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.
Well, I'd say that we should first secure the freedom, and then worry about the number of folks who freely choose to exercise their right (and educate more so that they will appreciate the importance of that right).
This is the big show! This should be where the court decides
what the milita is. They could duck that but I hope they find
the milita is adult citizens.
They could be if they were members of a State Defense Force (State Guard). About half the states have one, and it's the closest we have to the original state Militia.
It does. See 922(o).
If they did, your state could challenge that law in federal court as a violation of the second amendment.
So..."the people" to which the 2nd Amendment applies cannot challenge infringements on the enumerated right?
Almost. This is the pre-show where the court decides if there is going to be a big show.
You might want to refer that enthusiastic reply to robertpaulsen, who seems to think that “the militia” is only white landowning voting male citizens actively enrolled in a state militia.
and hand out birth control like candy
“High court to look at ban on handguns”
I’m pretty sure I’m not the first to say it, but what the heck?
“Come and GET THEM!”
My own town has concealed carry licenses issued to about one in twenty adult residents.
In Florida, according to Census data, there's about 4.1 million residents over the age of 18 in the 2006 estimate, and 463,760 active licenses, so that's 11.3% of the eligible population.
However, 48,304 of those are non-resident licenses, so that brings the percentage down to 10.1%.
But that reduction in the percentage may be offset by the fact that adults age 18-20 are denied their right to carry a concealed defensive firearm, reducing the overall eligible population from 4.1 million to something smaller.
While it's not a "big" percentage, it's quite a bit more than "miniscule."
“wait until you see them in action under El Presidente Hillary.”
On this issue, there isn’t a gnats’ arse worth of difference between her and Rudy.
GO FRED!
He contends that’s not true, but repeatedly fails to show any evidence to the contrary. He can’t name a single citizen who can lawfully “keep and bear” a new M4, and insists that only states can sue the feds for that right.
Sure. Is it okay that the government can issue broadcast licenses?
We need a big show before they grab our guns forever.
Not as surprised as I.
Your reasoning is based on a false premise. You do not meet the qualifications to be in the militia. You ARE in the militia according to Title 10 section 311 of the United States Code, which states "Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Now the age and geneder restrictions wouldn't be upheld under the 5th and 14th Amendments, so what you have left is that every citizen is currently a member of the militia and is protected by the second amendment, even under your flawed interpretation.
“one regulates the militia but not the arms....”
And if one looks at “regulated” in the context of the time the 2nd Ammendment was written, one sees that the definition as explained by the founding fathers was the same as a “well regulated” timepiece. That is, “regulated” does NOT mean “restricted”, as is sometimes claimed by our detractors, but rather “kept in good working order or tuned”.
I will see if I can find the founding fathers citations on this. I have read it before, but don’t have time (at work right now) to look it up. If anyone can help....have at it.
“The litmus test folks would rather hand those offices to the liberals than accept a Republican candidate who is less than pure, pure. That is precisely how we lost the Senate.”
1. A liberal is a liberal, no matter the party.
2. The Republican Party is not OWED nor entitled to my vote or anyone elses.
3. The Republican Party lost the Senate AND the House because they forgot just who in the hell they work for.
No Rudy, No Problem.
Especially dangerous in this case, as we are allowing at least four potential slaveowners on the court to help consider the re-institution of slavery, for if freedom, self-defense and equality were established and re-inforced out of the barrel of a gun, to take the guns away would pave the way for the re-institution of slavery. A new kind of slavery that would make ALL the people slaves to a tyrannical government. We are already half-way there anyway, with our current tax system and money system.
Yes, there is a danger here that should be considered.
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.