Posted on 03/18/2008 9:45:02 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court appeared ready Tuesday to endorse the view that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own guns, but was less clear about whether to retain the District of Columbia's ban on handguns.
The justices were aware of the historic nature of their undertaking, engaging in an extended 98-minute session of questions and answers that could yield the first definition of the meaning of the Second Amendment in its 216 years.
A key justice, Anthony Kennedy, left little doubt about his view when he said early in the proceedings that the Second Amendment gives "a general right to bear arms."
Several justices were skeptical that the Constitution, if it gives individuals' gun rights, could allow a complete ban on handguns when, as Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out, those weapons are most suited for protection at home.
"What is reasonable about a ban on possession" of handguns?" Roberts asked at one point.
But Justice Stephen Breyer suggested that the District's public safety concerns could be relevant in evaluating its 32-year-old ban on handguns, perhaps the strictest gun control law in the nation.
"Does that make it unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate...to say no handguns here?" Breyer said.
Solicitor General Paul Clement, the Bush administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, supported the individual right, but urged the justices not to decide the other question. Instead, Clement said the court should allow for reasonable restrictions that allow banning certain types of weapons, including existing federal laws.
He did not take a position on the District law.
While the arguments raged inside, advocates of gun rights and opponents of gun violence demonstrated outside court Tuesday.
Dozens of protesters mingled with tourists and waved signs saying "Ban the Washington elitists, not our guns" or "The NRA helps criminals and terrorist buy guns."
Members of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence chanted "guns kill" as followers of the Second Amendment Sisters and Maryland Shall Issue.Org shouted "more guns, less crime."
A line to get into the court for the historic arguments began forming two days earlier and extended more than a block by early Tuesday.
The high court's first extensive examination of the Second Amendment since 1939 grew out of challenge to the District's ban.
Anise Jenkins, president of a coalition called Stand Up for Democracy in D.C., defended the district's prohibition on handguns.
"We feel our local council knows what we need for a good standard of life and to keep us safe," Jenkins said.
Genie Jennings, a resident of South Perwick, Maine, and national spokeswoman for Second Amendment Sisters, said the law banning handguns in Washington "is denying individuals the right to defend themselves."
The court has not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment in the 216 years since its ratification. The basic issue for the justices is whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
Even if the court determines there is an individual right, the justices still will have to decide whether the District's ban can stand and how to evaluate other gun control laws. This issue has caused division within the Bush administration, with Vice President Dick Cheney taking a harder line than the administration's official position at the court.
The local Washington government argues that its law should be allowed to remain in force whether or not the amendment applies to individuals, although it reads the amendment as intended to allow states to have armed forces.
The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because "handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia."
Dick Anthony Heller, 65, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection. His lawyers say the amendment plainly protects an individual's right.
The 27 words and three enigmatic commas of the Second Amendment have been analyzed again and again by legal scholars, but hardly at all by the Supreme Court.
The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights.
Chief Justice John Roberts said at his confirmation hearing that the correct reading of the Second Amendment was "still very much an open issue."
I want to throw something out here and see what happens.
How do you all feel about raising the mandatory sentences for crimes where a gun is involved (robbery, assault, and worse)?
And in a similar vein, what about as gun owner who has their weapon used in a crime they didn’t commit (a kid takes a parent’s weapon from a secure locale and does harm)?
Please no flaming, no anger. I don’t own a gun, nor do I have kids, so I’m really intersted in what law-abiding gun-owners have to say.
Thanks.
sorry for the typo..
the second question should read “what about A gun owner..”
(I know...it wasn’t the best use of English either way)
:)
You can bet it won't be too pleasing to most 2nd Amendment purists. Looks good for a victory for the basic 2nd Amendment right, but there will be some weasily words added to allow many restrictions.
Thanks, pistolshot. Will I need my BP meds?
Yep...another punt from the men in black...
Oh, Ginsberg is actually alert and asking questions.
***The Supreme Court appeared ready Tuesday to endorse the view that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own guns,***
In other words, BURY YOUR GUNS, DEEP! By Lots Of Ammo, NOW!
His idea is simple, a general is one rank above a Full Bird Col.
Therefore, any general in DC has the right to carry {or have his enlisted body guards} carry guns.
Next case.
If you'd been paying attention, you'd know your questions have already been amply answered:
the NRA has been at the forefront of legislation that does just what you suggest.
Idiot.
Nope, no irony here!
George Orwell would have been so proud of "Anise" Jenkins.
ISBN: 19492-188299.002
Harper Press, Chicago, Illinois
First Edition (illustrated)
Oh, they're not anti-gun. They're just anti-YOUR gun.
Please no flaming, no anger. I don’t own a gun, nor do I have kids, so I’m really intersted in what law-abiding gun-owners have to say.
IBTZ?
Everybody over age 18 should have a submachine gun. Next?
I favor the death penalty for all premeditated violent crimes, gun or not.
And in a similar vein, what about as gun owner who has their weapon used in a crime they didn’t commit (a kid takes a parent’s weapon from a secure locale and does harm)?
What about them?
We can fully expect a 5-4 decision on this one, I’d say. The Clement brief was a plea to keep the current FEDERAL restrictions in place, and at the same time, affirm the individual right to keep and bear arms. That’s a dance step on which the Court may stumble.
IMO, there is no ambiguity in the language of the Second Amendment...
It’s in the tagline.
If they keep some so-called ‘reasonable’ restrictions guidelines, I see a justice or two from the left joining. I am seeing a 7-2 decision. Of course they fooled me on McCain-Feingold though. I figured the left usually took such an extreme view on the first Admendment, how could they? But they did, and it was funny how shocked Dummies were that it was all the lefties who voted for major First Amendment restrictions.
For 32 years, DC has had the strictest gun laws in the country...
Along with the highest crime rates in the country.
Can we hope that the justices get the corelation????
That law is already on the books - pushed by the NRA. All a city has to do is ask the Feds to Prosecute. The irony IS that a city almost never does; i.e. Chicago, because that criminal with a gun has family that Votes. (not sarcasm)
**** And in a similar vein, what about as gun owner who has their weapon used in a crime they didn’t commit (a kid takes a parent’s weapon from a secure locale and does harm)? ^^^^
Change 'Gun' to 'Hammer', or to 'Chain Saw', or 'Car', or 'Baseball Bat', or 'Knife', etc, and your question answers itself.
Odds are YOU own scores of 'weapons' that could kill someone - like a Parker Ballpoint Pen to the throat. Are YOU responsible if someone steals 'it' and uses it in a crime without your knowledge? That would be pretty absurd, correct.
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.