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.
!
The first amendment doesn’t read “Freedom to pray as we wish is necessary as is freedom of speech, therefore Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The first amendment simply confirms the rights without a “why.”
Without that Militia phrase, we would never have these Court fights.
I’m not saying I agree with the collectivist interpretation; I just wish that preamble was not there. It’s absence would solve a lot of problems.
Of the over 21 population i’m sure its over 5% of non felons.
And that is just for concealed carry. Everyone over 21 can open carry without a permit and concealed carry on there own private property doesn’t even need a permit.
they are human and probably understand that if people are forced to give back their arms, they may do so bullets first
give the court's conservative majority a chance to undermine gun-control laws nationwide.
not that public sentiment is an uphill battle though...
I’m one of them too, but only because my state hasn’t issued one to a civilian in over 2 decades.
Not hardly, rabid libs will gladly take your money and pay their 'enforcers' to 'do their job' and squash the enemy of their handlers, who write 'the law' to take your and pay their 'enforcers' to 'do their job'...
That's the point I always make when arguing the 2nd Amendment with anti-gun types. Usually leaves them sputtering...
I don’t give two sh*ts what the Supreme Court rules. This is the same stupid court that previously ruled that blacks were subhuman, that infanticide was a “right”, and that the 14th Amendment permits anchor babies (it does not). Any unconstitutional ruling by the SCOTUS must be rejected by the Executive branch and the people. No one will restrict my 2nd Amendment rights. Our rights are sacred. They were won with bloodshed and tears over 3 centuries. We must not permit them to be subject to the whims of Anthony Kennedy.
No bias from this writer.../s
I wonder how often the Court decides to hear a case because they want to overturn. :(
Actually, theres no limit on yelling 'FIRE' in a crowded theater, only consequences of doing so maliciously, or carelessly and causing injury to others.
Didnt we give 'felons' back their weapons upon release from prison in times past?
IMO if they are 'rehabilitated' enough to go free or were convicted of crimes in which a lenient sentence is acceptable, shouldnt they be considered 'safe' enough to posses arms ???...
I agree.....the logic behind the Amendment is a militia can't exist without arms....one regulates the militia but not the arms....
Regardless of this ruling I’ll never give up my guns.
I wouldn't exactly say that. I'd say CCW provides a healthy indicator of the folks dedicated enough to take an active role in state politics and the 2nd Amendment. Even hunters often do not support the rights of other gun owners. Witness the debacle with that BOZO ZOMBO. Heck, folks in rural states like West-by-God Virginia will fight for their sniper DEER rifles and throw the assault weapons semiautos under the bus!
Sacred is correct, but they werent 'won', they were given Graciously by Him, and cannot be retracted by 'them'...
Really? They gave that specific year? 2012 is one of the often prophesied dates for the end of the world. The Mayan and Aztec calendars from their time eons ago simply ENDS in the year 2012. ~cue twilight zone music~
Ditto that.
“we literally don’t know wether or not they will go by the letter of the law anymore.”
This crap has been a fixture for years, IMO. I’m still fuming over Kelo.
Please, please read the united states code title ten, chapter 13. this defines the militia and the guard and whos supposed to own a well regulated firearm! well regulated means well funtioning, up to date firearm. all males over 17 years of age Belong to the militia!
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.