High court to look at ban on handguns

McClatchy-Tribune ^ | Nov. 9, 2007, 12:18AM | MICHAEL DOYLE

[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.

[tacticalogic]

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.

So anyone of any age or criminal background can walk in to any sporting goods store and buy a shotgun, anywhere in CA?

[GOPologist]

It took over 80 threads before someone had the good sense to ask the question that you did.

Who will enforce the new law? No one! Most of the military are related to the majority of gun holders. Will a member of the military take the guns from their brothers, fathers, sisters, et al?

BTW, I personally feel that the 2nd A. will remain as it is.

[Dead Corpse]

Of course not. Further, it better not be a Master Key, Street Sweeper, AA-12, or other prohibited shotgun. No matter how specifically effective as a militia weapon.

I'd love to get my hands on a AA-12. I'd buy a 12ga reloader rig just so I could afford to keep it fed. ;-)

[Third Order]

"A well-regulated Militia ... 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.

So, "well-regulated" redefines "shall not be infringed" to mean "shall not be infringed unless the govt says so."

[from occupied ga]

With Hillary running, Conservatives who haven’t voted for years will show up at the polls.

Depends. If she's running against Rootie ("My positions are mostly the same as Mrs Clinton's) Julie Annie I won't expect to see many real conservatives show up. Not enough difference between them to get excited about.

[from occupied ga]

If he had been actually interested in debate, we could have worked with him

Na I've read his stuff for years. Hard line authoritarian statist and jackboot licker par excellance. Like his leftist friends he isn't interesed in learning from debates, but rather just spouting his views over and over again. No lie to obvious no distortion to great as long as it serves his purpose. His drivel reminds me of the egregious editorial page editor of the Atlanta Fish Wrapper Cynthia Tucker. Hammer the truth until it's unrecognizable to fit your agenda.

[from occupied ga]

Who will enforce the new law? No one!

WRONG!! There will never be any shortage of JBTs to enforce anti-gun laws. Look at New Orleans. Look at any story where the government "confiscated" an "arsenal" They're never a bit shy about it. It will be your local "protect and serve" extort and intimidate boys who will be on you faster than a rooster on a june bug.

[tacticalogic]

I didn’t think so. But I expected as much, considering that RP’s take one the 2A seems to be that as long as someone, somewhere can still legally own a firearm of some kind, then our right to keep and bear arms hasn’t really been infringed.

[tacticalogic]

Agreed. “Working with him” is like herding cats.

[coloradan]

Read your own post again. Something they “BROADCASTED.” They can print handbills or say anything they want, e.g. at a press conference. They can distribute handbills on street corners, or shout from a soapbox. But they are limited as to what they may SEND OVER THE AIRWAVES - “broadcast”. It’s not a First Amendment issue. It’s a terms of use of the airwaves issue - “We give you exclusive rights to broadcast on this frequency in this area, and you agree you won’t use the following or similiar words: .... We will go after anyone else who transmits on your frequency, and we will come after you if you do broadcast such things. Agreed? Sign here.” Not the First Amendment at all.

Thanks for trying, though.

[from occupied ga]

and silences those who protest;

McCain Feingold

where courts have lost the courage to oppose

Kelo

[ExSoldier]

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.

Ahhhhhh I see! You're correct that is a cogent and well stated argument. Actually I got a lot of this info from my own law school experience back in the late 1980s. The Profs then were just as antigun as they are now. Thanks for the clarification. Well done! Now I have something else to discuss with my American Government students.

[RetiredArmy]

68 here today in Alabama. 70 something tomorrow. Even though we have had a couple of freezing a.m.’s the past couple of days. Nice days though.

[snippy_about_it]

A lot of us believe we shouldn’t have to get a CCW. We have a right to be armed, I shouldn’t have to get a permit to conceal it.

[fishergirl]

I’ll read this later. In the meantime, it reminds me. I had my car serviced the other day and I need to put my handgun back in my glove compartment.

[DuncanWaring]

There will never be any shortage of JBTs to enforce anti-gun laws.

Alexandr Solzhenitsyn had a different point of view:

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say goodbye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling in terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand.-- The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!"

[Travis McGee]

Sometimes I just can’t help myself!

[Travis McGee]

Yeah, BLOPT!

[FreedomPoster]

I hear you, and have the same problem from time to time.

Though in this case, it may not be one any longer. See post 400.

[L98Fiero]

‘So, “well-regulated” redefines “shall not be infringed” to mean “shall not be infringed unless the govt says so.”’

No. It simply declares that a well-regulated MILITIA is a necessity in a free country and that the rights of the PEOPLE to bear arms should not be infringed upon.

Basically, it says the military is necessary and it’s existence does not relieve the people of their right to keep and use arms.