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.
Banning them one at a time is progress to you? You see... this is why most here label you a TROLL.
Who said anything about "progress"? Would your progressive scheme to impose a nationwide concealed carry ban in the name of the 2nd Amendment be an example of "progress"?
You demand answers while refusing to answer any yourself.
You say it depends on the answer to the question. How will the answer to that question affect the meaning of the Second Amendment? Please tell us.
Answer it and find out.
Don’t be ashamed.
Not wasting my time with it.
How does ruling the Second an inalienable individual Right do that? As I stated, only active duty militia could be "regulated" in how they could carry arms. No general ban could be implemented.
Have you tried to get your carry permit in Cali? Unless you are politically connected... Good Luck. So much for your idiot "State laws" protecting sh&t...
Under an individual Right, you could tell Babs Boxer and DiFi to get bent...
Trying to draw a corollary between law abiding gun owners and your pet Mara’s is a bit extreme. Even for a dirtbag like you.
The decision you're promoting explicitly excepts concealed carry from 2nd Amendment protection. You centralized government freaks are so transparent.
The question before the court is "collective" vs "individual" Right and if the Second can be used as a defense against such legislation.
Plainly, it can. The Second Amendment should be an affirmative defense in all cases regarding individual ownership and carry of arms. Regardless of which State, colony, or district of the US they live in. As it was designed to be.
You aren't even paying attention to the argument are you? You just read off the list of Brady approved arguing points... and go along your merry way.
And you're promoting the view that concealed carry is not an individual right under the 2nd Amendment and that it may be banned nationally, abrogating all state laws protecting that right.
If the dress fits, don't be afraid to wear it, Sarah.
Twisting words is a critical job skill in DC. It’s been raised to an art form by the professionals.
Well... I guess if you took everything I've ever said on the subject, and then reversed it 180 degrees... you could come to that conclusion.
I mean, seriously... how the gibbering f*ck do you come up with that? At all?
Listen... last time: The Second Amendment protects an inalienable, unalienable, un-infringable Right. If you are a GOVERNMENT paid military person, they can order how you wear your armaments. If you are a CIVILIAN not acting in an official capacity, you can wear what you want, how you want, without having to ask anyone else's permission. No one in either Federal or State government can tell you sh*t.
Now stop it already. Seriously. This is bordering on dementia on your part.
This isn’t “twisting”, this is twisted. This guy isn’t even as “smart” a troll as Bobby is. He’s like one of those kids back in grade school who thought his annoying behavior made him “cool”. In reality, the little booger-eater was the butt of every joke.
Pretty much all your posts in a nutshell.
The Second Amendment protects an inalienable, unalienable, un-infringable Right.
Federal preemption of state laws protecting concealed carry is a right? Maybe to you and Sarah.
The only "pre-emption" that could possibly take place would be overturning your beloved California gun bans.
Don't fear the freedom troll...
Personally, I think the fact that he’s a former professional federal bureaucrat helps explain how DC, and the RKBA got in the shape it’s in. You don’t get ahead in that culture believing in limited government, and telling the truth. And you don’t spend a career there and just turn it off when you retire. He’s our own little piece of the beltway.
And furthermore, it should apply the 2nd Amendment to protect individuals from oppression by the states, using the 14th Amendment.
Backed by your word.
[snicker]
My understanding is that Miller was dead, and his lawyer didn’t even get notified.
The fix was in, I tell ya.
Still, the SCOTUS knew that they were being railroaded, so they wrote in a few weasel words to make life difficult for the Roosevelt Administration in their attempts to use it as precedent. Important to know the time frame re: FDR’s court packing scheme.
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.