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.
And maybe those penumbras and emanations are bullshit.
Yep, that's the problem with your stance.
So we are looking at banning a product which results in about 2-3 deaths per day out of 300 million that are pure accident. Ladders and stairs probably accout for as many accidental deaths as guns do.
Starve.
Without the "militia" clause, Clinton's claim about the right to keep and bear arms for "hunting and sporting purposes" might have some plausibility.
Willful ignorance.
Actually the DC council wrote it. That itself may be a Constitutional violation, since the Constitution states:
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
However Congress gets a chance to review Acts of the Council before they become law..so maybe not.
We’ve tried ignoring him.
Problem is, he posts that drivel practically every time any “what does the 2nd Amendment mean?” question comes up, starts an argument with the unaware, and presents a just-coherent-enough & just-impressive-enough premise that some people start to buy it.
It’s like leftists: much as we would like to ignore them in the hopes they’ll go away, they won’t go away, and without opposition will make society much worse.
Sometimes, people just need to be removed from a society.
Exactly. A primary reason I would argue with him was to hone my own arguments. I knew he would NEVER admit being wrong, but over time I got pretty good at nailing him down - at which point he would simply switch arguments or jump to another thread.
Wrong. States have powers. States do not have rights. People have rights. The 2nd Amendment says nothing about "rights of a state"; it DOES say that states benefit from having a well-regulated militia, which is best and most easily achieved by protecting the rights of the people to keep and bear arms uninfringed.
The Constitution delegates to the states the power of appointing officers and conducting training & discipline; if the militia members (anyone able to fight) do not have weapons, that power is moot.
We tried that. Doesn’t work. Ignoring some people doesn’t make them go away.
Some evidence is so obvious that it need not (or should not) be required by a court.
I'm not sure the Constitution can delegate anything to the States. The Constitution is a grant of a set of enumerated powers to the national government, by the States. They didn't need to delegate to themselves what was theirs to start with.
Ergo, don’t nominate Rudy.
The Congress shall have Power ... To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;Make of that what you will.
Maybe just a matter of semantics, but it comes down the difference between “reserved” and “delegated”. “Reserved” means that the States retained this power for themselves, and exercise it on thier own behalf. “Delegated” means that the power rightly belongs to someone else, and the States are merely allowed to exercise it on someone else’s behalf.
You wrote: If there is a third party condidate there will be a democrat in the White House.
Yes. Probably for four years. Much better than a RINO.
The worst vote I ever cast was for George lyin’ Ryan the Rino Gov. from Illinois. He destroyed the republican party and is now in jail.
As much as I dislike Hillary, I will not vote for Mitt, Rudy or McCain.
Ditto Pataki in NY. Having the automatic support of most Republicans, this RINO managed to pass the most oppressive gun laws since the Sullivan Act (registering handguns) - something that hardcore leftist Cuomo couldn’t do despite 12 years as governor.
Observe too that faced with a Republican-controlled Congress, Bill Clinton didn’t get much done at all.
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.