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 ...
“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.”
Good. D.C. is not a state.
“A well educated electorate being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.”
The first subordinate clause has no effect on the main clause. In this example, books cannot be restricted to those in school, or those who are well-educated.
“The moon being made of green cheese, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Same issue. It’s basic English.
Go here
http://www.brpguns.com/xmg.htm
“THe SCOTUS could very well decide that only members of “state militias” (the national guard today) have the RKBA. “
If the SC decided that the 2nd allows the army to carry firearms, it would be the most ludicrous decision in the history of mankind. I just can’t imagine that the leftists are that stupid. Nobody with more than two brain cells could serioiusly accept that sort of reasoning. It would be equivalent to saying that only writers may possess books. Then again...
bingo
The SCOTUS recently decided that CO2 is a controllable pollutant, CFR (no right to free speech in advertising before elections) is okay, and a politician’s buddy can confiscate and bulldoze your house to put up a hamburger joint, because he will pay more property tax. I don’t rule out the SCOTUS deciding that the militia of 1800 now means the National Guard, and ordinary folks have no RKBA.
Verdugo-Urquidez, United States v.,; 1990; 494 U.S. 259; 444 - 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]."
Why is SCOTUS even going to look at this case? It can't get more simple to understand than that!
None of the above. My statement was as regards the right of individual Britons to keep and bear arms being stronger under George III than it is in present day Britain.
Even though it "was" stronger, obviously by his actions in 1775, George felt that he could rescind those rights "by law", which is exactly what today's gun-grabbers are arguing. And that is precisely why the Second Amendment exists in the Constitution.
Except that the National Guard is NOT a "state militia". There are several states which have both. Texas is one.
“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.”
Current Federal law says otherwise. All able-bodied males aged 17-45 are ALREADY members of the unorganized Federal militia. See 10 USC 311 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html
This basic legal definition of the militia has been in place since the Militia Act of 1792.
Could the court make such a glaring factual error? Of course. I do suspect that the amici briefs will deal with this subject, so it would have to be a deliberate, glaring legal error, utterly transparent to every reasonable observer. After Kelo, well such things do happen. I hope not.
What if 5 judges decide that ONLY members of a state militia (national guard?) have the RKBA?
Keep in mind that the precedent set by a favorable decision needs to be set on such a clear standard. This case is as good as they get.
Where did the "state" regulated come from????? This is worrisome.
I agree.
That’s not a machine gun. It’s not even a firearm.
I agree wholeheartedly with what you wrote. I find it amusing that so many quasi-intellectuals try to claim that the 2nd applies to the National Guard when the NG wasn’t created for over 100 years after the 2nd was ratified.
I’m with William Tell. DC has argued that the Second Amendment only applies to members of the National Guard, that is, the “state militia” (which DC lacks). That’s where it’s from. SCOTUS will affirm or reject that, on its face. If it’s rejected, the collective rights interpretation is dead, and notwithdtanding the narrowness of the ruling, gun laws everywhere will then be open to challenge: if it isn’t a collective right, it’s an individual right, which innumerable state and local laws violate.
Fearless prediction:
The Surpeme Court is going to step lightly on the issue of gun ownership, and render a "narrow but split" decision, as it did in the "Bakke" case 'way back around 1978 or so.
Looking back at Bakke, it was [at that time] supposed to be the "be all, end all" case on affirmative action. Bakke was an aspiring medical student who had been denied a place in the medical school to which he was applying because that school had a "quota system" in place, and he was of the wrong race and thus denied by quota.
Instead of biting the bullet and ruling the notion of affirmative action unconstitutional, the Court split its decision: it ruled quotas unconstitutional, but at the same time left open the premise that other factors could be used to promote affirmative action.
So, Bakke "won" (he is a doctor today), but the central issue of reverse discrimination remained UNsettled, as it is today.
So, what does this have to do with the gun case?
I would not be surprised to see a "split decision" from the Court that clarifies the following issues:
1. The Second Amendment of the Constitution DOES grant a right to _individual citizens_ to own guns ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"), but...
2. The Amendment _also_ grants to governmental entities the power to "regulate" gun ownership (hence, "well regulated"), but...
3. Such "regulation" must not be so unreasonable to create an undue hardship for law-abiding citizens ("shall not be infringed"), and thus...
4. The existing D.C. law is ruled unconstitutional on the basis of 1, 2 and 3 above.
The law will be overturned - not "absolutely" because the District of Columbia does not have the power to regulate gun ownership - but rather because those regulations happened to be TOO strict and exclusionary.
But I am NOT expecting the Supreme Court to deny government the power with which to exercise SOME authority and regulation over gun ownership. That simply ain't gonna happen.
This will be an extremely important case, not necessarily in that it will settle the issue once and for all (any more than "Roe" settled THAT issue), but that it will "set the precedent" for all subsequent decisions regarding the Second Amendment (again, as Roe did for all subsequent decisions regarding abortion).
Stare decisis is a foundation of American jurisprudence, and the D.C. case will set the standards by which future cases will be decided - but at the same time leave "wiggle room" so that there WILL be future cases.
- John
Pretty much agree with you. However, USSC will still have to finese Miller. As I remember, in that case, USSC affirmed that all able bodied were members of the militia but that there was no evidence presented that a ‘sawed off shotgun’ had any relationship to the militia. As you may remember, Miller was not represented at USSC (he’d been released when he won his appeal and skipped). Consequently, only the government presented at USSC. It would be easy to conjecture that had someone presented the fact that shotguns were militia weapons, then the case would have been decided otherwise. As you say ‘stare decisis.
If correct, then all future gun cases will revolve around whther the gun is protected as a militia weapon. There goes the ‘sporting test’.
This would be a disaster, and light the fuse for CW2.”
The fuse for CW2 was lit long ago, but fizzled and went out.
Over the years there have been times when smoke was observed coming from the fuse, but it failed to ignite.
Today,IMHO, anyone who seriously attempts to relight it will be quickly neutralized.
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.