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.
This is beginning to remind me of our long and fruitless discussion about the words “in light of” regarding the then-pending revised decision in the Stewart case.
Why should I prove something I never asserted and don’t believe?
How about this? All federal court districts except the 5th and the DC Circuit subject us to a collectivist interpretation of the 2A. The Brady Bunch wants to see it go back to being ALL federal court districts, period. Is that what you want as well?
Let’s examine the subset of Crips and Bloods who don’t have a felony conviction just to keep things more simple.
Do those non-felons have the right to vote? Freedom of speech? Can they hold office? Right to a speedy trial? Right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures?
Agree. However, I am in favor of this going to the Supremes as this particular line-up is probably the most favorable that we Conservatives will have for some time.
Let's see if you'll even answer the question after modifying it.
Are unconvicted Crips and Bloods the militia?
The original militia act limited the militia to whites. Why do you want a whites only militia?
Do all state courts?
The case had nothing to do with the language of the BoR or its scope. The case had nothing to do with the second amendment or its scope.
The case concerned the language of 18 USC section 924(c)(1) -- a person who "uses or carries a firearm". The defendant had a firearm locked in the glove compartment of his car. The question to the court was, "Does that constitute "carry" and, therefore, violate 18 USC section 924(c)(1)?
Now, maybe you can tell me how Ginsburg's ruling (no) in that case means she will rule that the second amendment protects an individual right to keep and bears arms?
An inalienable individual Right to do what?
Oh, you say, "An inalienable individual Right to keep and bear arms". Fine. And if the U.S. Supreme Court says "to bear arms" does not include carrying them around, then what? How is that in our benefit over what we have today?
Is a state court contemplating hearing a 2nd amendment case? Start a thread about it and ping me. This thread is about the Supreme Court.
Exactly. Just like the U.S. Supreme Court used the first amendment to protect us from hearing that boring political speech in the months preceeding an election. And isn't it wonderful that all states must allow nude dancing and flag burning because that IS protected speech.
Or how they protected us from those religious zealots who want to establish religion by keeping "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance or setting up a creche at Christmas Winter Holiday Season in the town square, or invoking God's name at high school commencement.
Yep. I think we can expect those same justices to expand our gun freedoms. There's no way they're going to rule that "keep" means keep in a state armory, or that "bear" does not mean concealed carry, or that "arms" do not include handguns.
No way.
You wouldn't say that about Kelo. Why would you say it about guns?
What are you talking about? Florida's eminent domain law protected your property from Kelo-type abuses.
Nice. The whole thing was a race bait setup from the beginning. I’ll bet you learned that in Washington.
OK, what I should have said was that before and after Kelo, the prevailing interpretation of the 5th amendment in federal courts did not change much at all. I know I’m lucky to be a Floridian. ;-)
If the SC takes the Parker/Heller case and makes the ruling that amici like the Brady Bunch want to see, the prevailing interpretation of the 2A in federal courts would not change much at all, except in the 5th Circuit. (The DC circuit is under an order which preserves the prevailing interpretation there pending the outcome of SC cert.)
Backed by the Constitution. You know, that document that you refuse to read...
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.