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.

[Texas Federalist]

Are you aware that the idea of a collective right did not exist anywhere in federal law until the 1930’s?

Later than that, I think. Miller didn't say anything about a collective right.

[Jim Verdolini]

US v Adams was the first federal district court case to find a collective right and US v Tott the first appeals court case, both from the mid 1930’s.

[sig226]

I think that yours and Blood of Tyrants’ sentiments are just plain wrong. Even if the court did decide that the second amendment means what it says, do you think the Schumers and Bradys of the world would somehow find reason and stop what they are doing? I don’t. They’re weasels and if the Supreme Court issued a ruling against assault weapons bans and handgun bans, they’d pass another law in a state like California and try to get a district friendly to them to impose it on the rest of us.

If you really think that the National Rifle Association is just out to fleece people, ask Larry Pratt and Aaron Zelman if they agree with you. Both of them think that NRA is the big gorilla, no matter how much they might disagree with NRA’s stand on some issues. And to suggest that NRA doesn’t do anything is to deny the RTC and Stand Your Ground revolution in this country. NRA was the biggest supporter of that. What they accomplished was a near miracle.

[ctdonath2]

There’s more to the M4 than just being a short-barreled M16 - enough that the military gave it a different designation.

[ctdonath2]

More relevantly, can a militia member buy a new machinegun in CA?

[Texas Federalist]

US v Adams was the first federal district court case to find a collective right and US v Tott the first appeals court case, both from the mid 1930’s.

Thanks. I always learn something new here.

[Old Student]

In response to your tagline, I cite the motto New Hampshire has on their auto license plates... Live Free or Die.

[ctdonath2]

The essence of RP’s premise was that the 2nd Amendment only restrained the feds, and protected active members of militias. Unfortunately, he refused to accept the logical straightforward consequences of his premise.

I’m surprised he lasted so long.
On one hand, he proved an interesting stone to hone my arguments on.
On the other hand, he was ... well, his posts had to be responded to lest the more gullible be persuaded (and I saw that happen a few times).

How he ever managed to spend SO MUCH TIME promoting a single narrow (and widely refuted) viewpoint is beyond me. I don’t think he’ll know what to do with himself now.

[arthurus]

As the outgroups were redefined into citizenry he Constitution came to cover all.

[oldfart]

Well, I hope the changes were an improvement. My brother trained on the M1A and was given an M16 in Vietnam. His line was, “The ‘M’ stands for Mattel.” I know there have been a ton of improvements since then but it still fires an anemic round. Until that changes it will always be a ‘mouse-gun.’

[arthurus]

That, too. The 2nd, though, needs no cross-reference to any other part of the Constitution. Unlike the other amendments in the BOR it is plainly absolute on its face.

[ctdonath2]

Had he managed to do so politely, he probably would have continued. Unfortunately for him, when pressed into a corner (usually when thread posts got to the high 300s) he tended to get verbally abusive. He had two posts pulled this thread, which was unusual; I saw the first, and it got kinda nasty (to you!); presumably the second was similar and went too far.

I presume being an obtuse one-note troll got him close to the line, and the personal attacks (long history of them being just barely tolerable) pushed him over.

Hate to say I’m happy he’s gone, but he did work awfully hard (I mean thousands of posts) to get zotted.

[ctdonath2]

Nicely put.

[ctdonath2]

It has to be something in unquestionably common modern US military use. The Army orders an awful lot of M4s, as distinct from M16s.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

As posted publicly on an active thread with many participants and more viewers, implicitly you were.

Cry to the management... you can reply directly on this post...

Here is what he will tell you:

---

To: Jean S

Rudy is a wife cheating family wrecking liar. A Planned Parenthood abortionist liar. A cross-dressing gay rights activist liar. A constitution trampling gun grabbing liar. A rule of law ignoring sanctuary city making liar. A draft dodging cowardly liar. A goon squad Kerik hiring corrupt liar.

8 posted on 11/09/2007 4:28:05 PM PST by Jim Robinson (Our God-given unalienable rights are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

---

I agree with the management! Giuliani sucks!

[Jim Robinson]

Rudy is a wife cheating family wrecking liar. A Planned Parenthood abortionist liar. A cross-dressing gay rights activist liar. A constitution trampling gun grabbing liar. A rule of law ignoring sanctuary city making liar. A draft dodging cowardly liar. A goon squad Kerik hiring corrupt liar.

[ctdonath2]

Then don't look...

Kinda hard to when they unexpectedly show up in unrelated threads, and I have to page down several times to get past screenfulls of brightly colored stuff.

Trust me, it's not like I was deliberately putting myself at risk for seeing them. Save one or two oblique references, this thread has nothing to do with Rudy.

C'mon, when someone politely asks to refrain from visually loud and unrelated behavior, take a moment to consider what might be prompting them to do so. (And I dislike Rudy as much as you do.)

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Save one or two oblique references, this thread has nothing to do with Rudy.

It has everything to do with him/her/it... My Constitutional rights do not end at the New York city limits... It is running for my party's nomination. I don't want that creep appointing anyone to the SCOTUS.

[tacticalogic]

More relevantly, can a militia member buy a new machinegun in CA?

And at least equally relevant, can he build one?

[Blood of Tyrants]

They might try to pass them, but once the Supreme Court has ruled on it, every court in the land now has guidance on how to rule on the 2nd Amendment.

BTW, the NRA sent a letter to the ‘Rat Congress letting them know that they would support MORE “common sense gun laws” and they are not working to repeal a single gun law anywhere in the whole country.

[Dead Corpse]

One hour suspension apparently. If he isn't live by now, you'd have to inquire to one of the Mods as to why.

As for Bobby... he isn't stupid. He's just wrong and unwilling to consider that he is wrong. Whether by design or obtuseness is debatable. I'd say by design.

But who knows... maybe one day he'll wake from his delusion and realize that being on the side of history, facts, and logic has more rewards than pushing a losing propaganda position.