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.
Regarding robertpaulsen - Do Not Feed the Troll.
There’s considerable discussion on this later in the thread. And his account has been banned / suspended, so he may not be back. But if he is, just don’t get sucked into his inane 2A argumentation. palmer in #503 summarizes robertpaulsen perfectly.
Thanks,
FP
And the lower court found that law violated Millers rights, no? And reading the Miller court makes it fairly clear that had anyone been present to argue Millers case, the SC would have upheld the lower court.
First, thanks for the concern.
Second, read this...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1923243/posts?page=373#373
(others are picking up on my idea as well)
I’m with you and maybe slightly ahead of you on this issue. The first time I read his “about” page I had him pegged
Anyway, that was the first time he’s ever actually posted to me...and you might note my sarcasm in reply. Even if he replied to my sarcasm, that would have been the end of it. I do not suffer fools.
FRegards
The Court can not just assume evidence not before them. The clear implication was that had evidence been presented to the Court to show that a short barreled shotgun was a suitable militia weapon, they would have upheld the lower court and found for Miller.
A shame, that. The grabbers and a good many federal judges have misrepresented the Miller case ever since.
See this for reference:
http://www.guncite.com/journals/dencite.html
Secondhand noise?
Jeepers, I already read that post half a dozen times and commented to you that you can put more than one name in the To: field of a post. Robert Paulson (1) has no good response to my last post to him, and (2) apparently got banned or suspended anyway.
The Pink Pistols, a gay defense-rights group, gets a lot more flak from the left for supporting RKBA than it does from the right for being gay, according to their interview in the NRA magazine.
So when the left talks about being tolerant of other viewpoints, or bashes the right for being “hateful” and “bigoted,” you can use this specific example to tell them to go to hell.
Congress screwed up in 1850 when they voted to grant California statehood under a state constitutuion that didn't guarantee a right to keep and bear arms. A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, and the right to keep and bear arms makes that militia possible. RP seems intent on convincing people that having made that mistake once, we should keep right on making it. You seem to want to take up that banner in his absence.
On the other hand, the Marijuanna (sp?) Tax Stamp Act was allowed to stand, even though it was prohibition in the guise of a tax.
What changed between 1922 and the late 30’s?
FDR packed the court.
This is true and we should arm ourselves against them.
Bump to that. Good riddance.
“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.”
Excellent points and the Genesis of hamstringing individual rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights...further compounded by Roosevelt’s New Deal Socialism. Socialism can NOT exist peacefully in a Constitutional Republic based fundamentally on individual rights. Peaceful co-existance is a liberal wet dream.
No. I am hoping the SCOTUS uses the Constitution, the wrwitingsof the Founders, and come to a conclusion that roles back all of our RKBA infringements back to the NFA of 1934.
The reality is, this may not be the case. Government will protect itself first, then see to their duty to the People second.
I’m with you...In basic we trained on M-14s, then M-16s (on automatic)...when, as a REMF, I got to Vietnam, I was given an M-14. Unfortunately it was housed in an ‘arsenal’ a few hundred yards down an open street. So I kept an M1 Carbine and Colt .45 in the hooch...never hardly saw the M14 (or an M16 for that matter). Never had a desire to own an M16...in part due to that ‘Mattel’ quality, same for Glocks.
Roscoe is the other troll on these threads. He’s like Bobby, but without the intelligence. Please don’t feed them.
“As the outgroups were redefined into citizenry he Constitution came to cover all.”
Agreed, and the 14th cinched it.
"I am hoping the SCOTUS uses the Constitution, the writings of the Founders, and come to a conclusion that roll back all of our RKBA infringements back to the NFA of 1934."
That's better...
That is why they wear the masks.
““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,”
My prediction.
They uphold the ban.”
That is because you, like me, do not trust the courts to follow either the law or the Constitution when a political point can be made. Kelo and the CFR decision served to destroy any legitimacy the court once had. The only thing that might mitigate the mess our Robed Masters could make is that we have two new and real judges on the court today who might just pay lip service to the intent of the document.
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.