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.
Starve.
You'll notice I was talking about soldiers vs. militiamen, not state vs. federal. ...or, apparently, you didn't notice.
That IS NOT what gun control opponents contend, a well regulated militia is exactly the point.
We the people ARE the militia, and the 2nd A was intended by the framers to guarantee us the right to keep and bear arms. The 2nd A was never about duck hunting or clay pigeons, it was intended to guarantee the people's resort to armed resistance if government tries to overthrow it's constitutional bounds and all non-violent means to stop it's encroachment on our liberties have been exhausted.
A novel argument, but in reality by reserving the RKBA to the authority of the state government you are de facto infringing on the peoples right.
Can't have it both ways; your argument loses steam when you say it's ok for the state gov't to infringe away.
The "militia" was citizens with guns in their homes, not just armories; led by community leaders, not government agents.
Mason and Monroe did not envision the militia as a permanent standing army like the national guard is today, nor did they advocate ANY infringement -state, federal or otherwise - on the people's RKBA.
True. The test would change from "rational basis" to "strict scrutiny" if the RKBA is declared to be a fundamental individual right.
I don't think 922(o) would be affected under that new test, but the silly federal Assault(-style) Weapons Ban couldn't survive. Then again, it has already expired, so that's a moot point. If the second amendment remains unincorporated, states are free to pass their own AWB's under the rational basis test.
This does lead to two questions. Can the RKBA be declared an individual right, but not a fundamental individual right? If the U.S. Supreme Court finds that the RKBA is a fundamental individual right, must the states also protect it (ie., incorporation)?
The 5th amendment says that for capital crimes "a person" must be charged by a Grand Jury. Certainly this is an individual right - it says "a person". Is it fundamental?
The reason I ask is that the Grand Jury Clause of the 5th amendment is not incorporated. States are not required by the 5th amendment (though I believe some do, sometimes) to convene a State Grand Jury in all capital crime cases.
Is there something wrong with using "member of a well regulated state militia" instead?
"Agent of the state" is vague and inflammatory and you know it. He's trolling, and you know that too.
Looks like he has a valid point to me. Under the conditions you’ve laid out for what qualifies as a “member of a well regulated militia” they can only operate as “agents of the state”. You have indeed made it a distinction without a difference, and I don’t see what’s imflammatory about pointing that out.
Well, first off, you've lumped everything together under "regulate aviation" and that needs to be broken into two sections.
Congress (via the FAA) regulates interstate aviation using their power to regulate the channels of interstate commerce. Congress (via the FAA) regulates intrastate aviation using their power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce.
If a private pilot, flying intrastate, does not have a substantial relation (affect) on interstate commerce (ie., flying outside of controlled airspace), Congress (via the FAA) has no power to regulate those activities.
Don't forget the part about "or could conceivably have if everyone did it".
With that as a starting point, I don't know how to respond and even where to begin.
So I won't.
The well regulated Militia referred to in the U.S. Constitution -- Article I, Section 8, and the second amendment -- had officers appointed by the state in which the members resided and reported to the Governor of each state. Yes, the members of the Militia are acting on behalf of the state in which they lived for the benefit of that state.
Why do you choose to use the descriptor "agents of the state"? To be inflammatory. You're as bad a troll as your cohort. Go away and come back when you have something real to debate, other than your stupid labeling.
If that's all you're capable of, then your posts don't interest me. They're childish.
So, in your opinion, the RKBA in the second amendment can be declared an individual right, but not declared a fundamental individual right?
If that's the case, then the strict scrutiny test cannot be used; at least the way I read it.
Can you describe for me the difference between operating as an “agent of the state”, and operating “under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof”?
No, you misunderstood. I think it might be declared that the 2a protects a fundamental right, and it might be incorporated and used against state gun control laws, and I really don’t see what would be so bad about that.
It’s true that future rulings could also validate state and federal gun control laws, but isn’t that already happening? To ask the question another way, when was the last time someone successfully mounted a 2A challenge to any law? It hasn’t happened, and won’t any time soon, unless the Heller case changes things.
He was referring to something different. Child Labor Laws would be an example. There, the channels are not being regulated, nor the commerce itself. But the fact that children are being used to manufacture the commerce that ships interstate, provides Congress with the nexus and the authority to regulate.
I really don't want to go off on a tangent here. I don't see any connection to guns.
"Are you saying the first category (channels of commerce) can't reach intrastate activity?"
Well, since those are interstate channels of commerce, I'd have to say no.
But, if there is some nexus between the intrastate and interstate channels, where one is dependent upon the other, then yes. The Shreveport Rate Cases come to mind.
It's your labeling I object to. I'm done explaining my position.
Is there really any requirement for the commerce being manufactured (putting aside the obvious problems with the idea of "manufacturing commerce") to actually be shipped interstate for Congress to assume authority to regulate it?
Sorry, I was never very good at obfuscating the obvious with a lot of legalese.
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.