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.
Ask your buddy. He's the one who claimed Judge Ginsburg's ruling on a gun in a locked glove compartment demonstrates her support for an indiviual rights interpretation of the second amendment.
I’m more inclined to believe you simply misrepresnting what he’s said to waste my time.
L
Only because you were arguing the similarity between "carry" and "bear" with your Ginsburg reference.
"More germane to the argument would be "carrying a firearm in a holster" or "bearing them in a vehicle". Either are apropos, interchangeable, and accurate."
That's something you just made up. Ginsburg made no such statement - not even close. Plus, you're wrong.
"If you seek to narrow the definition, you do so at the expense of reason"
Narrow? No, I'm simply defining it. "To bear" is a military term (see my post #1256). "To carry" is not. The second amendment says, "to bear", which is what the Founding Fathers meant to say. If they meant to say something different, like, "to carry" they would have said, "to carry".
Yes, he's wasting your time and mine. You should tell him that, not me.
I’ll look it up if I have time. Based on what I already know, I’d say you’re probably trying to spin it into something it isn’t and never was.
Plainly that's all he seeks to do.
"well-regulated"? controlled with an iron fist.
"militia"? composed only of those the state chooses.
"security"? never to include urgent unplanned needs.
"free"? applies to states only, not their subjects.
"right"? only insofar as one's state explicitly allows and rp approves.
"people"? only white male landowners need apply.
"keep"? state arsenal will do nicely.
"bear"? only in uniform as the state directs.
"arms"? flintlocks only are fine.
It's not beneath him. It's his MO.
That he turns a "right of the people" into a "power of agents of the state" shows reason expended.
No. Not wrong. Didn't actually think you'd be intellectually honest enough to see how your hairsplitting doesn't help your argument any...
In essence, since the guy in question didn't have direct access, the prosecutions case that he was "carrying" it could not be sustained. Further, that since he had no direct access to it, that their trying to spin is "bear" instead didn't work either.
It shows a level of psychosis that is a little scary to contemplate as walking around free...
I would prefer the U.S. Supreme Court refuse the case, without comment, and let the DC Circuit decision stand.
If they hear the case I've already given you, twice, the outcome I prefer in posts #1032 and 1052. That outcome is not much different than if they didn't hear the case.
Yes, they referenced the 1939 Miller case -- the part where the U.S. Supreme Court in Miller made reference to arms that had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."
And the Miller case referenced the 1840 Aymette v. State of Tennessee case where the Tennessee Supreme Court made reference to arms being "any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
Then (and this is the strange part) the 7th Circuit, making a bold assumption based on those cases, concluded that "arms" referred to militia/military weapons! Where in the hell did they come up with that?!
Well, next thing you know, they're saying that average militia/military member doesn't use a handgun for the common defense and, therefore, it's not protected as an "arm". The insanity!
"The one where a few Justices decided for all of us that the 2A protects only a collective right?"
First of all, the Miller Court never did say whether it was a collective right or an individual right. They were silent on that issue.
Second, this is what could happen when only a few Justices decide for all of us what the second amendment protects.
Third, if any court declared a collective right, it was the 1840 Tennessee Supreme Court.
Like Scalia, I'm a big believer in original meaning. The Bill of Rights was never meant to apply to the states. I've said it many times, incorporation has done more to destroy federalism that the Commerce Clause can ever hope to. I don't want any of the Bill of Rights incorporated.
I've seen what the U.S. Supreme Court has done to the Bill of Rights with their interpretations. I've seen what they've done to religious freedom in this country. We have a one-size-fits-all government, with five justices dictating to us what a 13-year-old can wear on a t-shirt to grade school in Akron, Ohio.
"A complete ban. Will that pass strict scrutiny?"
On machine guns? Yes. On assault rifles? Yes. On assault-style weapons? I doubt it. But none of that will come from this case -- Heller is really narrow.
I figured as much. I think he could twist a ball bearing in a bucket of grease out of shape.
I think you’ll find his “original meaning” is nothing more than good old-fashioned liberal textualism. For him, Constitutional interpretation is a game of searching for just the right combination of meanings of the words to produce the desired result.
Aww, don’t spoil the ending for me, I’m enjoying the story!
I learn more from him than from you, just because I usually agree with you. ;-)
News on my favorite gun boards is that they will again consider the Parker/Heller matter in private conference tomorrow, with attorneys for both sides present. They say it’s unusual for the lawyers to be at these private meetings.
It suggests to me that they plan to take the case, but not for any reason given in the cert petition or the cross petition. Why else would they want the lawyers at the private conference?
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.