Understatement of the year. The leftmedia coverage to date is already enough material to write a college textbook on disinformation tactics.
Posted on 03/19/2008 5:37:00 AM PDT by tcg
The real question facing the Court was whether the District of Columbia’s total ban on handguns had gone too far and was therefore “unreasonable” within the meaning of past holdings.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.org ...
A ruling on this case, District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), is expected in late June.
The Supreme Court has not visited an issue concerning the 2d Amendment to the United States Constitution, at least in a manner intended to conclusively interpret its meaning, since it was ratified in 1791. This appears to be positioned as the case where just such a seminal interpretation will be made.
The 2d Amendment contains the important phrase "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 ongoing question of interpretation, which has grown in particular interest especially with the increase in violent crimes, is whether that Amendment grants an unrestricted right to bear arms to every individual citizen or whether it should be interpreted in light of its reference to militia and thus be able to be restricted with “reasonable” regulations at the State and/or local level.
Militia no longer exist, at least in the manner in which they did at the time of ratification, and the argument has evolved over the years to include just what kinds of restrictions the State (or municipality) can reasonably place on citizen gun ownership. In essence then, what constitutes a “reasonable” restriction on citizen gun ownership?
The issue of whether such restrictions can be made at all, the outside claim of some 2d Amendment supporters, did not seem to become the focus of the lively arguments in the Court. Rather, this case, which originated in Washington D.C. where an ordinance was passed banning handguns 32 years ago, focused on whether the District of Columbia had exceeded its constitutionally restricted authority.
As the heated and lively argument unfolded inside the Court, demonstrators flooded the sidewalk and stairs outside. Some shouted “Guns Kill” and other such slogans favoring restrictions. They were enthusiastically countered by other shouts of “People kill, not guns” and a crowd insistence that the ownership of guns is a constitutionally protected right.
If the comments of the Justices and the tenor of the arguments can be read, it seems that the majority of the Justices view the Amendments’ language means that citizens have a "right to keep and bear arms" that includes much more than service in a militia.
The real question facing the Court was whether the District’s total ban on handguns had gone too far and was therefore “unreasonable” within the meaning of past holdings.
Chief Justice John Roberts expressed this concern with crystal clarity during the arguments.
He asked Attorney Walter Dellinger, who was representing the District of Columbia and defending the ban on handguns, "What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?"
His reply did not seem to satisfy the inquiring Justice. It was simply that residents of the District could own rifles and use them to protect their homes.
Dellenger, an excellent advocate who is at home in that Court, continued "What is reasonable about a total ban on possession is that it's a ban only on the possession of one kind of weapon, of handguns, that's considered especially dangerous."
One of the Attorneys representing the citizens who contested the D.C. handgun ban would later argue, "It's unreasonable and it fails any standard of review."
When the long and feisty argument had ended, the people in the Courtroom filed out, animated and ready to speak with the large number of correspondents covering the argument. National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre expressed the optimism of many who hope to see the restriction declared unconstitutional.
He told the Press, "What I heard from the court was the view that the D.C. law, which prohibits good people from having a firearm ... to defend themselves against bad people is not reasonable and unconstitutional,"
The Mayor of the District of Columbia, Adrian Fenty stood by the ban, telling the Press "More guns anywhere in the District of Columbia is going to lead to more crime. And that is why we stand so steadfastly against any repeal of our handgun ban".
However, what really matters is what the Justices say. If they strike down the D.C. ordinance as unconstitutional, the broader question then becomes how widely they will interpret the issue in the written opinion.
Will it become a precedent which will be used to interpret other efforts to restrict gun ownership in other areas of the country or will the opinion be carefully crafted to address only the D.C. ordinance?
Expect many written editorials and opinions from the chattering class attempting to read the tea leaves between now and June, when the opinion will be released.
If the court rules DC residents have the RKBA in their homes, you gotta ask the next logical question; Is this right restricted to just their homes? Surely our forefathers didn’t restrict this right to just homes. What happened when the citizens jumped on their horses?
As another Freeper pointed out........ the 1st amendment wasn’t restricted to just the home.
