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 ...
Too bad the states are entirely too complicit in the expansion of federal power. Just look at the interest many states have in subverting the electoral college. It is always easier for a politician to blame Washington for this, that and the other thing than to be held accountable to the citizens of the state.
You know things are way out of whack when the federal government gets more tax money from the citizens than state government does. But, hey, the states just let the fed keep on rollin’.
you left out .. and lie, cheat, steal, revise history, etc between now and Court Date! Even Fox failed in attempting to announce the news that by 10am Monday, we’d here from the Supremes on their decision to take the case. Instead we heard from Kelly (Fox&Friends) every Brady lie he knew!
And it is going to get worse
They are making me nervous.
Below is the relevant code. The Supremes are addressing 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02
§ 7-2502.02. Registration of certain firearms prohibited [Formerly § 6-2312].
(a) A registration certificate shall not be issued for a:
(1) Sawed-off shotgun;
(2) Machine gun;
(3) Short-barreled rifle; or
(4) Pistol not validly registered to the current registrant in the District prior to September 24, 1976, except that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any organization that employs at least 1 commissioned special police officer or other employee licensed to carry a firearm and that arms the employee with a firearm during the employee’s duty hours or to a police officer who has retired from the Metropolitan Police Department.
(b) Nothing in this section shall prevent a police officer who has retired from the Metropolitan Police Department from registering a pistol.
(1973 Ed., § 6-1812; Sept. 24, 1976, D.C. Law 1-85, title II, § 202, 23 DCR 2464; Mar. 16, 1978, D.C. Law 2-62, § 2, 24 DCR 5780; 1981 Ed., § 6-2312; May 7, 1993, D.C. Law 9-266, § 2(b), 39 DCR 5676.)
§ 22-4504. Carrying concealed weapons; possession of weapons during commission of crime of violence; penalty [Formerly § 22-3204].
(a) No person shall carry within the District of Columbia either openly or concealed on or about their person, a pistol, without a license issued pursuant to District of Columbia law, or any deadly or dangerous weapon capable of being so concealed. Whoever violates this section shall be punished as provided in § 22-4515, except that:
(1) A person who violates this section by carrying a pistol, without a license issued pursuant to District of Columbia law, or any deadly or dangerous weapon, in a place other than the person’s dwelling place, place of business, or on other land possessed by the person, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both; or
(2) If the violation of this section occurs after a person has been convicted in the District of Columbia of a violation of this section or of a felony, either in the District of Columbia or another jurisdiction, the person shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.
(b) No person shall within the District of Columbia possess a pistol, machine gun, shotgun, rifle, or any other firearm or imitation firearm while committing a crime of violence or dangerous crime as defined in § 22-4501. Upon conviction of a violation of this subsection, the person may be sentenced to imprisonment for a term not to exceed 15 years and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a mandatory-minimum term of not less than 5 years and shall not be released on parole, or granted probation or suspension of sentence, prior to serving the mandatory-minimum sentence.
(July 8, 1932, 47 Stat. 651, ch. 465, § 4; Nov. 4, 1943, 57 Stat. 586, ch. 296; Aug. 4, 1947, 61 Stat. 743, ch. 469; June 29, 1953, 67 Stat. 94, ch. 159, § 204(c); 1973 Ed., § 22-3204; 1981 Ed., § 22-3204; July 28, 1989, D.C. Law 8-19, § 3(c), 36 DCR 2844; May 8, 1990, D.C. Law 8-120, § 3(c), 37 DCR 24; May 21, 1994, D.C. Law 10-119, § 15(c), 41 DCR 1639; Aug. 20, 1994, D.C. Law 10-151, § 302, 41 DCR 2608.)
§ 7-2507.02. Firearms required to be unloaded and disassembled or locked [Formerly § 6-2372].
Except for law enforcement personnel described in § 7-2502.01(b)(1), each registrant shall keep any firearm in his possession unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device unless such firearm is kept at his place of business, or while being used for lawful recreational purposes within the District of Columbia.
