But, our government now wants to turn around and make 22 percent of its own citizens become felons overnight.
If you thought the BATF was out of control before, wait until you see them in action under El Presidente Hillary.
Posted on 11/09/2007 3:17:09 AM PST by cbkaty
Justices to decide whether to take up case on strict limits approved in D.C.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will discuss gun control today in a private conference that soon could explode publicly.
Behind closed doors, the nine justices will consider taking a case that challenges the District of Columbia's stringent handgun ban. Their ultimate decision will shape how far other cities and states can go with their own gun restrictions.
"If the court decides to take this up, it's very likely it will end up being the most important Second Amendment case in history," said Dennis Henigan, the legal director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
Henigan predicted "it's more likely than not" that the necessary four justices will vote to consider the case. The court will announce its decision Tuesday, and oral arguments could be heard next year.
Lawyers are swarming.
Texas, Florida and 11 other states weighed in on behalf of gun owners who are challenging D.C.'s strict gun laws. New York and three other states want the gun restrictions upheld. Pediatricians filed a brief supporting the ban. A Northern California gun dealer, Russell Nordyke, filed a brief opposing it.
From a victim's view: Tom Palmer considers the case a matter of life and death.
Palmer turns 51 this month. He's an openly gay scholar in international relations at the Cato Institute, a libertarian research center, and holds a Ph.D. from Oxford University. He thinks that a handgun saved him years ago in San Jose, Calif., when a gang threatened him.
"A group of young men started yelling at us, 'we're going to kill you' (and) 'they'll never find your bodies,' " Palmer said in a March 2003 declaration. "Fortunately, I was able to pull my handgun out of my backpack, and our assailants backed off."
He and five other plaintiffs named in the original lawsuit challenged Washington's ban on possessing handguns. The District of Columbia permits possession of other firearms, if they're disassembled or stored with trigger locks.
Their broader challenge is to the fundamental meaning of the Second Amendment. Here, commas, clauses and history all matter.
The Second Amendment says, "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."
Gun-control advocates say this means that the government can limit firearms ownership as part of its power to regulate the militia. Gun ownership is cast as a collective right, with the government organizing armed citizens to protect homeland security.
"The Second Amendment permits reasonable regulation of firearms to protect public safety and does not guarantee individuals the absolute right to own the weapons of their choice," New York and the three other states declared in an amicus brief.
Gun-control critics contend that the well-regulated militia is beside the point, and say the Constitution protects an individual's right to possess guns.
Clashing decisions
Last March, a divided appellate court panel sided with the individual-rights interpretation and threw out the D.C. ban.
The ruling clashed with other appellate courts, creating the kind of appellate-circuit split that the Supreme Court likes to resolve. The ruling obviously stung D.C. officials, but it perplexed gun-control advocates.
If D.C. officials tried to salvage their gun-control law by appealing to the Supreme Court — as they then did — they could give the court's conservative majority a chance to undermine gun-control laws nationwide.
A friend passed along a thing from the American Bar Association in an email. ABA took a pot shot at NRA for NRAs policy of not taking this to court. The gist of the email was that an organization that didn’t want its cause decided by a small band of unelected lawyers must be corrupt. I found that pretty funny considering the source.
Well, if it goes before the court the crap shoot begins, if “We” lose, then guess what would be a red hot issue for Election 2008?
If “We” win, then a state by state fight would begin to tear down the rotted tree of UnConstitutional Firearms laws.
But, our government now wants to turn around and make 22 percent of its own citizens become felons overnight.
If you thought the BATF was out of control before, wait until you see them in action under El Presidente Hillary.
...like the sharks they are.
A very sad commentary in how far the Court has drifted—we literally don’t know wether or not they will go by the letter of the law anymore.
My point is liberals, lawyers, and roaches will never be extinct..they never give up....but they can be kept under control with the proper pesticides.
All Gun Owners of America need to remind their Politicians that WE ARE THE GUN LOBBY and We VOTE in DROVES!
The idea that the Bill of “Rights” applies to Group Rights when it comes to Firearms and to Individual Rights when it deals with the other 9 Amendments in the Bill of Rights is patently Absurd.
RamS
I understand that the pro 2A crowd is a little nervous about this case but I think we've got a better than average shot of having it go our way. It's the most constructionist court we've had in decades, and DC and the Brady folks can't make their case sound "reasonable" without telling massive lies. (I mean bigger than their normal stuff)
All in, I'm encouraged. And being in NJ, it can only help me.
You're right: If the DC Circuit Court is upheld, then the next battle will turn on whether the Second Amendment applies to the States via the 14th Amendment. Then the battle will turn to the limits, if any, upon the governent's ability to regulate the fundemental right of gun ownership even though the Second Amendment (like the First Amendment) is absolute and without exception. Thus, the issue will become whether the states can regulate gun ownership to achieve a compelling state interest and if so, whether the regulation before the court is narrowly tailored to achieve that goal.
Another example of liberals not being able to see the consequences of their actions. Suppose guns or even just handguns are outlawed. What happens next? Look at DC where handguns are already outlawed. I think we have more murders in our nations capitol than in Baghdad every day. Liberals need to play more chess, where a stupid move will get you killed. Maybe they could learn from that.
You mean “ The People’s Republic Of New Jersey “ comrade .
The very same people who filled your kids with mercury and doped them up with Ritalin.
That only applies to constructionists....just look at the upheaval the liberal court created in its Roe vs. Wade decision....
On a similar note, my sister is extremely anti-gun, and “progressive” liberal (not a rabid one though), and she tells me that the Brady bunch and MMM are all excited about Hillary or Obama becoming our next President. As she puts it to me, “we” will have the House, the Senate, and the Prez.. Supposedly, they have a number of bills all ready to roll which will effectively eliminate private handgun ownership. Their goal is to have them out of citizen hands by 2012 and they believe this will be their best chance in history to do it.
The thing that scares me, and I hate to say it, is that I think she could very well be right about Dems taking the Prez, House, and Senate this coming election.
cockroaches..... liberals, and lawyers......
Hand me the DDT....
I hate to tell you this, but the very lawyers you hate are waging the battle in the trenches to uphold your fundemental right to posses a firearm.
Imagine being a land owner on the Texas / Mexican border.....and being unarmed.
The Coyotes and drug runners are being protected by heavily armed Zetas and Mexican military...that actually escort the loads deep within Texas territory, not to mention the rape trees, dirty diapers, and garbage they leave behind on the property...and the theft from outbuildings...and kidnapings, etc.
70 missing in the Laredo area alone.... In DC, all one has to fear is the local public sckrooled citizenry...
I believe that I stated liberals...but should have stated liberal lawyers. I agree.....with you....semantics get me in trouble....
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.