Court agrees to consider D.C. gun ban (The court...will limit its ruling to one question!!!)

The Washington Times ^ | November 21, 2007 | Jim McElhatton

[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."...

[El Gato]

That does kind of suck.

No kind of about it. It's a clear infringement, and it bites big time.

[neverdem]

FWIW, some excerpts:

Court agrees to rule on gun case

(The Court took no action on Tuesday on a conditional cross-petition, Parker, et al., v. District of Columbia, 07-335, an appeal by five District residents seeking to join in the case. The absence of any action may mean that the Court has decided not to hear that case. If that is so, it will be indicated in an order next Monday. The Court also may simply be holding the case until it decides the Heller case.)

Here is the way the Court phrased the granted issue:

“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?”

The first listed section bars registration of pistols if not registered before Sept. 24, 1976; the second bars carrying an unlicensed pistol, and the third requires that any gun kept at home must be unloaded and disassembled or bound by a lock, such as one that prevents the trigger from operating.

[El Gato]

I read some time ago that people in Europe (I think it was Germany) are EXPECTED to use silencers on their firearms so as not to disturb others with the firing.

Finland. Where the legacy of the snipers who fought the Russians to a standstill, right before WW-II, is still alive.

[El Gato]

My guess is that they didn't want a large standing army which they saw as a threat to liberty, so they stated an explicit benefit to the states of an individual right to keep and bear arms.

That's probably close, but I think the term "state" in the Second amendment is not referring to any of the several "States" at all, but rather a free government in general, be it that of one of the "several states", or the federal government created by the Constitution. This was a statement against standing armies. You'll note that in the main body of the Constitution, funding for Armies (plural!) is limited to two years, while no such limitation exists for funding of "a Navy". The country needs to be protected, but standing armies are dangerous to liberty, thus the need for a "Well Regulated", that property functioning, militia to hold the line until a an Army can be raised, in many cases out of the very members of the militia, who would come pre trained, but with limitations as to length of service, manner and place of employment and so forth.

[El Gato]

The first listed section bars registration of pistols if not registered before Sept. 24, 1976; the second bars carrying an unlicensed pistol, and the third requires that any gun kept at home must be unloaded and disassembled or bound by a lock, such as one that prevents the trigger from operating.

Thank you very much. The ruling on that third section could have broad ramifications. The other two a bit less so, but it could result in striking down all anti carry laws. Wouldn't that be interesting. The first is pretty DC unique, except that many other places (Chicago) pretty much ban pistols (and other firearms), so a ruling there could also have broader implications. It could in combination with the first, also strike down registration laws, with a few future lawsuits of course.

[Squantos]

Some links below with good references to 2nd Amendment . I don’t hide the links so folks can see where they are linking too ........geek with a 45 is always good read.

Stay safe Ya’ll.....

http://www.geekwitha45.blogspot.com/

http://www.virginiainstitute.org/pdf/Right_to_Bear_Arms.pdf

http://www.tsra.com/shop/product_info.php?cPath=25&products_id=44&osCsid=177f41c7e529c8fac89ea242592069ef

http://www.saf.org/default.asp?p=gunrights_faq

http://www.fija.org/docout.php?id=120&filename=summer2003_archived_newsletter.pdf&filesize=186432

http://thehippieconservative.blogspot.com/2007/04/second-amendment-individuals-or-just.html

http://www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html

[neverdem]

Thanks for the recommendation & links.

[Squantos]

Hope ya had a good Thanksgiving Doc !

Stay safe ! I am off to bed !

Nite !

[glock rocks]

Thank you. Nice collection. There goes the morning.

[R. Scott]

Nothing was said about cost.

[EBH]

Well if you don’t like that answer...what will you do?

It is a darn good question and one very few seem to have any answer for.

Marches and protests etc. on the Supreme Court...mean nothing!

What do We the People do, when the system fails to protect our Rights? So far We the People have not figured out how to protect our power over our own government!

PS>...I like your tagline.