We listened to Dellinger yesterday, and quite frankly, he performed very poorly, stuttering and uhh-ing all the way through his argument. CJ Roberts tripped him up early and he never recovered. DC should get its money back.
Which locality puts a total band on speech, the press, or religion? And how long would that last.
By D.C. logic, Islam should be banned in order to protect against terrorism, and newspapers should be banned to protect against libel. How far would they get with that.
Indeed, let’s see a requirement to force Muslims to register with the government or newspapers to submit copy to the government before print and see how far that goes.
I made a comment on this on another thread, but I want to expand it a bit further. This type of thinking is a cop-out for people who don't want to guarantee our civil rights.
The 2nd Amendment is, as people have stated endlessly, a people's right amendment, just as the other amendments are people's rights amendments. It, and the other amendments, are not government's rights amendments. It guarantees that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. But let us apply Breyer's logic to some of the other amendments.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
With Breyer's reasoning, if local officials decided to prohibit free speech, then he would be reluctant to second guess them. If local officials decided to ban the right of people to peaceably assemble, then Breyer would be reluctant to second guess them.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Perhaps somewhere some local officials might decide that people are not to be secure in their persons, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Would Breyer be reluctant to second guess them?
"...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Maybe somewhere, some local officials might decide that people shall be compelled to testify against themselves, and that they should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Would Breyer be willing to second guess them?
Obviously I could go on, but the outrage the supporters of the 2nd Amendment is genuine and justified. The RKBA is a civil right, just as important as the other civil rights. And just as with other civil rights, it deserves the strong backing of the entire Supreme Court, and the entire Supreme Court should be as outraged as the attempt to limit our 2nd Amendment rights as they would be if attempts were made to limit our other civil rights. Those who mis-use their first amendment rights, such as shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, are held accountable for mis-using those rights. And those who mis-use their 2nd Amendment rights also must be held accountable. But citizens must not have their rights suppressed and regulated on the theory that they might mis-use their rights. They should not have their rights limited because other people are criminally mis-using their 2nd Amendment rights.
Maybe more so. "The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed--where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once. " Alex Kosinski, Justice of the Ninth Circuit (incredibly).
No, on the contrary it should keep him. I WANT a moron on the other side.
Understatement of the year. The leftmedia coverage to date is already enough material to write a college textbook on disinformation tactics.
I stand correctly corrected. The 2nd Amendment is the final guarantor of the other Amendments. As such, is the most important of them.
And it's those of us that they are particularly worried about.
Remember when Chevy Chase was given his own late night TV talk show? Fox figured -- hey, he's funny, he's witty, he's successful, everyone likes him, this should work.
Remember how God-awful it was? Some people, like Chevy Chase (and Tom Cruise), need to be working from a script to be good.
Dellinger is another.
Should the U.S. Supreme Court have stepped in to overrule, second-guessing local officials? Many times they were asked.
Now, you may like a one-size-fits-all Bill of Rights that applies to every state. Of course, what comes with that is the U.S. Supreme Court definition of that right. Nude dancing is free speech and every state must allow it. Flag burning is protected speech (but political speech 90 days before an election is not). Saying "under God" or displaying a Nativity scene is establishing a religion. Abortion is a privacy right that must be protected by every state. Sodomy must be allowed. Eminent domain? What eminent domain?
Hey, if you like what the U.S. Supreme Court did with our other rights, you're gonna love what they do to the second amendment.
Not so improbable ... IMO
I leave the remembering to the experts like yourself.
If they consider the 2ND obsolete etc then they should state that the proper method of addressing the issue is through the amendment process NOT by a SCOTUS Decgree
2ND doesn’t say anything about CONGRESS not passing laws that infringe BUT that it should NOT be infringed however the 1ST states CONGRESS shall not etc
Wonder why no mention of CONGRESS in the 2ND
LOL...excellent observation!
***They should not have their rights limited because other people are criminally mis-using their 2nd Amendment rights.***
I used that example with the First, and people got into an uproar about it.
I don’t know about that... I’m thinking just their tactics from one month, would be enough to write 400 pages.
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.