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.
Whatever floats your boat. Point being that we’re stuck with a crippled version of an antique design.
I will become an outlaw and fight anyone who comes to take mine. Tell your sister that.
Have you told her about the original Hitler disarming the German citizens and what happened to the Jews afterward?
Theirs must be an M-16 then....
It'd be a "tipping point". I have no evidence to support this other than my own feelings that should my own over-socialized State of MN decide to do this, I wouldn't wait for them to come for me...
Well, there was ONE entertaining instance.
Seems one guy had registered his EBR, and didn’t turn it in when AWs were banned in NYC. Cops sent him a letter saying “turn it in or bad things will happen”. He sent a letter back saying “bring it on”. SWAT team executed a dynamic entry. The new occupants were, well, not amused. Seems someone didn’t notice the return address indicated the fellow in question had moved to Montana, where the Post Office had been nice enough to forward the original letter to.
2A has to apply to states. The wording is not like the other nine. It does not say “Congress shall make no law...”, it says “...shall not be infringed.” It leaves no leeway here. No one within the jurisdiction of the Constitution is allowed to infringe.
Or are you an AK fan? That is an even older design with only "minute of barn door" accuracy for all it's ruggedness.
M1's are good. But again, an older design. The SOCOM-II's are nice, but are not select fire, don't have to accuracy of the LR-308, and are hideously expensive in comparison. I could buy two LR's for the price of one SOCOM_II. Well, almost. Depends on optics. ;-)
Which is all tangential. Moot as well if the SCOTUS fails the Constitution again.
I give you Waco, Ruby Ridge, and New Orleans. No one seemed to care about Waco except McVeigh, and everyone claims to be horrified by what he did. Funny they executed him for killing people, but hero of Ruby Ridge, Lon Hourouchi, is still running around doing well in law enforcement, And the ones who ordered the final attack on the ranch at Waco are still swilling at the public trough, apparently untroubled even by their (nonexistent) consciences
A Colt M4 is all I want.
Art 6 para 2 is the only “incorperation” any of the Amendments needed. They eventually put in a separate Amendment to try and get it to stick again, but then the SCOTUS screwed that up by coming up with a Selective Incorporation doctrine that is no part of their mandate.
Amusing for everuone except the targets of the JBT’s They’re lucky they weren’t gunned down.
Those are straws on the pile. Some backs are stronger than others. A ruling like this out of the SCOTUS is a bit more than just another piece of straw. This would be adding an entire combine to the camels load...
“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.”
That same caveat applied to every other use of the ‘People’ in the Bill of Rights as those folk also had no real protected rights to speach, vote, or even religion.
“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.”
That’s because most gun control nuts are liberals and they never let logic get in the way of their pre-conceived emotions and biases. They are also adroit at word twisting.
You and your Chicken Little scenarios is what's gotta stop.Your state constitution protects your individual right. If it doesn't, that doesn't mean you have to turn in your guns. California's state constitution doesn't protect the right and millions of Californians legally own guns.
So cool it with your weeping and gnashing of teeth. You're being intentionally inflammatory.
Well let's hope that it goes the way we want it to so we don't find out.
“”A well regulated Militia is one that is organized, armed, trained and accoutered with officers appointed by the state”
Then why did the fonders describe this militia in law as”
“I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, [b]That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia[/b], by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.”
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
LR-308 is also based on the AR platform, but chambered in the much more accurate, and deadly, .308 Win. With the recoil management on the AR platform, it isn't anything like shooting a bolt gun .308.
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.