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.
picric acid - it is a distillation of asperin - which is a distillation of willow bark.
So what differentiates them from "agents of the state", to wit "standing army" or "select militia"? If a "right" only applies to someone operating entirely under the direction of the government, and cannot exercise that "right" outside what the government allows, then in no way is it a "right".
In that light, name a single person who can buy (in their own name) an M4, and store it in their home (as their own).
I wasn't posting to you...
First I don't know. Second, I'm not a single-issue voter, which makes your question irrelevant. Third, the President didn't write the DC law -- Congress did. Fourth, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide this issue, not the President.
Leading me to ask, why do you want to know?
We have.
Repeatedly.
Hundreds, if not thousands, of times.
As posted publicly on an active thread with many participants and more viewers, implicitly you were.
It gets kinda distracting and tiresome.
And your intended didn’t even mention “Rudy”.
See? I learn something every day.
So you're saying the Founding Fathers were referring to a bunch of unorganized guys, no leadership, no chain of command, who were highly trained and knew how to shoot.
That's what they meant by a "well regulated Militia". I suppose you have some cites, some links, some quotes, that back you up?
Keeping in mind the "original Intent" based on the language of the time.
There is no contrary evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment was intended to apply solely to active militia members.
Ah! You think that because a right is not protected, that means you don't have it!
Where did you learn that?
“What is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
~George Mason, 1788
If they have nothing to shoot, then being organized, led and commanded doesn’t do any good.
You can’t achieve a “well-regulated militia” unless the whole people have a right to keep and bear arms.
Name one woman to can own an M4.
Your first instincts regarding that one were correct.
It’s time to break out the troll pics.
edit “to” -> “who”.
>First I don’t know. Second, I’m not a single-issue voter, which makes your question irrelevant.<
Your question is the same as mine, irrelevant.
Past due time...
My friend Rose Vinci owns one, I think. Or was it an M40? I forget.
New Hampshire is less benighted than most other states in that respect, though.
If one looks at this with a vision of Constitutional law and the intent of freedom that the second amendment of the Constitution conveys, the displacement of the second amendment is nothing more than a loss of personal freedom if it is looked at pragmatically.
Thus reversing the law of the second amendment can only be supported by people who have a disdain for freedom on a personal level.
There has to be a title for such people but I just can't think of a word that would be appropriate for such people. ; )
agreed...rendering ad nauseum
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.