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.
Hmmmmm I wonder if there were any of the FOB MOB around then?
Friends
Of
BILL
Quite right. And the more the ‘govenment’ pursues the disarmament of citizens, the more obvious your point becomes.
Well, clearly its militia relevance was deemed critical to the outcome of the case (if ever taken to its conclusion).
Perversely, Leftists don’t realize that their line of reasoning means we can have new M16s.
A protest is not a revolution.
I agree but in the push for another law or even a clarification of the 2nd Amendment, it will take the strength in numbers of a populace committed to seeing this through. None of this of course pertains to any decision made by the USSC since it is autonomous from the populace. At least the people aren't a part of the system of "Checks and Balances."
Miller was killed three days after he was supposed to appear before SCOTUS.
Part of the problem was that he had won a the lower level, was free, and if he even knew he was supposed to show (not clear) he (being a habitual criminal) wasn’t interested in going back for a possible reversal.
Such "reasoning" doesn't apply to leftist thought processes - they always think backwards. "This is the result we want, so the rules for this situation must be X, and the rules for that situation must be Y in order to achieve that result." In other words, they'll use one reason to deny you a freedom, then refute that reason to deny you another one.
You're nitpicking. Is the number anywhere near enough to form a majority vote? Of course not. But it's a place to start.
There was no victory, for either side, default or not. The case was remanded for lack of information.
Have you yet heard the “RKABA was only intended for rich white landowners” line of BS from the self-proclaimed FRexpert on RKBA?
Yes, and a bucket is not a hammer. If people are unwilling to give up their comfortable saturday morning to listen to about 90 minutes worth of speeces and go home, just think how much LESS likely it is that they will actually take up arms against their "lawful" government.
Please be careful here. We don't want to be guilty, even accidentally, of parsing words in twisted ways like the libs do.
If you are talking about children 5 years old and under, your statement is correct, at least in most years. The numbers are actually pretty close, as I recall. Most people would put the age cutoff for "children" somewhat higher that 5 years old. Some of the libs, to suit their purposes, put the cutoff at 25, which is ridiculous.
Before you flame me, check my tagline. I'm on your side, but we need to be careful to always speak the truth.
Yes, I’ve argued with him at length about it. He uses that line when it suits him, distances himself from it with 14th Amendment arguments when it doesn’t, and retreats to “only those actively in a state militia” when neither helps.
Now he’s in the “active state militia members only” theory again, and saying little when faced with the challenge to name ONE person who is, in fact, enjoying his 2nd Amendment right (_whatever_ that right entails).
Well they kind of did that in NYC for the people who had registered their semi-autos right at the end of Dinkin's or the beginning of Julie Annie's reign, but other than the press breathlessly and gleefully reporting that the evil gun owners were being arrested nothing came of it.
Of course, being able to save up for a Dillon Aero M134-D would be kind of nice too...
Also if they rule on it favorable the NRA loses it funding from Joe citizen who was scared they would take his guns.
Disagree. Listening to 90 minutes of speeches is, to most people and for most practical purposes, a waste of time when the only expected consequence is to go home. Martial law and tyrrantical oppression does tend to get people’s attention, however.
Well, again, that’s true. But don’t you think many folks use the expression, ‘fought for’, ‘defended’, etc., out of habit, when they really mean fought for the environment to use or practice their rights?
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.