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.
The lines will have been crossed.
It’s not that bad in DC - but the murder rate in New Orleans very well might be.
All because 'conservatives' eat our own. The litmus test folks would rather hand those offices to the liberals than accept a Republican candidate who is less than pure, pure. That is precisely how we lost the Senate. What a difference one voter can make.
Ask her if she’s going to come to my house, and take mine. And if not, why not.
He is an admitted felon then in California. Or had a CC permit which is unlikely.
Either way, here in Virginia I am still LEGALLY carrying mine...in hopes of never having to use it.
handguns are a significant proportion of that 300 million. they are not going to go house to house. SCOTUS will defent the 2nd amendment.
ugh...”defend”.
I would suggest that you haven't read Miller very closely. It is pretty clear that had anyone been present to represent Miller and give evidence that a short barreled shotgun was indeed a suitable militia weapon, the Court would have found that Miller had a right to possess it. The Court said that there was - no evidence before the Court - because Miller was dead and his lawyer didn't bother to show up.
ping
Maybe. But do a spot of research and find out what percentage of the "pro-gun" states populations have ccw permits? Even in Florida, the GUNSHINE state, the percentage is miniscule. Overall, what is the ratio of sheep ("civilized folks who believe the police will "take care of them") to Sheepdogs (primarily CCW holders)?
Actually, there ARE limits to the First Amendment ("yelling "fire" in a crowded theater"). And throughout the history of the United States, it has been understood that states can remove the firearms ownership rights of convicted felons-though that limitation used to be only for the duration of the sentence, while now it is essentially "forever".
“Pediatricians filed a brief supporting the ban.”
More children die every year drowning in buckets of water than are killed by firearms.
Where’s your support for a ban on buckets you leftist lying scumbags?
The difference in restrictions on the First Amendment is that they are not “prior restraint.” You don’t gag everyone who walks into the theater, or subject them all to mental exams, in case someone might falsely yell “fire.”
The same can’t be said of restrictions on gun ownership.
The number of CCW permits has zip to do with the number of people who are “anti-gun-control”. Lots of gun owners don’t have/do CCW (I’m one of them—but that may change) but DO support gun ownership rights.
It wasn't eactly wrongly decided. The lawyers for the defendant (Miller) never showed up to offer arguments. Therefore the Government won by default. Not exactly a stellar moment in the annals of USSC history.
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.