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.
No, we lost the senate because the GOP failed to field candidates worthy of support.
rp
Your liberal definition of ‘well regulated’ has been refuted several times in earlier posts...yet you continue to harp on your own definition. We understand you believe you are correct. Most of us do not believe you are correct.
Agreed!
Are you sure about that? Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution reads:
"The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states ..."
Not every citizen voted in 1789 -- women were citizens and they didn't get the right to vote until 1920. Children are citizens and they still don't vote.
1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
3. Colt: The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
7. "Free" men do not ask permission to bear arms.
8. If you don't know your rights you don't have any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights reserved.
11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
14. Guns only have two enemies: rust and politicians.
15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
17. 911 - government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
19. Criminals love gun control -- it makes their jobs safer.
20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
22. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
23. Enforce the "gun control laws" we ALREADY have, don't make more.
24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.
26. "A government of the people, by the people, for the people..."
The troll is just twisting things again.
The Selective Service System organizes militia members as Congress sees fit.
The DCM/CMP provides arming and training as Congress sees fit, and that an optional minimum (as Congress sees fit).
The states, empowered to appoint officers, do so as they see fit.
SO...according to the actions of Congress and the states, they have created what satisfies them as a "well-regulated militia". That YOU may not approve is irrelevant, as you are not empowered to either implement a militia nor judge whether the militia we have is "well-regulated".
You brought it up.
>Washington, DC is not a state, nor does it have a “state” militia. Yet its residents cannot be totally disarmed by the federal government, no more than a state government can totally disarm it’s citizens — this would leave the country with no organized protection other than federal troops, something the Founders feared.<
Which presidential candidate do you think understands and fully respects the above paragraph.
We need to stop feeding the troll.
See my #214.
It’s an interesting idea, these limited life primers. Along with “microstamping,” so-called “ballistic fingerprints” etc, they are all ways to hamstring gun owners, without technically banning guns.
Logically, it does not make sense. But since when have anti-gun folks and their supporters ever let that slow them down?
Getting caught up in that argument is just following a red herring. The right to keep and bear arms is there to insure that a militia will always be available, so it applies to the potential force that might comprise a militia. Getting you to argue over details of "militia" just makes it appear that there is some tacit agreement that you really don't have a right to keep and bear arms unless you're actively involved in participating in a militia.
Isn’t white willow bark used to make the primer material? Shouldn’t be too hard for someone with a chemistry book to come up with a recipe that’ll work.
Now you're just playing games. Regulated does not mean organized. Well regulated at the time, meant well-trained. Members of the unorganized militia as well as the organized militia must have been able to keep and bear arms to be well-trained.
Liberty Teeth....Now I know what I’ve been loading all these years.
Same thing with the “voting/people/Citizen” argument. It’s all BS.
“...we lost the senate because the GOP failed to field candidates worthy of support.”
no, many worth candidates were successfully sniped at continuously by the media, and the sheeple believed in their beloved media.
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.