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 ...
So, are you are saying that the American colonists were not British citizens, or that the attempt to confiscate peivately-held powder, cannon, and other arms in Lexington & Concord was supportive of citizen rights, or what...?
Good question. It would seem that the Court is casting the issue narrowly in light of the fact that the case involves citizens of Washington DC. DC residents by definition are not and cannot be affiliated with a state militia.
But the Court seems to be suggesting by implication that there are other categories of militias: state non-regulated, federal regulated, federal non-regulated etc.
This specialized parsing is worrisome because it may end up giving anti-gun nuts fresh opportunities to attack gun rights even if the Washington DC laws are struck down.
I think what most of us are looking for is a simple, comprehensive affirmation of the right to keep and bear arms in our individual capacities as private citizens irrespective of the states in which we live. The way the SCOTUS has framed the issue, that doesn't appear likely.
Nice to see you around man!!
"What is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." ~George Mason, 1788
Since George Mason is the "Father of the Bill of Rights," and he wrote it, I'll take his word for what he meant.
you too - took 2 weeks off to hunt deer and got lucky on day 1 so I have time on my hands for a change
I want to change the subject.
What, exactly, is a "D.C. official?"
What is the source of this pretended "law" to begin with? Was it passed by Congress?
If not, since Congress has the power to "legislate, in all cases whatsoever" over the ten-mile square which constitutes the Constitutional District of Columbia, whece comes the authority of these so-called "officials"?
He is the father of the bill of rights, I'll take his word for what he meant.
bump
THe SCOTUS could very well decide that only members of “state militias” (the national guard today) have the RKBA. This would be a disaster, and light the fuse for CW2. Especially if a 5-4 majority cites foreign laws.
What if 5 judges decide that ONLY members of a state militia (national guard?) have the RKBA?
I'm very worried. SCOTUS recently told us that CO2 was a pollutant, CFR was okay (speech restrictions before an election), and your property could be confiscated because a politician's buddy wants to build a fast food joint on the site. They could easily decide that the militia of 1800 was today the national guard.
58: exactly.
Well good deal! Send me the details on the kill when ya get time...
I seen your moniker for the first time in a long time. After I did some quick recon on ya, noticed you have been in and out for a couple months now! Always thought the Gods here banished you forever!!
Have a good turkey day!!
All they have to decide (and they will decide) is that the well regulated militia clause means something (they won't define what it means), and that the something it means is that there is no private RKBA.
5-4, no RKBA. Bookmark it.
Sounds to me like they’ve already decided.
Decided that people have the right to have gun, only if they keep it at home, and only in DC!
Just kidding
Given the limitation, they can hardly rule that people in DC
CANT have guns, because then they have to explain themselves about why this would be different from the states.
I understand your concern about looking to other sources. Perhaps they could turn to the “Dick Act” of 1907. This Act is law that established the National Guard. This federal law defined the militia as consisting of both an organized (National Guard and Reserve) and an unorganized militia (all others capable of bearing arms but not in the organized militia). This remains federal law.
BTW, don’t you think it a bit absurd to even consider that the founding fathers meant the militia to be the National Guard, an organization that would not be founded for over a hundred fifty years?
I’m a bit surprised that USSC would even consider this case since I don’t think there is a clear majority for either side. Perhaps something will emerge that limits gun control only to those instances where a state must demonstrate a very compelling interest, something beyond we just don’t like guns. Of course, USSC could issue a very limited ruling that hinges upon the uniqueness of DC since it is not a state.
What gives me optimism is the fact that well respected legal scholars such as Lawrence Tribe have endorsed the individual rights position.
For another thing, I don’t really think there has been much scholorship on the 2nd for a number of years. First, it was generally assumed to be an individual right. Then, it became chic to believe in the state right that could be used to justify all sorts of mischief. Now, it appears that serious scholars are beginning to say that it must be an individual right.
Believing the 2nd defines a right to be exercised collectively has several major issues. The one I find most compelling is this. If you believe the 2nd amendment supports a right to bear arms only when a part of state organization, then you should also believe that your first amendment right to freedom of speech can also be exercised collectively thru National Public Radio. If one right is collective, then all rights can be too.
I’m afraid we agree.
We may consider it absurd, but 5 judges may not. They may conclude that the militia of old in today's meaning is today's National Guard.
Well, it says the right of “the people”.
Not “the militiamen” or “the army”.
To suggest that they meant it to be otherwise is like saying “the people” don’t have a right to free speech, only “the publishers” or “the media”.
Yes you can
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.