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."

[gridlock]

“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?”

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"?

[rightwingextremist1776]

18th century fears of an all-powerful national government.

Fears WELL justified I might add......

[metesky]

Game on!

[DBrow]

“That decision supported the collective rights view, “

probably learned that in “journalism” class, or from the Brady Campaign.

[From One - Many]

I was and am worried about this one....Second Amendment....NOT Good

[Tzimisce]

...I can’t believe this is even a question...

[xsrdx]

Yowzah!

[Aglooka]

After Kelo vs. New London “private” property can now be seized for “public use” for private businesses or simply to increase tax revenue.

Of course the 2nd Amendment is meant to guarantee the right for a individual to be armed. Reading it makes that obvious however I’m thinking they will rule it to be a “collective” right. (After considering foreign laws to make that decision of course).

[DBrow]

I’d feel better if he were holding a modern semiauto, rather than a collectible single-shot.

[From One - Many]

oh boy.....it is going to be a five to four decision, folks....and the decision is a toss up.

[drpix]

Probably a historical weapon... and meant to be very symbolic.

[From One - Many]

sign of the times. :(

[Hacklehead]

HOLY CR@p!

[frogjerk]

Watch one of the Justices recuse themselves and it becomes a split-decision...AKA: A DON KING PRODUCTION!

[1Old Pro]

If gun owners voted as a block, they could choose the next President and make a difference.

[Hat-Trick]

In the words of Big John McCarthy:

LET'S GET IT ON. COME ON!

[drpix]

Leaving the swing vote to someone named Kennedy is not a plus. But why would SCOTUS take the case just to agree with the lower court. They could have declined and left thing as they are unless they want to clarify something currently not being accepted by lower courts.

[From One - Many]

Might get there too late to make a difference, and the old media would never tell us someone won who didn't....right?.../s

[M203M4]

Putting the 2nd Amendment up for debate ping.

[rellimpank]

—what so you suggest as “help”—??