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.
Better a showdown now, with the present SCOTUS, than after Hillary puts one or two more Ruth Bades on it.
I did. See 922(o)(2)(A).
"So..."the people" to which the 2nd Amendment applies cannot challenge infringements on the enumerated right?"
Prior to Parker they couldn't. After Parker? Well, we'll see.
They will start with ammunition. Specifically, United States Patent 5773748 - Limited-life cartridge primers. From the patent description:
Limited-life cartridge primers (LLCP's) using RML's of this invention would allow the manufacture of ammunition that would remain functional for a limited, predetermined period of time. This would enable the government to restrict the ability civilians would have to stockpile large quantities of ammunition, thereby impeding the ability of subversives to engage in protracted armed conflict with law enforcement. This would also reduce occurrences of accidental shootings by children encountering long-since forgotten, loaded firearms. The use of LLCP's would have only minimal effects on citizens involved in law-abiding activities such as target shooting and hunting. Ammunition would have to be purchased at more frequent intervals (e.g., annually) for legitimate planned or anticipated uses. This would lead to increased commercial profits (as well as increased potential tax revenues) generated from the additional sales required to replace non-functional ammunition.
It should read, "Hopefully, the court's conservative majority will affirm the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution and do away will gun-control laws"
This’ll be an opportunity to see which are liberal traitors and which are not. I don’t trust most of them so thic could undermine the second amendment.
It doesn’t matter what “they” used. Militias have been around for millenia. In Roman times, a militia member brought a spear and a sword (and maybe a horse). The weapons of a milita consist of what is at hand. There were militias in the 18th and 19th centuries in Europe armed with pikes because that was all they had. If “they” used smooth-bore muskets, should we? Should we wear powdered wigs, too, because they did?
Well, I actually said that, in 1792, the Militia consisted of "the people" and that "the people" were only white landowning voting male citizens. Funny thing is, the Parker court agreed with me.
"In sum, the phrase “the right of the people,” when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual. This proposition is true even though “the people” at the time of the founding was not as inclusive a concept as “the people” today."
"To the extent that non-whites, women, and the propertyless were excluded from the protections afforded to “the people,” the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is understood to have corrected that initial constitutional shortcoming."
I speak as a Texan....
When people of Texas react to Washington's lack of integrity, by getting mad and screaming and shouting for our unique right as Texans to secede...to most fellow Texans, they are viewed as loons.
But.......once the feds disgust the majority of legal Texans, as in the Henry Cuellar incident on the Glen Beck show last night, the prospect of secession remains a long-shot, not just a proposition of the angry, but the otherwise silent Texans begin to take notice and give this prospect some serious consideration.
We have a responsibility to our families to demand that Washington royalty be manhandled.
Texas can and will eventually choose its own destiny......I believe that this fire was lit by Rep Cuellar in his condescending insult to the Sheriff of Webb County (Rick Flores) last night. Cuellar stated that federal troops will NEVER be allowed to protect the border....and told the Sheriff, "You do you job as a Sheriff, and I will do my by looking at the BIG PICTURE....
FYI...Sheriff Flores is opposed in the coming election by Rep Henry Cuellar's brother...Hmmmm what a coincidence. Flores has 5 deputies to serve one of the largest border counties in Texas...these deputies cover 3,376 square miles of territory and a supported by the tax revenue of 193,000 with an average annual per capita income of $10,759.
I don't believe that the citizens of Webb county are willing to give up their guns....they were served notice last night that they are on their own....the federal troops required to protect the border will never arrive.
If they want to start CW-2, then they can try. The common saying is "from my cold dead hands", but I intend to keep my hands alive. Can't speak as strongly in favor of those that would aim to disarm me, however.
These idiots don't realize that the teeth of the second amendment is the only thing that keeps the rest of the constitution somewhat intact. Or maybe they do realize it.
After a bunch of years, after the old long-life ammo is used up, by restricting ammo sales they can disarm the US. Even reloaders would be affected, since they don't make their own primers
ha! what a ridiculous invention. how many long-forgotten loaded firearms do you have??? scary stuff. next they’ll make firing pins that disintegrate after a year.
Of the unorganized militia.
"and is protected by the second amendment"
I thought it protected a "well regulated Militia" not an unorganized militia. Is your second amendment different than mine?
Almost reminds me of one of the sub-themes of "Atlas Shrugged" - regardless of the consequences, people like that (read: liberals) simply don't want to live or to let anyone else live at that!
The original state Militias were that way. They rejected non-whites, women, children, the elderly, the infirm, the mentally ill, those who were not "abled bodied", Indians, etc.
"I don’t want gun ownership rights to only accrue to official members of a state guard!"
Me neither! I'm just telling you who the second amendment protects.
Neither.
King Leonidas.
Miller was not wrongly decided. Have you ever actually read it? And read the background of the case so you understood what the SC decision was?
In a nutshell, the SC ruled that if the gun in question had any legitimate military use, then the convicted persons had a right to own and bear it. The gun in question was a sawed off shotgun; the convicts were not represented at the SC hearing (one had died, the other had plea-bargained down to a small fine), so no one presented any information to the SC about the military utility of the gun. The SC REMANDED the case to the lower court for a finding of fact on the military utility of the gun (easily provable that sawed-off shotguns HAD been employed in military uses, BTW), but the case was moot for the aforementioned reasons, so there was never any further proceeding in the lower court.
cbkaty,
my heart goes out to those of you defending our borders in S.Texas. You stated the plight eloquently, and for polite company, I’m sure....you left out the beheadings, and other gory details. I’ll bet the illegals invasion issue would be settled in short order if a few rape trees were moved to the halls of Congress.
My recollection is that there were actually two defendants, though I can’t recall the details of how that came about.
You’re on the right track, but the gun-grabbers did NOT “win”. See my previous post for further explanation.
Keep your powder dry, and watch out for beltway bureaucrats waving court decisions in one hand and a dictionary in the other.
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.