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 didn’t start the exchange.
Ah. That’s your excuse. Well, I’m ending it.
Scalia refuted your position that militia membership was a prerequisite to the right to keep and bear arms. He noted that Miller was silent on the question.
Do you have targets painted on your feet?
Stay out of trouble.
Molon Labe.
Is that a discount brand of liquor?
That’s clear as mud and takes your usual tactic of asserting the opposite of the truth about me, but it sounds like you’re now admitting that your post 1,363 was completely wrong, and Scalia’s comment posted by me at 1,362 did indeed have something (everything, actually) to do with Miller. Is that correct?
Only if you have mud in your eye.
Read slowly and try to keep up:
Scalia refuted your position that militia membership was a prerequisite to the right to keep and bear arms. He noted that Miller was silent on the question.
Hey, maybe you can write Scalia and share your crackpot theory with him. I hear he's got a sense of humor.
I guess you’ve forgotten that before Heller was decided, the idea that militia membership was important to firearms rights was your cherished notion, and you insisted on asking everyone on this thread whether Crips and Bloods were in the militia, twice saying the answer had some relevance to their firearms rights. I was mocking that silliness by noting that the Supreme Court had heard a 2A case (Miller) about non-militia members, and was glad to see that Scalia joined me in mocking gungrabbers like yourself with the same argument.
No cite or link, natch. Sorry, you can't lie your way out of this one.
We’ll let that be a surprise.
Happy hangover.
To your defender. Are you now denying your previous claim that Crips and Bloods are militia?
You seem to be the one denying that USC
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311 applies to Crips and Bloods, so let’s have some proof that applying the law to those groups is a lunatic notion.
Where is the exemption for Crips and Bloods in USC
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311?
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.