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.
Which means you're saying the state gets to decide who is a member, and the state gets to decide what arms they can have. That's "agents of the state", exercising a power of the state, and "rights" don't apply.
No. The only exception allowing anyone to purchase an M4 is under the authority of the government - to wit, acting as agents of the state.
922(o)(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to— (A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof;Whoever is buying an M4 under this exception does so under the control and direction of the government. This exception exists so someone can go to a Class III dealer and say "I need to buy an M4, and I'm doing this on behalf of the government"; the government decides how the M4 will be used, and can take it from that person at any time for any reason. If used outside governmental direction/authority/permission, the individual can be - and has been - prosecuted for violation of 922(o) as that action was not under the authority of the government. No matter how you slice it, the person is acting as an agent of the state, and NOT one of "the people".
Two posts got pulled. The first pretty flagrantly insulted (to wit: personal attack) another poster (I squeezed in a response before the post got pulled). Apparently the second was similar. He got a “time out”.
Nothing pisses off a bureaucrat more than someone who won’t just shut up and do what they’re told.
Civilians was his term, not mine. Quit your trolling.
So, the 2nd protects the right of the federal government not to disarm itself? Good thing they thought to put that in there, or the Army might not know it could issue weapons.
A ludicrous comment.
The People as a whole don’t have the balls for that. And for the few that do, by the time the Feds make their case, the world will think they were meth-making, kiddie-porn viewing, terrorist nutcases who just needed killing.
I have said that the second amendment does not protect the RKBA of civilians.
“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.”
If it were a collective right it would read like this:
“A well funded continental army being necessary to the security of the free States, the rights of the regulated militias to be armed shall not be infringed.”
If it were collective then why does it state that a militia must bear arms, and the ability for a militia to bear arms shall not be infringed. That would be redundant. The only purpose a militia serves is to bear arms, I know a militia has to bear arms, you don’t have to tell me a militia bears arms. What kind of moron would write that?
Then again .... if they simply meant the people have the right they would have written, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Gosh. Why did they add all that Militia clutter?
Call me crazy, but maybe they meant the people, who are part of a well regulated state militia, have their right to keep and bear arms protected from federal infringement. I always thought it was a militia that was necesary to the security of a free state, not an armed public.
They are organized, armed, and disciplined under the authority of the state government. It's a concurrent power.
“That’s one aspect of it. My take on it is that the problem is that we have people who promote the idea that our Constitutional rights, and the plain meaning of the Constitution is whatever the last thing the USSC said it was.”
I agree that a huge problem is that we have allowed the Supreme Court to become the end all to constitutional questions. They have created this power for themselves, and it needs to be removed.
Yes the militia is necessary for the security of a free state. Absolutely. A continental army can be defeated, a militia can never be defeated.
Sadaams army was defeated.
The Taliban militias haven’t been defeated, yet. I like Hunters plan, stand Iraqi army up to proportionally displace Americans. I know what Hunter is thinking.
≠
It is indeed! Maybe the Founding Fathers didn't spend time writing the 2nd Amendment just to assure a militia could do that which makes a militia a militia!
if they simply meant the people have the right they would have written, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Gosh.
Gosh - THEY DID!
Why did they add all that Militia clutter?
Uh...maybe to make it clear that it's GOOD for the state to have armed citizens, so that a well-regulated militia could be raised on short notice? Ya know, make sure everyone who shows up to fight for the security of their free state would have arms when they arrived, instead of "I'm here ... hey, anyone got a musket I can borrow? no? so what am I supposed to do?" Having armed militia members is kinda a pre-requisiste to organizing them and marching 'em out.
Call me crazy
You're crazy.
but maybe they meant the people,
Ya THINK?
who are part of a well regulated state militia
How about the people before they're actively involved? Ya know, defending the state may need more people (and arms) than the officers planned, and it would be nice to be able to call on anyone - and I mean anyone - to pitch in on short notice (which they can't if they're not armed). Maybe not everyone had to be active participants, but could at least still be armed, familiar therewith, and not completely useless if called up.
I always thought it was a militia that was necesary to the security of a free state, not an armed public.
Here's a really wild notion: they're really pretty much the same thing!
I’m a programmer. They symbols mean the same thing.
To some degree. But Thomas Jefferson said "It is every Americans' right and obligation to read and interpret the Constitution for himself.". To some extent they have that power beacuse we do not exercise that right, and fulfill that obligation, and because we listen to those who submit that the Court's opinion is the only one of any consequence.
I agree, though I think that should be left up to each state. If the state wants their militia members to take their arms home for just such a reason, I have no problem with that.
"Here's a really wild notion: they're really pretty much the same thing!"
Not according to Hamilton in Federalist 29. He thought there was a big difference between "all the militia" and the select militia -- that being the select militia was organized, trained, and disciplined, with officers appointed by the state.
Whose arms?
Who selects?
If the state chooses who participates, and owns the arms used, then they’re not “the people” and no “right” is involved - they’re agents of the state using state-owned equipment, exercising a state power.
Of course it is. Welcome to Bobby World.
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.