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 ...
How does the current attorney general come down on this question, I wonder? Maybe it’s not relevant, but it could be in the sense of the case publicity factor.
If it goes the wrong way then the Executive branch should ignore the ruling and refuse to prosecute.
This is the same body which ruled that Blacks were subhuman, and that the Constitution contained a right to kill the unborn. It is hardly worthy of much respect.
Considering the laws that have been passed in California (including microstamping) without revolt, I doubt the majority of gun owners are ready to resist involuntary disarmament. I hope I'm wrong.
If revolt does come, I don't expect to see it in the form of "to the barricades." If it comes, I expect it will be in the form of lots of individuals sniping at anti-gun politicians and bureaucrats.
I think the stage is set,he ruling made.Next step will be a dem led goverment and enforcement.
The Executive (or Commander in Chief) has administrative responsibility for governance of DC, much the same as he has that responsibility for military bases and other government controlled lands (both of which are dealt with in the same Constitutional clause).
By disestablishing the DC government, the DC gun law will be discarded thereby throwing the issue into Congress.
The DC residents win by getting rid of the gun law and the DC government.
No general decision on the Second Amendment will be made because that's not what's at issue in DC.
Ironically, the very reason the Second Amendment was established in the Bill of Rights. If the Founders meant it to protect the right of States to maintain militias, it would have said "The right of States to maintain militias shall not be infringed."
Well, the ultimate effect on DC legislation is not the primary issue for those of us in the pro-rights crowd, nor, for that matter, for those in the anti-rights crowd. Having SCOTUS make a good ruling here is an important first step to rolling back all the infringments of the past century.
Actually, there ARE some states that still have state militias in addition to the National Guard. Texas is one of them, and I know there are others.
How about “It is the Constitutional right of every American except registered Democrats to own any handgun, rifle, shotgun, bazooka, mortar, howitzer, field gun, etc., that they damn well please, the desires of any government entity (who are assumed to be corrupt anyway) notwithstanding.”?
This is one hellova buttpucker. Since they already ruled the government can take our lands and sell them as they please, I doubt the court cares much about another silly right such as firearms.
I would be willing to take four years of Hillary in exchange for four or five correct and broad decisions on the 2A.
Both justices who were replaced voted pro-rights on Kelo. While the replacements are arguably more conservative, if Kelo were decided today, the result would still be 5-4 in favor of the denial of peoples rights.
I don’t think he’d be taking up arms AGAINST his country so much as taking up arms to rescue his country from those holding it hostage.
From My Cold, Dead Hands. This right belongs to the people. Am I not a person? Molon labe.
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.So, when the SCOTUS comes back with a reminder (5-4 split decision I suspect) that the Bill of Rights tells the government what it *can't* do to its citizens, rather than being a list of privileges the government *allows* its citizens...
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.