Submachine guns are of limited utility. Of course, they ARE fun, especially suppressed.
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."
To be charitable, the word "gives" isn't inside the quotation marks in the article -- maybe it's the reporter's ignorance rather than the justice's.
HH did the new version on the right side, and put them together.
DC’s argument has mostly come down to a pragmatic one, not a legal one. They claim that it reduces gun crime to reduce the number of guns in the city. If they really believed this they would not arm their police officers.
Since they do arm their police officers, they are acknowledging that it matters who has a gun. Since CCW holders are less likely to commit a crime with a handgun, than a police officer, it is obvious that this is about government power, and not public safety.
Of course afterwards we will have a strong reliance interest when the liberals try to get it overruled in the future. I anticipate a luke warm majority opinion, and a strong concurrence from Thomas or Roberts.
a guess..
early summer
Sadly, with Kennedy we also can't rule out how the term "general" is defined by international law....
General Right?
Is that like a collectivist right? General to the public but not the individual?
Can anyone clarify what kennedy meant?
The journalist certainly did a nice job of artificially framing the debate. "Advocates of...rights" vs. "Opponents of...violence"
They make it come down to a question of rights vs. violence, as if the existence of the individual right to bear arms must necessarily cause violence. And, since the left views gun "rights" as, at best, unimportant, there's really no contest in their minds when those rights are compared to an overriding concern about violence.
Why weren't protesters described as "Advcates of gun rights and advocates of gun control"? Or, "Opponents of violent criminals and opponents of self defense"?
Journalists are snakes.
DC’s argument is absurd. Its logical conclusion is that “executions will continue until moral improves.”
I’m expecting a mealy-mouthed “have it both ways” ruling.
Something along the lines of yes, the 2A recognizes an individual right, but the right is subject to reasonable restrictions. And they’ll punt on defining “reasonable” and says it’s up to the people, acting thru their federal, state and local representatives, to decide.
notice how no numbers were given. When the DBM does not give numbers you can bet the pro-conservatvie numbers outnumbered the kook left.
Probably just the DC HQ of handgun control inc.
'General' as in 'not specific', IOW, no specific right to own guns.
Well Ginsberg and Kennedy are apparently gone to the wrong side on this.
So now the issue is if Thomas, Alito, Scalia are on the correct side will the others follow them or the effete elite mode.
Submachine guns are of limited utility. Of course, they ARE fun, especially suppressed.
Just looking out for the differently-abled.
Plus, SMG's are easier to conceal under a skirt.
The US Government and most states already add to minimum sentecnes for firearms use in crimes (not really sure why a firearms is any more threatening that a golf club, in most situtations anyway).
Well, I guess the same logic must apply if an unauthorized person talkes the family car, butcher knife, prescription meds etc and uses them illegally as well. Certainly there is a reasonable amount of care and concern in securing/preventing all of the above “things” as wellas firearms from inappropriate use, but then let laws relflect the concept, not the individual item.
there is so much negative press concerning firearms, we all to often forget that vast numbers of our populace maintina, use and keep firearms of every flavor with no harm or foul to the neighbor-kinda like most other things....
Demonize and punish criminals, not the things they use or take; we the people cannot afford to surrender every freedom and individual liberty for some purported feel-good security.
I am responsible for my own safety, not the government; I possess/carry a firearms since it is my decision making that employs it and besides, cops are too smelly and heavy to carry (nor do I trust anyone else for my safety or that of my loved ones).
Lastly, this whole event is not very relevant to my right to self-defense anyway; the US Constitution and the BOR does not grant me anything, rather “in order to form a more perfect union....”; I have already been granted these rights among others by my Creator, it (we) grant the government certain powers that are specifically restricted and can be even more so.
MOLON LABE
God Bless
Sorry for the poor typing-I must turn on that pesky spell check....
Mea Culpa...
“The 2nd amendment ennumerates the God-given right of individuals to own weapons.”
And in general terms, The Bill of Rights — first 10 amendments — enumerates the God-given rights of individuals. It was not written to enumerate rights of militias.
It is a simple concept that even liberals can grasp. They might refuse to embrace it, but that’s what it is regardless of they FEEL about it.
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.