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.
Then they're acting as an agent of the state - carrying out delegated powers on behalf of the state, and have no rights. They are selected by the government, they do and wield what their commanding officers tell them to, and act purely in the interest of the state. They keep and bear arms on behalf of the state, not on behalf of themselves. They exercise a delegated power; they do not, as such, have rights - even the 2nd Amendment.
Somewher on my bookshelves I have a book (printed and distributed by the U.S. government) with detailed instructions about making primers. The hardest part to acquire are the spent ones for “refilling.”
I was wondering what IBrp? was. Thanks. I’ll use it - often.
Sorry, I have a friend who owns an M4 and he keeps it in his home. We used to shoot long-range matches a lot but since he bought that thing he uses all him $$$ to keep it fed. Owning full-auto weapons isn’t against the law in Oregon but it is in both California and Washington. I think it’s legal in Idaho too.
“When it was written, tell me who else had the right protected? Please, tell me. Tell all of us.”
___________________________
you robert
it was written just for you!
“People” was merely a secret code word for elite constituional scholars like robertpaulsen (and rich white landowners of course).
You are a land owner aren’t you?
See!
There you have it!
That way, you could maintain your position as the ranking FRexpert on all things related to the second amendment.
They framers may not have had prior restraint in mind, but they had foreknowledge of you coming on the FRscene to set everyone straight once and for all!
And after all...FR needs you here to banter against the truly conservative Freepers and ruin perfectly fine RKBA threads.
Wasn’t that nice of the framers?
I think so.
1. Militia had a "civilian" connotation going back to Roman times. Click here
2. Freedmen Slaves were included in the militia during the Revolutionary War. These were also expected to show up bearing arms appropriate for service, although few were financially able to do so. Click here
The OP is clueless, brainless, and nothing more than a yet to be Zotted troll...
NO! It was NOT a “victory” for the government. The case was REMANDED to the lower court — i.e. no final decision was ever rendered in the case. The instruction the SC sent to the lower court with the remand was to determine whether the gun in question had a military use, and if it did then the original defendants could NOT be convicted due to their Second Amendment rights. The gun DID have a military use, though the lower court never had occasion to pursue that information, but more to the point, the SC’s holding was that the Second Amendment entitled citizens to keep and bear ANY gun that had a military use, i.e. any gun that they could reasonably in their capacity as members of the citizen militia. THAT was the SC decision in U.S. v. Miller. Do not let the gun-grabbers or misinformed RKBA supporters convince you otherwise. The gun-grabbers have lied about this one a lot, and way to many RKBA supporters have believed them without actually investigating the matter for themselves and learning the basics of how the legal system works in this country.
You’d think the hard part would be knocking out the firing pin ding without crushing the anvil.
M4s - real, military-designated, select-fire M4s - were introduced after 1986. Therefore, either your friend’s M4 is an “M4gery” (close, but not quite), is owned by the military or police, or is illegal.
Many M16s have been refitted to be functionally identical, but aren’t what I’m referring to. It’s a nuance that is legally important.
Let not your heart be troubled.
With Hillary running, Conservatives who haven’t voted for years will show up at the polls.
The Militia Act of 1792 described a militia that was organized, armed, trained and accoutered with officers appointed by the state.
I don't understand your question.
Read my post #31. Many important SC cases do not involve the SC rendering a final decision in the case, but this in no way invalidates the SC’s holding in the case on the points of law it addressed in its published opinion. When they remand a case to a lower court with specific instructions on how to interpret a question of federal law (which includes Constitutional law), that is the SC’s official, binding interpretation of the law. Lower courts do not have any option to void a SC decision on a question of law — not by plea bargaining with the defendants to drop the case and avoid further lower court proceedings, nor by any other technique.
Californians have the right to own shotguns, that right is not protected by the California constitution, and it's not infringed. Millions of Californians legally own million of shotguns.
How about that!
Said Militia Act clearly describes a militia armed by the members, not the state.
You may be correct. It’s just another “mouse gun” as far as I can see. But since an M4 is basically a short-barreled M-16 why keeps him from making that conversion? The receiver is the NFA controlled part and since he had to get all sorts of permission to get that what difference can a shorter barrel make?
Oh, sorry. I forgot we were talking about the government here. Logic isn’t really welcome, is it?
My argument is that doctors think that firearm ownership is an issue that affects “children’s health.” But “children’s health” is affected by a lot of other factors besides firearms. Drowning accounts for a huge number of deaths of people under 18, so does drinking and driving. But pediatricians are not demanding legislative reform for anything other than guns and cigarettes.
The numbers they use for “children” killed by firearms does go up to age 25 and includes all homicides committed in gangland violence.
Given the number of households that have firearms (40M) and the number of deaths for people under 18 (not personally responsible, except, of course, for abortion), there is no way doctors should consider this a top priority “to save the children.”
Their goal is obviously personal politics, namely, anti-gun. Even pediatricians, they are proving, have no problem hiding behind children to further their leftist causes.
Okay, I’ll play.
I say “Regulated” means equipped and functioning properly.
At the time when the constitution was drafted, this indicated the proper sequence of loading, charging, and firing a black powder firearm. The sequencing was critical so that one did not accidentally blow up his neighbor.
RamS
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.
Virginia’s constitution states that the militia is composed of all able bodied males between 18 and 59. It is not the Virginia National Guard. It wouldn’t take much to change it to read “all citizens over 18.” If it came to it, it could be used to allow citizens to own fully automatic weapons and artillery.
Believe it or not, but I'm sorry it came down to that. If he had been actually interested in debate, we could have worked with him.
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.