(1973 Ed., § 6-1872; Sept. 24, 1976, D.C. Law 1-85, title VII, § 702, 23 DCR 2464; 1981 Ed., § 6-2372.)
Actually the article is very inaccurate and full of assumptions. It also has the "incorrect" version of the second Amendment, the one that has the magically appearing third comma. In the article it quotes…
The Second Amendment reads: "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."
There is no comma between “arms” and “shall.” The correct version can be determined by looking here. It is the original final text version that was used to determine which of the articles would be included in the bill. It has all twelve Articles, of which two were omitted.
You’re probably right. To do otherwise would open one helluva Pandora’s box.
The SCOTUS will likely also consider whether they themselves want to work and live in a DC that allows anyone to own a handgun. They know it’s not like the average DC thug would recognize a justice’s face on the street before they decide to put a gun in their ribs. This concern won’t make it into anyone’s written opinion. Overall, I doubt any of the 5 conservative votes want to be martyred on a dark street; on the alter of gun rights.
Preemptively before anyone goes spaz, I’m well aware of any and all arguments about thugs and stolen guns.
DC currently "allows" anyone willing to break the law to own a handgun.
They know it’s not like the average DC thug would recognize a justice’s face on the street before they decide to put a gun in their ribs.
They don't already run this risk?
Supreme Court to Hear D.C. Gun Ban Case: Will raise political issue in time for '08 election.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
They're largely correct over there too. If the USSC rules in favor of Heller, the Democrats will have a big monkey off their back and the Republicans may not be able to count on the large election-swaying progun vote.
Both Dems and GOP know it's true: The GOP took the House in '94 riding a pro-gun wave, and vanquished Gore in 2000 thanks entirely to the NRA. Gore lost his own home state to the NRA that year.
Also, pro-gun Democrats took back both the House and Senate by slim margins in the last election. They wouldn't have done that if they weren't NRA-endorsed. Did every see a running count of the anti-gun Dems and GOP representatives who went down in flames compared to the pro-gun candidates that won new seats?
I can tell you right away that I personally know several gun owners who only vote for the GOP on the pro-gun issue alone that if it were made irrelevant they would have no particular need for the Republican party.
I completely agree with your post in 128. I think you have the advantage over me of being much more capable of expressing your thoughts with words.
Best,
3
What is the chance that the SCOTUS rules on the equal protection aspect of this bad law?
The law blatently creates a priviledged class comprised of police officers and retired police officers.
looks to me that the equal protection part is NOT under consideration, only the potential violation of an individual’s second amendment rights. - good news
I don’t think EP will come into play. A citizen is not a “suspect class” so there is no heightened scrutiny of the government action.
back in a sec, gotta wash my hands.
You know things are way out of whack when the federal government gets more tax money from the citizens than state government does. But, hey, the states just let the fed keep on rollin’.
The states, unfortunately in my opinion, yielded a substantial amount of their influence and therefore check on the power of the federal government, through approval of the 17th Amendment.
Prior to that there was a Congressional body elected by the general populace, and a Congressional body elected or appointed by the state legislatures (in thoery to represent the state).
Now that senators are elected by the populace instead of the state, they have absolutely no reason to serve the state as it is. If they did serve the state there sure as hell would be fewer laws that that bend the states over with the "you'll do X or lose your federal funding for Y" tactic. Instead of focusing on bringing home the pork from their federal handlers, they would be fighting to keep their states cash in state to start with.
My Utopian view...
You have a point, but if you don’t like the Senators that voters in places like New York and Massachusetts elect, can you imagine how little you would like the ones that the governments in those states would select? ;-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiB13RUYmgE Blaze of Glory
Samuel Jackson playin’ the part of the commie perfectly (Run Charlie), still p!$$3$ me off!
Blaze of Glory
~~~
Another Great One,,,(spits on the ground)...;0)
Gotta love it.
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.