[DugwayDuke]

My land is roughly rectangular. It has a slight depression just out my back door. I used the tractor to make a vertical bank and lined it with old tree trunks. Works great. One of my closer neighbors also has built his own range. This is also great whitetail country so the neighbors are quite used to hearing gun shots.

[Former Proud Canadian]

Bump

[SLB]

Thanks for the links.

How was Thanksgiving?

Mrs SLB and two of four daughters started baking on Monday. The rest of the immediate family, a son-in-law and a perspective sil all tied the feed bag on yesterday afternoon. Oldest daughter and sil brought some venison sausage by for breakfast and then more food when they showed up in the evening. Middle daughter and the perspective sil pitched in with the dishes. Nine total at the table. Until my in-laws passed away two years ago we were used to feeding 25 on Thanksgiving, so we have more left overs now than we know what to do with. I will be forced to eat mince meat pie with Drambuie on it every evening for a week (I am the only one who cares for it).

[Abundy]

you aren't fried - and even if the extent of the opinion was the following

We find the the DC law unconstitutional as if infringes on an individual's second amendment right to keep and bear arms.

it would still be hugely useful for later litigation.

There would be all sorts of lawsuits in every state claiming: Law "X", based on Heller infringes on my client's second amendment rights.

And as there began to emerge a mish-mash of rulings certain specific issues would eventually have to be taken up by SCOTUS.

What type of individual right?

What is the appropriate analysis (strict scrutiny or rational basis) to determine if a law violates the second?

I think for these reasons that SCOTUS will try to head off most of that with dicta in Heller

Another thing that no one is talking about is the fact that only pro-second amendment individuals will have standing to challenge laws based on a correct Heller ruling.

Cities can't challenge gun laws - they are not individuals. State's couldn't challenge a federal law - they are not individuals. Anti-gun zealots can't use Heller to challenge gun laws since the case will stand for the opposite of what they want - more restrictive laws.

Why is this important?

Imagine a pro-gun Illinois legislature legalizing concealed carry in the State and Chicago trying to prosecute some poor schmuck who had his permit and gets arrested. (aside from the fact that chicago's gun laws, as well as Illinois gun laws, are in serious question as to their legality anyway)

If we (pro-second amendment people) are smart, we would all take a deep breath after Heller comes down and then convene a national convention to work out a litigation strategy based on which laws will be easiest to overturn in which states. We will have control of the playing field and should take our time in order to avoid bad rulings in hostile courts. Again, VPC and their ilk can't file any suits so why hurry and why not be coordinated in our efforts?

[Erik Latranyi]

D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02

The first listed section bars registration of pistols if not registered before Sept. 24, 1976;

the second bars carrying an unlicensed pistol,

and the third requires that any gun kept at home must be unloaded and disassembled or bound by a lock, such as one that prevents the trigger from operating.

My predictions:

1) Registration: Unconstitutional on the basis that it bars future registration, not that the registration itself is unconstitutional.

2) Unlicenced Carry: Constitutional on the basis that public safety can be state regulated.

3) Home Storage: Unconstitutional on the basis that it renders the arms nonfunctional and violates the privacy of the home.

I'm not saying I would agree with the above rulings, but this is how I think the court will rule.

[uncbob]

What about the fact that the 2nd says The Right -—————

It doesn’t say Will or Shall have The Right

It says in essence that the Right ALREADY exists and can’t be infringed

[Travis McGee]

Great post, thanks.

[Squantos]

Awesome day as well....we made a special point of discussing all who serve in uniform and out to make such gatherings possible. And the sacrifices we can never repay to those individuals and their families. Aside from that topic of the day we as well tied on the feed bag at my Mom’s home. She wanted to cook this dinner all by herself without any of the girls helping and man was it great !

Food, family, football, friends and faith in the future and those willing to fight for it.....:o)

A great day indeed.........Stay Safe , (BTW snow here in Texas !)

[Squantos]

Black Friday.....stay at home and read !

We’re due a little snik here in the Panhandle anyway. Crowded streets and snik are bad news here in my AO.

I’ll be here, warm and working on the remodel on my day off !