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."

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

True Dat,,,I never miss his movies...

[publiusF27]

Yeah, that comma keeps on coming back, no matter how many times we try to banish it. It was in the graphic last night on the Newshour on government TV. I think they made up a graphic of the 2A JUST to put that comma on the screen, since it really served no other purpose in the story.

[do the dhue]

the right of the people to keep and bear arms

It does not say the right of the people who are in the militia to keep and bear arms.

[do the dhue]

ping

[Mr. Silverback]

I think you’re correct, drpix. I think that Roberts is taking this case because he knows the Court will rule in favor of the gun owners, and he wants that to be settled law.

[P-Marlowe]

I think that Roberts is taking this case because he knows the Court will rule in favor of the gun owners, and he wants that to be settled law.

No he's taking it because there is a split in opinions in two separate circuits. The Supreme Coutt is more or less obligated to take the case to settle the law.

I am not optimistic. There are only four justices who give a damn about the what the framers thought about this amendment and what the original intent was. This one could go very badly for our second amendment rights.

[agere_contra]

The very question accepts the contention that membership in a militia has anything to do with the right to keep and bear arms. A correct reading of the amendment, of course, makes it clear that an uninfringed right to keep and bear arms is a necessary condition for the existance of a militia, which is a reason why the pre-existing right should not be infringed. In other words, the individual right makes the collective action possible, but the right is not collective. By considering membership in a state-regulated militia part of the question, the Court accepts that that membership is relevant to the question, and that the right is granted and collective

Your exegesis is exactly correct and extremely well written. Vote for POST OF THE DAY.

[Redbob]

You may think this will be “hollow,” but the citizens of D.C. certainly will not.

[Redbob]

I heard Justice Thomas speak last night, before the Federalist Society, and there can be no doubt as to how HE will rule in this case.

[newguy357]

It’s too late. I’m long, long, past caring what our pseudo-masters in black robes say.

Exactly. Lots of people on both sides will be losing sleep over this, but it will change nothing.

[RebelTex]

"I think you have the advantage over me of being much more capable of expressing your thoughts with words."

Thank you.  However, I think you express yourself well enough.  Besides, I'm not really what you might call a 'wordsmith'; I just get lucky sometimes.  Then again, my family sometimes calls me a 'blacksmith'.

No, wait, that's 'black sheep', LOL. 

[CRBDeuce]

“The GOP took the House in ‘94 riding a pro-gun wave,”

We really shouldn’t revise history on this website....that’s reserved to CBS,etal. ‘94 was all ‘Contract with America’, well thought out, well spoken, well sold, well voted....which well may have included some brady bill repeals...but were not core to the repeal of the Democrat’s 40 year reign! many other ‘dimmi issues’ were targeted...gay soldiers, Hillarycare, etc.

[CRBDeuce]

...but it may be that ALL 9 Justices wish to remain alive during their stint in DC! If law abiding citizens are again allowed to defend themselves, fewer thugs will be carrying (as it gives them no real advantage, and serves only to increase prison time if caught in their lawbreaking activities). Fewer thugs carrying, less chance of a Justices’ own ribs being at the pointy end of a pistol.

[Jacquerie]

The wrong SCOTUS opinion is a declaration of civil war.

Not a chance.

[Jacquerie]

If this is ruled the wrong way it could be the spark that lights the fuse that leads to a revolution.

This country accepts the progressive income tax, social security and almost unlimited abortion. There is zero chance the populace or even 10% of the polis will rise up. The sheeple will accept the affront and go on about their business.

[mad_as_he$$]

Right on target!!! Nice summary.

[Repeal 16-17]

This country accepts the progressive income tax, social security and almost unlimited abortion. There is zero chance the populace or even 10% of the polis will rise up. The sheeple will accept the affront and go on about their business.

You might be right. Keep in mind that it took a "string of abuses" before the American Revolution occurred. Eventually, there may back breaking straw for that poor camel. Also, what percentage of Americans took part, militarily, in the American Revolution?

[batter]

I don't remember the exact number that took part in the Revolution, but it was a minority (I think between 15-30% of the population - probably closer to the 15%).

In any case, I think "FMCDH" (and the "FMCDH-BITS") will be making a resurgence here on FR.

[TLI]

I don't remember the exact number that took part in the Revolution, but it was a minority (I think between 15-30% of the population - probably closer to the 15%).

About one third...

During the American Revolution, approximately one-third of the American colonists remained loyal to the British Crown. Some 100,000 Loyalists, about four percent of the population, left the American colonies, almost one-third from New York alone. Many moved north to Quebec or Nova Scotia, bringing about great change for the country that would become Canada. Some 35,000 Loyalists established themselves in Nova Scotia. Those who settled further north helped found New Brunswick in 1784. Another 10,000 Loyalists settled in Quebec, where the increased population led the British in 1791 to divide the colony into Upper Canada (present-day Ontario) and Lower Canada (present-day Quebec). Other Loyalists went to the Bahamas or other parts of the West Indies, and some returned to England. The British government paid more than £3 million to the Loyalist exiles. In addition, they were given land, appointments and pensions.

These Loyalists - or Tories, as the Patriots called them - were officeholders, Anglicans or involved in colonial administration, landholders and merchants. The Loyalists were punished with heavy taxes, not allowed to hold office and not allowed to vote. Some were banished. Tarring and feathering, although not official, was meted out on Loyalists as punishment.

[TLI]

Oops, the LINK