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 ...
That’s a good point. Originally, the Bill of Rights was designed to limit the Federal Government, but the 14th Amendment drastically changes the relationship that the Bill of Rights has with state laws. But, as you say, D.C. is not a state.
Ironically, what gun rights advocates want is a liberal interpretation of the 14th together with a conservative interpretation of the 2nd.
I dont know that there is any judge on the court that thinks like that, except for maybe Kennedy. Its possible Alito thinks like that too, but its too soon to tell.
Sometimes the fools can't see the forest for the trees. They are making this way to complicated. Individuals owned guns after the revolution therefore, our founders thought individuals should own guns. What the h&!! is so hard to understand?
"Due to the well known fact that a wet bird never flies at night, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The dependent clause is merely a motivation, the independent clause is the law, period. The law could read as above and somebody could produce a notarized and timed photograph of a wet bird actually flying at night and even THAT would not change anything.
Do the first eight amendments to the Constitution protect fundamental rights of the people [YES]. (Griswold v. Connecticut; 1965; 381 U.S. 479; 322)
Is the right to keep and bear arms among the type of individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights [YES]. (Moore v. E. Cleveland; 1976; 431 U.S. 494; 390)
Is the right to keep and bear arms one of the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution [YES]. (Duncan v. Louisiana; 1968; 391 U.S. 145; 333)
Does the right to bear arms for a lawful purpose depend on the Constitution for its existence [NO]; Does the 2nd Amendment have no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, and prevent Congress from infringing on the right to bear arms [YES]. (Cruikshank, United States v., •; 1875; 92 U.S. 542; 159)
Was the 2nd Amendment added to the Constitution to authorize a decentralized militia, guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms [YES]. (Laird v. Tatum; 1972; 408 U.S. 1; 368)
Does the phrase “the people” used in the 2nd Amendment refer to individual members of the American society, the same as it does in the Constitution’s preamble, and its 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th Amendments [YES]; Does the 2nd Amendment protect “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” [YES]. (Verdugo-Urquidez, United States v.,; 1990; 494 U.S. 259; 444)
Is deprivation or suspension of a person’s civil rights, including the right to bear arms, a form of punishment [YES]. (Cummings v. Missouri; 1866; 71 U.S. 277; 158)
Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, can there be any rule making or legislation that would abrogate them [NO]. (Miranda v. Arizona; 1966; 384 U.S. 436; 325)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My fear for all of us rests on the phrase “”well regulated “ as in “well regulated militia.”
My legal worry is that a SCOTUS could hold that “well regualted” means subject to regular call-up, officers in a chain of command, ie. the National Guard.
My problem as a lawyer is, I could argue the other side’s case far better than I wish I could.
Where did the “state” regulated come from????? This is worrisome.
You can own machine guns.
Is your statement still true?
jus’ lookit this way:
scotus be protectin’ you from committing a hate crime
while you’re being robbed and murdered!
/s
"How strangely with the Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!"
I find it amazing that the same people who would say public acts of arson are speech when burning our flag, would scream bloody murder if a cross was lit on fire in the middle of Harlem...
To me, burning the U.S. flag is the same as burning a cross in a black neighborhood.
1) If you write, then you are a writer.
2) Your work may not be appreciated or read by many, but you still are a writer.
3) Write often, about everything. Your work will improve.
4) Read other writers. Find your style and genre.
5) Return to step 1, repeat until dead or appreciated.
I’m not too worried about the term ‘state-regulated militia’. Essentially, this case will come down to the definition of militia. The gun grabbers want to limit that definition to the national guard. It is clear that the founders believed the militia consisted of all those capable of bearing arms. If the original definition holds, then the case will go our way.
BTW, there is another case from the 80’s, Dukakis v. US, where the USSC ruled that the federal government held plenary powers over the national guard. It would be absurd to think that the founding fathers believed that the federal government should hold absolute power over the militia.
“regulated means trained and equipped as in the original framers intent.”
This needs to be emphasized continuously so that the uneducated and the corrupt cannot run w/ the arguement that the framers wanted firearms only for a state controlled militia that is subject to heavy regulation by the state.
Common sense dispells this argument given the mindset of the framers after winning our freedom from tyranny - but don’t expect that to matter to the “gun control” crowd.
Doing any of that would change it from being a militia into one of those other aforementioned entities.
Obviously it is not in the jurisdiction of the court to manufacture a military organization out of whole cloth and then force every state to organize such an idea.
At that ruling, I would laugh at the court.
BTW, thank you for your post, and happy Thanksgiving! 8^)
Actually, in George III’s day, the right of British citizens to keep and bear arms was quite strong (unless you were Catholic). Britain’s wussiness on guns is a completely modern phenomenon.
“It is clear that the founders believed the militia consisted of all those capable of bearing arms. “
My concern is that a closely devided court might look to other sources other than the framer’s clear intent to interpret the meaning of militia. They could claim that a militia as it was intended by the framers is no longer practical or applicable given the lanscape of our society today (I totally disagree, but again, I am not on the SCOTUS...).
I only mention this because of recent decisions by this court re: property rights and political speech.
THANK YOU for posting the citations and saving many of us from having to jump around the ‘net.
I look at the framing of the question the other way. To me, they are framing the question so that when they affirm the lower court’s decision there can be no doubt (and lawyerly weasling by anti-gun groups and politicians) that the second amendment protects an individual right and it applies to anyone, regardless of their affiliation, or lack thereof, with a guard unit or the military.
I’m more concerned about whether SCOTUS will acknowledge/address the type of right it is and make it clear the second amendment is a fundamental right.
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.