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.
That’s going to be arguable. DC isn’t a state, and I’d think that’s going to make trying to use this as precedent a messy proposition.
The Court is always unpredictable. If the uncertainty of the Court is troubling you, then you should never want the SCOTUS to rule on the 2nd Amendment.
I want the SCOTUS to take this case. I also want the gun owning People to make it clear to the Justices that only a decision that correctly interprets the 2nd Amendment incorrectly will be a violation of the 2nd Amendment and so would be void.
I think it was just for being a jerk.
That's a red herring brought up by the District of Columbia. The 2nd Amendment applies to the federal government. The location of the individual is irrelevant. The feds can't violate the RKBA, Period. Also, the phrase "free State" is referring to a free society. An earlier draft of the Amendment referred to a "free country."
I agree.
I agree. The bit about DC not being a state was in response to the concern about the outcome “making the other amendments reserved to the state as well”.
It would be wonderful if the Supreme Court said handgun permits are a load of crap and anyone who wants to can carry openly or concealed, but I think that will never happen.
Although it would make no actual difference to criminals with firearms (felons can't have the gun under any circumstance, concealed or not) it would spur the antis into a frenzy. Right now, we are winning the fight in the states and in the press. While we still see stupid quotes from the Schumers and O'Donnells of the world, they can't deny the success of NRA's work in RTC. I've even seen a few anti gun columnists and police brass publicly admit they were wrong.
We did not want this battle. It was forced on us in the 1960s by the political left. It's easy to note what NRA hasn't made happen, but it's also easy to imagine what might have been if the NRA hadn't stood up to the politicians and media who used cun control as an instrument of social conformity. Just look at Great Britain.
Glad to hear the info will be passed on to impressionable young voters or future voters. An excellent source of a wider range of RKBA info, including discussion of Miller and other SC cases, is at http://www.guncite.com/ Good site to consult for yourself, and also to direct your students to.
On the plus side, Paulson would always force his opponents to hone their arguments, as he would find weak spots in a millisecond. On the minus side he usually ignored well honed arguments and instead debate against strawmen or red herrings. giving them more much more play than they deserved and wasting everyone’s time.
You nailed it.
Nope, sorry, I was reloading. I mean, I was busy working.
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... Tom Palmer... 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.See? Carrying a concealed weapon is gay. [rimshot!]
As you've seen innumerable times, facts infuriate the willfully ignorant. To them, truth equals troll.
That troll needed a wake-up call, glad the management though so too.
Actually when the oral arguments (or presentation might be a better term, since as you point out, there was no representation for Miller. Although it might be more accurate to say that Miller did not have a lawyer once the case was dismissed at the district court level. That of course would not be allowed today, one would be appointed, even if, as was the case, the individual could not be found). They did find Miller's body a few days before the SC issued it's opinion. He went down shooting, his .45 at his side, and it had been fired. I've never read if a killer was ever found, or even really looked for. The guy was a bootlegger and bank robber after all, he probably had lots of enemies, and few friends in the "peace officer" business.
sure we would. As it is, the "preamble" basically states that an armed citizenry is needed to assure the security of a *Free* state. Non-free states have other methods, large conscript armies to fight foreign foes, and well paid internal security troops, usually picked from the more sadistic members of their societies.
Oddly enough, the fact that blacks were ruled subhuman in Dred Scott actually helps us in this fight. One of the reasons for finding blacks were not equal was that then they would have the same rights as everyone else and among those rights specified were "the right to keep and bear arms."
The 2nd amendment affirms TWO rights...the rights of a “state”..and the rights of “the people”
That’s why it written in plain english (of the day)...
What:
A well regulated militia,
Why:
being necessary to the security of a free state,
Enumeration:
the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms,
restriction on congress:
Shall not be infringed.
Translation in plain english:
The right of a state to raise a well regulated militia, and the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, both being necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed.
Pretty simple...
They are two separate and distinct rights...
When you play the debate game with collectivists...you’ve allready lost...as they have framed the debate incorrectly...
On the other minus side, his own arguments were often false, saying such things as that the 2A of the Federal Constitution doesn’t apply to the states, as if Roe v. Wade only protected women from a Federal ban on abortions, while the states were free to ban them if they wanted to. A laughable argument, and yet he stated this on every thread he posted to.
That was one of his core arguments — he professed to believe that the 2A does not apply to the states, and that the only thing guaranteeing your right to a firearm is your own State’s 2A amendments — as if places like San Francisco, California would not have banned guns long ago but for the 2A of the US Constitution.
He propagated such false arguments all the time, and suckered a lot of members into wasting their time to argue against such hogwash.
I don’t know the legal basis as I am not a lawyer or legal expert, but I certainly know that the 13th Amendment extended to the states as well — not only was the Federal government prohibited from legalizing slavery, but the State governments were also prohibited from legalizing slavery. Yet he would constantly argue the opposite with respect to 2A.
Enough on distractions and lets get back to the 2A case at hand.
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.