High court to look at ban on handguns

McClatchy-Tribune ^ | Nov. 9, 2007, 12:18AM | MICHAEL DOYLE

[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.

[MindBender26]

Don’t go there! That is a membership only on acceptance organization. I don’t want gun ownership rights to only accrue to official members of a state guard!

[robertpaulsen]

"he is already a member of the Militia of the United States"

Of the unorganized Militia. The second amendment refers to a "well regulated" Militia not an unorganized Militia.

[Canali]

The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... [I]f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order." -- Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]

[Dead Corpse]

Further, that in so doing, we would go along with what they said it means, beings we believe in the rule of law.

I only support the rule of Law insofar as it is supported by the Constitution. "Judges of every State shall be bound thereby"... Say what you want about the SCOTUS being Federal, but it's a dodge. If the SCOTUS doesn't uphold the lower courts refutation of the ban on individual RKBA grounds, then we no longer have a Republic and Rule .308 is a viable option.

We are MORE than half-way there. For a number of reasons. Allowing them to attempt to draw our "Liberty Teeth" is a back breaking straw for many...

[RetiredArmy]

FROM MY COLD, VERY COLD, WRINKLED, COLD DEAD WRINKLED, HANDS.

[Charles Martel]

No other part of the BOR has a procedural clause such as “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”

The "militia" is sufficiently defined under federal law that the collectivist-only argument is unsustainable. They anti-gun crowd continues to cling to it, though, because it's all they've got.

If they cross that rude bridge once again, the embattled farmers will be there to meet them.

[Travis McGee]

I don’t engage the one-note retards.

[Chaguito]

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.

WTH, I mean WTH? What does this have to do with anything?

[Chaguito]

Palmer turns 51 this month. He's an openly gay scholar

WTH, I mean WTH? What does this have to do with anything?

[Travis McGee]

Indeed we will.

[Inyo-Mono]

You are correct. That is exactly what “well regulated” means.

[Eastbound]

Concur. UCC 308 it is. (Unhappy Ctizen’s Code, not the Uniform Commercial Code).

[robertpaulsen]

"In addition, I am a member of the New Hampshire State Militia, per RSA 110-B:1, IV."

The unorganized militia. The second amendment clearly says, "a well regulated Militia". Why do you think you deserve protection from federal infringement?

Now, if you were a member of the New Hampshire State Guard, per RSA 110-B:1, III, then your possession of a weapon is protected by the second amendment.

[Pistolshot]

On this issue, there isn’t a gnats’ arse worth of difference between her and Rudy.

Sure there is. Hillary has balls.

[robertpaulsen]

"Further, the California state constitution does not, in fact, protect the individual right to keep and bear arms."

Correct. Yet that doesn't mean they're illegal. Million of Californians legally own millions of guns.

I'm assuming you have a point?

[Joe Brower]

Keep your fingers crossed, folks...

[beltfed308]

The unorganized militia. The second amendment clearly says, "a well regulated Militia".

Nice dance on a head of a pin you got there. The word used is militia and there are 2 classes. Both are protected from infringement. Is Blackwater a militia?

[Dead Corpse]

They are. I've been saying every prayer to every deity I can think of.

Was tempted to try some voodoo, but the only chicken I can come up with is from KFC... ;-)

Keep yer' powder dry.

[woollyone]

IBrp?

[Grams A]

Hillary won’t have to personally take your gun - she’ll be in charge of the military and they will be ordered to do it. Also NAFTA includes the stipulation that it can be enforced by the military.