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.
...and a militia is by definition “of the people”, and not a select group chosen by the government.
I think you said that better than I did. Kudos! ;-)
Posible sinister reason for getting the handguns away from people who obtained them legally: American citizens won't be able to protect themselves.
And, let's face it, there are entirely too many good reasons for the citizens who obtained handguns legally to want to protect themselves, their families and their property.
Entirely too many of our elected officials both on the national and state level are doing NOTHING to protect American citizens against the illegal alien invasion (25% of our jails are full of them)... and they have done almost nothing to protect people who live in impoverished areas from gangs (who have illegal guns), etc.
Not necessarily. If a citizen had a weapon, it was more than likely an expensive rifle, suitably accurate for hunting.
The Militia used inexpensive, smooth-bore muskets, and the militia member had 6 months to acquire one. Muskets were quick to reload and more suitable for the rapid, volley fire used in battle.
Haven't been to DC lately, eh? Haven't tried to buy a gun in California, or Chicago, lately eh?
pra - par
A clean ruling from the SCOTUS could go a long way to redressing this grievance. I'd rather we try this first rather than jumping straight to Rule .308.
Ok, we’ve seen ‘em, we get the point.
Please stop spamming those pictures to threads that aren’t about Rudy (and a single oblique reference doesn’t make it).
Slow down man, once per thread is more than enough.
Well, of course, that's true.
"Didnt we give 'felons' back their weapons upon release from prison in times past?"
Yes.
"IMO if they are 'rehabilitated' enough to go free or were convicted of crimes in which a lenient sentence is acceptable, shouldnt they be considered 'safe' enough to posses arms ???...
I agree.
The only loophole that may work is the claim that RKBA is ONLY for militia service: that if one is called up for militia service, there is certainly an extra minute available to unlock/assemble/load otherwise non-functional firearms; also that handguns might be deemed largely useless for militia use. DC is trying to eliminate home defense, period; claiming a loophole for militia-only use is their only hope.
Those laws were recently overturned by the DC Circuit, weren't they?
"Haven't tried to buy a gun in California, or Chicago, lately eh?"
Californians legally own million of guns. As for Chicago, only handguns are prohibited. Shotguns and rifles are legal.
Why? Because there are people like FR’s robertpaulsen who insist that it be interpreted in a manner which renders it null and void.
Those laws are still in effect nonetheless.
>>They meant well-regulated in that the militiamen would be well-trained.
Exactly so. On that note, don’t miss #63:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1923243/posts?page=63#63
which gives some detail on the subject.
While the introductory clause of the 2nd describes one reason for the amendment, the language “the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” is pretty darn unequivocal. It’s amazing how people have managed to twist the words, especially in view of the contemporaneous writings of the Founders.
The ugly reality is both. Just like the Civil War.
Where’s your tax stamp for that Internet post?
Not at all. The second amendment is anything but null and void.
It just doesn't protect what you think it protects.
Sorry, wrong answer. U get a C- in ConLaw.
:~)
I am the Gun Owner and I cast my bullet too.
(Ooops! Did I mis-spell a word there? ;>)
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.