Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate with the UN in his sights.
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.
LOL. Very true. I get a kick out of the reinterpreting of the words and intent. What is the definition of insanity again?
As for the Parker case it should be a clear and easy win because the BOR only applies to the Federal government. /s
The Federal Government is infringing itself!
What? That the "well regulated Miltia" contained in the second amendment refers to an organized, armed, trained and accoutered state Militia with officers appointed by the state"?
I got that from the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 and the Militia Act of 1792.
"The Militia Act of 1792, written by those same founders, makes it pretty clear that the ‘militia’consists of all abled bodied male citizens"
It consisted of white, male, citizen landowners. The same group that voted. "The people". The enfranchised body politic. "Full" citizens.
The point being, not everyone. Not every person. Not women. Not non-whites.
"I suspect the modern world would expand that to all able bodied citizens period, which is pretty much the same as ‘the people’
Excluding children, felons, prisoners, the insane, the mentally ill, yeah, pretty much.
I'll accept that what he said was close enough,
semantics, I know and Im usually not a stickler. I would agree to 'defended, protected, avenged' etc but you cant 'win' something Graciously given, unless you are willing for it to also be 'lost', which a God given right cannot be...
Exactly. And the proof of the maturity of the Constitution is being aired on the radio right now.
Rush is on, live and there is no constitutionally guaranteed right of freedom of the Radio.... and the radio uses no presses......
BTW.....Anyone wishing to support Webb County, Texas Sheriff Rick Flores in his reelection fight with the Rep Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) family…can send contributions to:
The Rick Flores Campaign, PO Box 452168, Laredo, TX 78045
Flores and his 5 deputies patrol over 3,000 square miles of the most dangerous border county in Texas....and get absolutely no federal troop assistance in spite of beheadings, kidnapings, drug running, rapists, Zetas and Mexican military invasions of our border protecting drug runners and other smugglers. Real Texans for a Real Texas Sheriff - Rick Flores …..has a nice ring to it doesn’t it?
Probably so, but that’ll be made a felony, under the terms of the law.
She’s not scared. She knows that contol can come in many ways.
Only a tiny number of companies make ammunition components, really. Squeeze them with regulations, driving up the prices or them out of business.
Pile on assorted other regulations, mostly impacting businesses/retailers/manufacturers, plus hassle people enough, and the market just evaporates.
Remember: machineguns are legal - so long as you go thru annoying hoops to get a decades-old used one from a dwindling supply. Do the same with other arms, coupled with reprogramming the public at large, and it all just fades away (save a few marginalized freaks, easily neutralized one-on-one).
The Crips and The Bloods are organized. The Black Panthers are organized. The Nation of Islam is organized.
The 14th Amendment applies. Try to keep up.
George Mason IV (December 11, 1725 – October 7, 1792) was a United States patriot, statesman, and delegate from Virginia to the U.S. Constitutional Convention. Along with James Madison, he is called the "Father of the Bill of Rights". For all of these reasons he is considered to be one of the best loved "Founding Fathers" of the United States.
Now, come back and tell us that the Father of the Bill of Rights is an idiot, who didn't know what he really meant by militia.
The point being, not everyone. Not every person. Not women. Not non-whites.
IOW, you have parsed every word and phrase and interpreted them to be as exclusionary as possible at every opportunity.
I found it very telling that the crowds were standing around watching the lawyers get pounded by the cops. Universal truth about lawyers!!!
But now, thanks to the 14th Amendment, recognized in Parker, and brought up by your very self, "it" now consists of everyone.
Maybe if it would "infringe" itself more often, it'd be too busy to bother with the citizenry... ;-)
We’ll have to cut down all the white willow trees. That won’t make the tree huggers happy. Who’da thunk it that we could get the Sierra Club types on our side because of something like that? ;-)
US Code 10, chap 13, defines Militia as follows:
Sec. 311. 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.
Therefore, under this law, there are no gun ownership rights for women unless they are members of the National Guard or Naval Militia, nor are there any gun ownership rights for any male over 45 years of age! My niece is still a Turkish citizen. Her rights?
I’m 63. Who do I turn my weapons in to? Who does my wife give her cute little .38 snub-nose hammerless to?
Also, an “unorganized militia” is certainly not “well-regulated.” That leads to the “the only well-regualted militia is the NG....” argument. Remember, in Law, EVERY WORD means something.
Trust me, we do not want to go into the legal definition of the word “militia” in the US!!!!!
He also ignores that blacks and women fought in the various State militias. So much for yet another of his idiotic arguments.
I gave my definition in post #216: "A well regulated Militia is one that is organized, armed, trained and accoutered with officers appointed by the state".
I don't know what makes that liberal - do you?
"Most of us do not believe you are correct."
Fine. Then give me the correct version.
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.