That was the next paragraph.
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.
Since I go to tax court Monday, I am well aware of the shortcomings of the Judicial System.
I don't know. Are they citizens? What state are they in? Have they ever been convicted of bigamy or timber larcency?Are they registered to vote in federal elections? Are they registered to vote in state and municipal elections? Is it a primary election? A general election? Is it a caucus? What kind of identification are they carrying? Are they voting absentee? Are they casting a provisional ballot? Are they registered in the same party as the candidate they're trying to vote for? (Caution, that last question is state dependent.) Do they have a violent felony conviction? Have their rights been restored? Are they 18 years old or older?
Or were you talking about whether they could vote in your hypthetical, but not yet completely realized, national hegemony?
Assuming as you do (that states may dictate rules regarding keeping and bearing of arms) this clause would undermine the lack of uniformity among the states ( shall-issue, may-issue, concealed vs open carry) as now displayed.
Since they are not limited in what they may regulate (your notion) why haven't the folks at Commerce cracked-down on the lack of 'uniformity' in this regard? Where's the 'regulation'? Certainly nothing regular exists between the states regarding carry issues (and others).
Let’s take another look at your gangster photo gallery. I wanna play spot the white guy. ;-)
According to the 2000 census the term White includes people who indicate their race as "White" or report entries such as Spanish, Irish, German, Italian, Persian, British (English, Welsh or Scottish), Assyrian, Iraqi, Near Easterner, Arab, or Polish.
Lemme guess; you're using the David Duke definition of white?
Ashamed of your race-baiting pictures all of a sudden? Come on, let’s see ‘em again!
It would. Your example demonstrates that the second amendment does not apply to the states -- if it did, equal protection and due process would demand that the laws be uniform.
"Since they are not limited in what they may regulate (your notion) why haven't the folks at Commerce cracked-down on the lack of 'uniformity' in this regard?"
Well, the Commerce Clause gives Congres the power. It doesn't mean that Congress must exercise the power.
It would. Your example demonstrates that the second amendment does not apply to the states -- if it did, equal protection and due process would demand that the laws be uniform.
"Since they are not limited in what they may regulate (your notion) why haven't the folks at Commerce cracked-down on the lack of 'uniformity' in this regard?"
Well, the Commerce Clause gives Congres the power. It doesn't mean that Congress must exercise the power.
I fully expect the judges (given past experience with some judges) to go for a self interest fear type of nuanced absurdity.
IOW the second is an individual right and that DC has a strict scrutiny passable interest in protecting DC elitists in disarming the citizens from owning handguns or exercising their individual right. (kind of a time place and manner regulation)
However the citizens are still allowed to own long guns for hunting. (gratuitous sarcasm on last sentence)
LOL
You're the one making comments about the races of those pictured and claiming that Spanish people don't deserve to called White.
Bigot.
What is with this obsession they have for uniformity and centralization? They're pushing ideas that are the polar opposites of those stated by the Founding Fathers.
My guess is that they believe federal laws will be more favorable than existing state laws.
"I love children. So filled with hope."
Suck eggs Brady troll...
An assemblage of persons with arms, for an unlawful purpose, is an indictable offence, and even the carrying of arms abroad'by a single individual, attended with circumstances giving just reason to fear that he purposes to make an unlawful use of them, would be sufficient cause to require him to give surety of the peace. If he refused he would be liable to imprisonment
Keep shooting yourself in the foot.
Your flatigious attempts at redefining things notwithstanding...
That was the next paragraph.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print_documents/amendIIs9.html
However, you're attempt at matching up your Brothers in the Mara's with a lawful citizen militia is getting old...
False. Natch.
Sorry my bad, I just get so frustrated about this. You are correct. I was also refering to 2nd amendment primer by Adams, just got the two mixed up in my mind. Keep informing everyone about this it needs to be spread like wildfire!!
Thank you,
Semper Fi
Remember our Special Ops motto: Semper Gumby (Always Flexible)
be well
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.