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.
I’ll be waiting for the first jack booted SOB to show up at my door looking to uphold “the law”.
Live free or die...
publiusF27: Was Miller in a militia? I guess so, or the Supreme Court would not have been considering his 2A rights as they relate to that shotgun at all, since he would have none to consider.
Mojave: Beg that question!
Scalia: Had the Court believed that the Second Amendment protects only those serving in the militia, it would have been odd to examine the character of the weapon rather than simply note that the two crooks were not militiamen.
Or did you think this was a drug thread?
Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot. You really should read your quotes before posting them.
Stupidest post I’ve seen on this board. Just because Scalia thinks that Stevens’ reading of Miller is impossible does not mean that he doesn’t share my view that if the Supreme Court had thought that Miller’s non-membership in a militia was relevant, they would have used it to toss the case before even reaching the question of whether a short barreled shotgun was a militia weapon. He clearly does share that view, which you called question begging.
Does that inane babbling have a point to it?
I have repeatedly cited Miller and stated my agreement with it. So does Scalia.
Keep on toking.
But didn’t you just say that Scalia wasn’t even talking about Miller in the quote I posted? You’re too stupid to realize he was talking about Miller, and too stupid to see the implications of his statement and mine regarding Miller are the same:
If militia membership were relevant to 2A rights, Miller’s case would never have been heard because he was not a militiaman.
Keep on ducking, dodging, and pretending you don’t understand. I find it amusing. ;-)
And BTW, your wonderful gangster photos with the question posed of whether they are militia members is now blessedly irrelevant:
Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 253.
Talk about irony.
I cite Miller, you piss your pants. You pretend Scalia's comment refutes me and when it does the opposite you go ballistic.
Your strawman wilted.
LOL! OK, I’m going to try to pound the square peg into the round hole and follow what you said happened.
At which post number did you cite Miller?
Mojave: Are unconvicted Crips and Bloods the militia?
publiusF27: Sure, if they’re male citizens between 17 and 45...
Scalia: Had the Court believed that the Second Amendment protects only those serving in the militia, it would have been odd to examine the character of the weapon rather than simply note that the two crooks were not militiamen.
Per Scalia, your argument that Crips and Bloods are the Militia has NO relevance to the right to keep and bear arms.
Poor you.
tacticalogic at 1198: What do the Bloods and the Crips have to do with whether the right to keep and bear arms is a collective or individual right?
Mojave at 1199: That depends on whether you hold them to be part of the militia or not.
I am soooo glad that militia nonsense is over. Poor you. ;-)
Now, can we at least agree that Scalia was talking about the nature of the Miller case in that quotation, or are you still denying that as well?
Scalia refuted your false contention that membership in a militia is a prerequisite to the right to keep and bear arms. Miller was silent on the issue.
Nice foot shot.
OK, when do you think I contended that militia membership is a prerequisite to the RKBA? I think this Supreme Court decision may have short circuited your brain, but you’re funnier than ever!
Did you already forget your contention that Crips and Bloods are militia?
Frequent use has that effect.
What causes continuing to argue an irrelevant point after it's been rendered moot?
You tell me.
I was thinking alcohol might be a possibility.
I don’t think he drinks.
I have already pointed out where you said gun rights depend on militia membership at post 1199. You repeated it at post 1203. Now show me even one post where I said it.
And no, pointing out that the law (saying the unorganized militia is composed of all males 17 to 45 and female members of the Guard) might apply to Crips and Bloods is not the same as saying their gun rights depend on militia membership.
Lemme guess... is it opposite day? ;-)
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.