime rate itself. Of course, in DC the gun ban has had no positive effects by any measurement - a fact the libs can’t dodge (though no doubt they will shreik that it would have been worse). And of course the DC stats don’t account for people who would have been able to protect themselves and thereby prevent crime if they had been allowed to possess guns.
"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."
Possibly, but if the SC wanted to imply that, why not just limit the question to:
“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment?"
Why do they include the positive assertion "Second Amendment rights of individuals" if there is ANY question in their mind that the Second Amendment does or does not apply to individuals? If individuals do NOT have those rights, then why assert it as fact? In other words, the way the question is phrased does not allow the SC much latitude or wiggle room to rule otherwise. By limiting the question, in the manner above, they would have squelched all speculation of their intent and afforded themselves a wide range of possible rulings without tipping their hand.
OTOH, perhaps they just wanted to stir up a hornet's nest in an election season so they could sit back and enjoy the fireworks, LOL.
Ever since the Marshall court the Constitution’s words don’t “mean what they mean”, but they mean what the majority on the USSC want them to mean based on their own personal philosophy.
Leftists love this idea of the great philosopher kings telling us how we will live. They all envision themselves as being part of the enlightened.
The District of Columbia, and the territories, are covered by the Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment). The Bill of Rights limits the federal government’s authority, and the federal government has ultimate authority over D.C. and the territories. Hence, those areas have a RKBA just like the People of the several States.
Thanks.
Ain't that the truth!
Also, the outright moral depravity of the "good guys" in the story, did nothing to endear them to the reader. I don't know why the author thought that was necessary.
OK, eagle eyed one....
So given the change in the definition of scope (much narrower) do you see a direction here? The direction (away from individual right) and skewed focus is not a good sign, is it? Here’s hoping the 2A attorney will point that out, and refocus on the Constitutional meaning...
“majority of the citizens won’t have a gun because of their felony records.”
I’m sure you meant to say: “majority of the citizens already have a gun because of their felony records showing they understand that laws don’t apply to them.”
We would all do well to upgrade our arsenals between now and May. Never hurts to send a message.
Indeed!
November 17 - 25 National Ammo Day/Week, so this would be an excellent time to buy ammo (and then get a new gun to go with it). National Ammo Day was yesterday, but it's not too late to participate.
If anyone buys ammo during this period, please consider "sending a message" by participating in the survey. You can view the survey results here.
And I don’t see how giving them new words to redefine will ensure our rights any better than the first ten amendments. There is nothing wrong with the Bill of Rights, and I don’t see the advantage in declaring that there is. The 2nd Amendment is not a mistake. The words were chosen very carefully. They still mean what they meant when they were first written, despite the best efforts of the left to deny that words mean what they mean.
I can live with not being able to fire my weapons in a crowded theater. If that is as far as the restrictions go then I’m OK with ‘em. :-)
Cops I know call this a Hide and Seek warrant. More fun stuff from our wonderful "Patriot" Act.
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.