Posted on 11/21/2007 6:33:25 PM PST by neverdem
The Supreme Court will rule on the scope of the Second Amendment's right to bear arms for the first time in nearly 70 years after deciding yesterday to hear arguments on whether D.C. residents can keep handguns in their homes.
The court's decision marks the first time it has weighed in on the Second Amendment since 1939. The decision is expected to change how localities and states across the nation approach gun regulations.
D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, a Democrat, yesterday called the court's decision to hear the case good news for city residents.
"We welcome the opportunity to take our arguments to the Supreme Court," he said at an afternoon press conference.
Alan Gura, who represents the six D.C. residents who filed suit in 2003 to lift the ban, said he and his clients were "very pleased."
"This is a historic decision that is going to come out," he said.
Mr. Gura said laws keeping guns out of the hands of felons and "crazy people" won't be affected by the ruling. However, he added, "The many laws that have no useful purpose other than to deprive people of their rights are going to be examined more."
Legal briefs in the case are due by January. Arguments are scheduled for March. A decision is likely by June, according to D.C. Attorney General Linda Singer.
D.C. officials said they plan to argue that the right to bear arms in the Constitution applies to militias, not city residents. Proponents of lifting the ban say the Constitution...
--snip--
The court said yesterday it will limit its ruling to one question: whether D.C. laws "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."...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I agree that this case is as good as we are likely to get, especially since a Clinton court will contain one or two more Ginzburgs. But I’m still worried. The stakes are high.
I hope you’re right.
And what then? I am asking a very series...question. Knowing the court has turned basic fundamental issues on their head, applied international law to our sovereign nation for rulings, and wields enough power to make law from the bench...then what?
Congress, the President, and even We the People have no way to influence how the court will rule. What will We the People do? Will we begin calling for the impeachment of the judges?
>Today,IMHO, anyone who seriously attempts to relight it will be quickly neutralized.<
The Patriot Act guarantees snuffing.
It would have been simpler from the start...to let everyone have as many weapons as they want...and tax bullets at $12 per round. We never would have entered into guns or no gun argument...and real owners would have bought just a half-box a year of ammo for their weapon to protect the house. Those guns who wanted automatic weapons...would have been pouring $$$ into ammo left and right...pushing revenue dollars into each state’s economy.
The District claims that people who are not affiliated with a state-regulated militia have no rights. Heller et al. claim otherwise. The only way the Court could rule in favor of Heller would be to affirmatively find that membership in a state-regulated militia is not required for Second-Amendment protections. Since that is the issue they'll be deciding, it's entirely reasonable and appropriate that they express things that way at this point.
The willful violation of my right to keep and bear arms by the federal government and the state of Kalifornia brought about my withdrawal of consent to be governed several years ago.
Some may consider that a meaningless gesture. But it must be realized that I am no longer ethically bound to obey the laws of either government. When I do so, it is entirely due to the consequences of such disobediance which are backed up by government force. If I disobey, these tyrannical governments threaten to murder or imprison me.
I wouldn't doubt that there were individuals among our Founders who first realized that they owed no allegiance to their rulers, perhaps decades prior to the outbreak of Revolution. Many others didn't make the key decision until long after the shooting started.
What is sad is that the monarchy at the time only had to recognize the rights and liberties which our Constitution guarantees in order to avoid the conflict. The same is true today and ought to be easier, since our public officials all take an oath to uphold that Constitution.
It's very fortunate that our academics, despite their general liberal leanings, have been forced by intellectual honesty to recognize the plain language of the Second Amendment. Pro-gunners may need to erect a monument to Lawrence Tribe in recognition of his vital service to the Republic.
Much was made of the fact that DC is not a state, and using that as a denial of RKBA. Collectivists contend that if you’re not formally & actively part of a state militia, you have no RKBA; ergo, if DC is not a state then no DC residents have RKBA.
Using that logic, DC is not a part of the United States.
One of my favorite movies is Last of the Mohicans. I love the scene where the Brits are trying to draft frontiersmen for the French and Indian War, and Hawkeye says forget it. The British officer asks, "What kind of subject of the King do you call yourself?" and Hawkeye replies, "I call myself subject to no man at all." Great, great movie.
I don't think so.
The language of the Second Amendment makes clear that it is not the right of the militia which is to be protected. It is the proper functioning of the militia which is the one stated reason for the protection of the Second Amendment, but it is "the right of the people" that is protected.
The Miller Court was very much mistaken in narrowing "the right of the people" in the way that they did. If the Founders had meant what the Miller Court decided, they would only have protected SOME arms at SOME times. Similar statements in state constitutions which were written at the time of our nation's founding make clear that the pre-existing right included defense of self, family, community, and state.
Whatever the Supreme Court may decide about "militias" is irrelevant to proper understanding of the Second Amendment.
Another way of looking at the problem is to recognize that the Second Amendment, in so far as it protects the existence of a well-regulated Miliitia, is not sufficient to guarantee the existence of such a Militia.
There are other community efforts that must be carried out to enable the Militia. Failing to enable the Militia through proper planning and enabling could render the militia itself inefficient. But the protection of the right of the people to keep and bear arms will have a beneficial effect in reducing the impact of such community neglect.
It is only necessary to recognize that "the right of the people to benefit from a well-regulated Militia" and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" are not the same thing. Then one can recognize that one of these rights, in its entirety, is protected by the Second Amendment from ANY infringement.
Then it seems like Heller could be decided so narrowly that it only applies to DC???
Yes, indeed. As the Chinese curse says, these could be interesting times.
I don't see how. Whatever they rule will have to say something very relevant about the Second Amendment. You and I will be very effected by whatever they decide.
Whatever hopes I have held that I might some day in my lifetime be able to exercise an uninfringed right to keep and bear arms here in Kalifornia would be dashed completely with an erroneous decision.
So do I. I’m 80% sure, but not 99% or 100% sure, that I am.
__________________________________________
How very Democrat of you. There is nothing in the constitition that says the right to keep and bear arms islimited only to those needed for defense against burglary. The intention is to provide a well armed citizenry as a defense against the over reaches of government.
Your solution is akin to the old soviet idea of allowing only fowling pieces.
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.