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 ...
I need to start an arsenal =/
If anybody has an extra copy of John Lott’s wonderful book “More Guns, Less Crime”, now would be time to send it on to the Supreme Court for reading BEFORE this case gets argued to the Court.
Even more. How did we go from a militia which is a citizen army to a national guard which is an extension of the standing professional army the Founders feared.
I see the Second Amendment making two explicit declarations. (1) The people can form a well regulated militia. (2) The right to keep and bear arms is absolute; it shall not be infringed.
What we never get are the arguments used by the Founders to arrive at the Second Amendment. We need some light on its origin. We also need to ask the gun controllers why they fear guns. To me is simply a fear of people who have the power to defend themselves against the will of the controllers. Their underlying motive needs to be exposed. The controllers all seem to have an itch to control others.
Whenever I hear one say they believe in helping others through politics, I never cease to be amazed how often their hands are reaching into my back pocket telling me to behave and help the downtrodden.
Unlike Charlton Heston, I'm not going to fight to the death and have them pry my gun from my cold dead hands. Instead, I'm going to my warm body to modernize the Guillotine.
I would guess that after word gets out of a few dozen of these “audits”, folks will stop showing up at the designated time and place.
According to a liberal the fist Amendment is the entire constitution. Everything else is a “living document” up for interpretation.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
That means slander, treason, pornography distribution to children; everything goes, according to the liberal.
However, the second amendment as well as the concept of life, or even article three which spells out what defines and is the test for treason, those things are perverted or not even in their vocabulary. Seriously, the next time a liberal talks about his “freedom of speech,” ask him what the Constitution spells out as punishment for treason, what the litmus test thereof is, or even where it is found in the Constitution. You had liberals running around taking about Clinton running a third time as president years past, ask them what Constitutional Amendment that violates and you heard silence. They love to talk about how God is not mentioned in the Constitution. Ask them where their right to “privacy” is mentioned in the Constitution or where it makes mention of a separation of church and state?
The Constitution is an incredible document and it lays out a robust design that maximizes the freedom of individuals living under it. What is scary is that those who love to make mention of certain Constitutional rights, often know little about the Constitution all together. They simply know what they perceive as being the meaning of some select pieces here and there that they think justifies their “lifestyle.”
Alaska seems like the best choice.
You have made very good and thoughtful observations; thank you.
This makes me nervous because they could have just let the lower courts ruling stand.
This could either be a blessing or a curse. The USSC does not have a good track record of voting against government. If they vote in favor of DC then the end of the USA as we know it has totally come to pass.
ohhh, the question is a strawman generator...to aid the 2A attorney? then life is good...
It’s ironic that today, the nearer a citizen lives to Washington DC, the less likely he is to believe in the values of the Founders.
It's virtually guaranteed that the ruling will be one of the 'late' ones released right around the time the Court takes off for its annual vacation. That puts it front and center for the elections. I know that's something for conservatives to celebrate, because we either get a good decision or a bad decision and a campaign issue, but the question is, what does the mushy middle think about guns?
Upholding the D.C. law doesn't directly threaten existing gun laws, there would still have to be laws passed in local jurisdictions to ban guns, and that's not likely in places where gun rights are fairly safe. I worry about the Court coming back with a correct decision, and the Rats being able to scare the non-gun-owning mushy middle in the swing states.
Thanks for the ping. Thanks to all posters. Great thread!
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.”
I’m not really sure what I said, but that being said, let’s just turn D.C. into a big Payday Cashmart and Pawnshop bazaar. Move all of congress to their respective states, put the embassies in Prince Georges county. See, I don’t even know what I just said just then.
Thanks.
Can you imagine the fight to get another Bush nominee through with that decision pending? It was hard enough when the republicans (RINOs?) controlled the judiciary committee. Can you say litmus test?
First reaction: Yee-haaah!
Second reaction: Let us pray...
You would take up arms against your country if the Supremes didn't rule the way you favor?
Me, I will continue living in California with all our oppressive firearm regulations.
I don’t know what the SC justices overall thinking is, or how much of the Big Question they are intending to address with this case. However, I’m quite sure all 9 of them view the argument that “the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to the District of Columbia because it’s not a state” to be an insult to their intelligence.
It’s worth keeping in mind that this specific case is about a DC law. There is only one remotely rational justification for any “gun control” law, and that is to reduce the incidence of violent crime. With the average DC voter’s IQ being down around room temperature, the local politicians have been able to keep a majority of the local voters convinced that the draconian gun ban is an effective crime-fighting tool. The SC justices, on the other hand, do NOT have IQs down around room temperature, and have certainly noted long before this case showed up on their doorstep, that they are working in one of the highest crime cities in the nation, which also happens to have one of the most draconian gun banning laws in the nation. Arguments that the gun ban is necessary in order to control crime are apt to elicit barely stifled giggles from the justices.
The Kelo case was decided before one of our new justices was appointed to the court, I believe - and all four “conservative” justices dissented. Please correct me with the facts if I am incorrect.
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.