Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Will Hear D.C. Guns Case
AP via SFGate ^ | 11/20/7 | MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer

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 ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: 9thcircuit; banglist; bigbrother; bits; dc; fmcdh; ginsburg; heller; libertyordeath; nonnegotiable; parker; robeddemons; scotus; shallnotbeinfringed; tyrants
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 321-326 next last
To: SmithL
Prediction:

Narrow focus on DC, and not the rest of the country. All that will change is that DC citizens will be able to purchase handguns under continuing Federal controls. Concealed Carry is another matter entirely.

41 posted on 11/20/2007 10:58:24 AM PST by Pistolshot (Never argue with stupid people, they just bring you down to their level and beat you with experience)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drpix

I would prefer the Second be left alone...period....but that is just me. I know not what the Supreme Court will do...and that is why I am worried.


42 posted on 11/20/2007 10:58:53 AM PST by From One - Many (Trust the Old Media At Your Own Risk. I Will Be Voting for Mr. Duncan Hunter, fellow FReepers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: SmithL; Congressman Billybob

So, the game is afoot ...


43 posted on 11/20/2007 10:59:21 AM PST by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
The justices' decision to hear the case could make the divisive debate over guns an issue in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Duh?

One can always tell a liberal socialist news writer.

ITS ALREADY AN ISSUE AND IT IS NOT DIVISIVE!

That debate is a unifier, and it will unify a large block of voters against the liberal socialsits and their wanna be Utopians whose idea of Brave New World is simply wrong, and unattainable.

"Devisive debate" punk low life no count liberal reporting.

Unifying Debate is the accurate term, and don'r forget it.

44 posted on 11/20/2007 10:59:49 AM PST by Candor7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baghdad_(1258))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

-—”so”==”do”—


45 posted on 11/20/2007 10:59:53 AM PST by rellimpank (--don't believe anything the MSM tells you about firearms or explosives--NRA Benefactor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: jim_trent

“... whatever the outcome, it will be a whole new world after they make their decision.”

Yup.


46 posted on 11/20/2007 11:00:34 AM PST by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

There’s another thread based on a different article

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1928424/posts


47 posted on 11/20/2007 11:00:41 AM PST by Phsstpok (When you don't know where you are, but you don't care, you're not lost, you're exploring!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drpix

Both the petitioner and the respondent sought higher court review.


48 posted on 11/20/2007 11:01:19 AM PST by furquhart (Fred Thompson for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: AFPhys

Radio News saying they will hear arguments in May and possible decision this MAY.

If it goes the wrong way it could unite gun owners to vote for a Pro-gun GOP candidate.


49 posted on 11/20/2007 11:02:08 AM PST by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro

or it could be too late to offer a pro-gun candidate....


50 posted on 11/20/2007 11:03:04 AM PST by From One - Many (Trust the Old Media At Your Own Risk. I Will Be Voting for Mr. Duncan Hunter, fellow FReepers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

when more District of Columbians have weapons, the crime will go down. This is a good chance to test that theory. Of course, the majority of the citizens won’t have a gun because of their felony records.


51 posted on 11/20/2007 11:03:55 AM PST by Tulsa Ramjet ("If not now, when?" "Because it's judgment that defeats us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: From One - Many; furquhart

I’m getting a feeling SCOTUS accepted the case thinking of a slit the difference stategy.


52 posted on 11/20/2007 11:04:15 AM PST by drpix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: From One - Many
-- I know not what the Supreme Court will do----exactly.

--and remembering McCain-Feingold and the eminent domain issue, I too am worried.

53 posted on 11/20/2007 11:04:42 AM PST by rellimpank (--don't believe anything the MSM tells you about firearms or explosives--NRA Benefactor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro
...could unite gun owners to vote for a Pro-gun GOP candidate.

It's an election year - everybody will be pro-gun.

54 posted on 11/20/2007 11:04:48 AM PST by keat (You know who I feel bad for? Arab-Americans who truly want to get into crop-dusting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Aglooka

“After considering foreign laws to make that decision of course”- aglooka

That is my fear with this decision - because in other opinions (Kelo?) SCOTUS openly cited foreign laws to support the opinion, which is incomprehensible to me.


55 posted on 11/20/2007 11:04:55 AM PST by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: AFPhys
“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?””

If you ask me, the Court has already tipped thier hands by substituting "state-regulated" for "well regulated".

They are going to come down on the side of a collective right. The fix is in.

56 posted on 11/20/2007 11:04:57 AM PST by gridlock (Recycling is the new Religion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Lexington Green; xzins; OrthodoxPresbyterian; George W. Bush
The wrong SCOTUS opinion is a declaration of civil war.

It's difficult to view any other way.

Let's see where this "conservative" court comes down -- the Constitution or tyranny.

57 posted on 11/20/2007 11:05:23 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

This case will force 2nd Amendment views to become a Presidential campaign issue in 2008, something that the news media has managed to stifle for decades.


58 posted on 11/20/2007 11:05:27 AM PST by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: From One - Many; furquhart
CORRECTION: slit the difference stategy = split the difference stategy
59 posted on 11/20/2007 11:05:48 AM PST by drpix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: drpix

Not so, there is a split among the circuits - the Supremes traditionally will take a case to resolve the split.


60 posted on 11/20/2007 11:06:36 AM PST by CatoRenasci (Ceterum Censeo Arabiam Esse Delendam -- Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 321-326 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson