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.
“As much as I dislike Hillary, I will not vote for Mitt, Rudy or McCain.”
Which is saying you will vote for Hillary, a sound choice, for a socialist gun grabber with no regard for teh Copnstitution,.
Worse actually. The round has lower muzzle velocity when fired from the shorter barrel of the M-4, and more often fails to perform the proper terminal ballistic manuever, ie yaw.
There will certainly be no restoration of the right to manufacture and purchase new machine guns, nor will there be expansion of any rights to go around with a weapon in public without a State permit. I do not think even the most generous Court decision would restore much more than the right to own a rifle of relatively modern design--not necessarily semi-automatic-- and take it to a shooting range for practice, quite possibly only after obtaining a Federal and/or State license.
The Constitutionality of losing gun rights for domestic violence misdemeanors or protective orders is certainly questionable to my mind, and perhaps the reversal of this ex post facto injustice would be the greatest result of a Supreme Court decision upholding the 2nd Amendment.
Even if the Court upholds pistol and semi-auto bans, licensing, and other regulations, I still think little will change. If anything, the gun-owning community will be invigorated, and we might see further gains at the State level comparable to the concealed weapons permit reforms of the past two decades.
If the decision is for a collective-rights interpretation, and totally against us, then the gun community will be REALLY riled up, and the Democrats could expect to get their balls cut off at the next election. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a new Amendment proposed to supersede and expand our Second Amendment rights, and it would have a pretty good chance of passage.
-ccm
Perfectly legal in Texas and most other southern states. In Texas if it's OK with the feds, it's OK with the state. A former coworker had an M-2 Carbine, and M1919A1 (converted to 7.62x51) and an M-79, (but no explosive rounds for it, each one of which requires a federal tax stamp).
Come on, this is ridiculous. The militia used whatever guns they had to hand, be it a squirrel rifle, a Brown Bess, or a blunderbuss.
Some colonies had regulations about required calibers of bullets and quantities of lead and powder, as well as laws promoting periodic militia drills, but (especially in times of peace) they were widely ignored even back in Colonial days.
And I have NEVER seen a militia law specifying a smoothbore musket rather than a rifle. I defy you to show me any such thing.
-ccm
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY...
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953,
about
20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
List of 7 items:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300
percent Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the
criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in
armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the
past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is
unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the
ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public
safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was
expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The
Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians
disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes,
gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them
of this history lesson.
With guns, we are ‘citizens’.
Without them, we are ‘subjects’.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew
most Americans were ARMED!
Yeah, I didn’t have to worry about making decisions like that. I was given a BAR and eight magazines of 20 rounds each plus an “assistant” who carried more ammo and an M-1. While I occasionally thought I’d like a lighter load I always managed to pick up a few extra boxes of ammo and was glad to have it.
You know, I'm surprised that a state like Alaska or Wyoming has not yet declared all its adult residents to be enrolled members of the State militia, not under direct Federal control except in wartime, and issued militiaman's ID cards that are about as easy to get as a CCW permit. With which they could show up at a Class III dealer and order a new-production M4 for a thousand bucks from Colt.
-ccm
The MA provided that the militiamen would provide their own arms, and their own horses in the case of cavalry.
As a practical matter, that's true but ONLY if we the people have the GUTS to carry thru on the implied warning and I don't think that's the case anymore.
There is the "check" of armed conflict present in the writings of the Framers and plenty of the searing rhetoric is there, to be sure! But again, nowhere in the infrastructure of the Constitution is there any mention of armed revolution using the implements of the 2nd Amendment as the people's liberty teeth. That is simply an inference.
Guess what? If this USSC case is decided against us, a giant step will be taken in the direction of world government because the last barrier to keep government in check will become fractured and may possibly fall. In fact, I would think it might fall into the ashes of history within our lifetime.
I would be happier if we had a truly right-leaning Supreme Court. If only Bush would have gotten to nominate one more Justice. But as they say, you play with the team you have, not the one you wish you had.
While I see a lot of talk on this forum about Civil War II, I’m more inclined to think that if the Court comes down with the wrong decision, that there would be a huge push for a new Constitutional amendment reaffirming the RKBA.
Texas does include "all citizens" 18 through 60, and those who have indicated an intent to become citizens. Women most definitely included. Additionally, one component of the Texas Militia, which includes the National Guard of Texas, is the Texas State Guard, which has both ground and air components.
Texas Government code§ 431.081. PERSONS SUBJECT TO MILITARY DUTY; PERSONS NOT ELIGIBLE TO ENLIST. (a) A person is subject to military duty if the person is:
(1) able-bodied;
(2) a citizen or a person of foreign birth who has
declared an intent to become a citizen; (3) a resident of the state;
(4) at least 18 and not more than 60 years of age; and
(5) not exempt under Subsection (b) or (c) or United States law.
Those exemptions are mainly holders of certain state offices.
if they decide to disarm us,they better be ready for the consequences-there are way too many of us out here who will not lie down before the socialist tyranny-and these liberal fools worry about “militias”-i wouldn’t join a “militia” for anything-what they need to really worry about are pissed off non-feminized males (and like minded females)-who is going to come get the guns?i’d like some local antigun politicos to come collect what i have and what my son has-heh heh-ginsburg will definitely vote against gun ownership-she can go to hell(she will anyway)
More likly for being the south end of a north bound equine.
Thanks for the info. I lived in CA for a while (OC, left 30 years ago) and absolutely every man I knew there hunted (fished, sailed, flew airplanes, etc). So it never ocurred to me that they would have to get a special permit just to carry a handgun. Or NOT get one, as the case seems to be.
The DC law is not worth the paper it’s written on. It’s one of those ineffective feel-good pieces of legislation that is either ignored or laughed at by the criminals whom it actually empowers.
I am enjoying the fact that this major suit so beloved of the 2nd Amendment crowd (pretty much the most macho group out there) is being brought by an openly gay guy. Who carries a handgun. Who knew?
You wrote: “Which is saying you will vote for Hillary, a sound choice, for a socialist gun grabber with no regard for teh Copnstitution,.”
Nice try. I’d never vote for Hillary.
Jim, I might be going out on a limb here, but I strongly suspect that you never won a spelling bee.
Sec. 26 That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.
State of Alabama...
Unless he too chose to plea bargain for probation. Then we'd be right where we are. Now if he'd a had a Thompson or a BAR, even a Supreme Court Justice would be hard pressed to argue that it wasn't OK to take judicial notice that those have military utility. By then the Thompson were an issue item, although still not real common, the BAR had first been used in WW-I. Or maybe he could, lots of things are possible when only one side gets to "tell it to the judge", or in this case the Justices.
...More like flies!
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.