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.
You are right. I read more this afternoon. The justice dep spent pages talking about how things were in England to justify their position. Isn't that precisely why the FF insisted on the 2A?
Just so!
So increase your count by X times folks like myself.
From Militia Act of 1792,Passed May 8, 1792 section I (starts about halfway down the page)
That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
>>>>”A literate Electorate being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and read Books shall not be infringed.”
I’m sorry, but in a legal sense your argument is wrong.
re: the above, a much better provision would be “the right of the People to keep and read Books shall not be infringed,” without any preamble.
My handgun is CHL legal.............:o)
Bark bark bark !!!
On second thought, I’m going to rename it to UCC = Unhappy Camper’s Code.
Probably so. Some even wanted to crown George Washington the King of the U.S.
Fat lot of good that would do, they'd just ignore it like do the one we already have.
In the mid 1980s, the citizens of Nebraska, and several other states I've come to find out, added or modified RKBA provisions in their state constitutions, making it completely and unambiguously clear that the right is an individual one, and that it is not protected *just* for militia purposes.
Nebraska's provision reads:
“All persons ... have certain ... rights, among these are ... the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof.” Nebraska Constitution art. 1, sec. 1.
Sounds pretty good, doesn't it, especially when you consider that prior to that 1986 amendment, Nebraska had no RKBA provision in it's state constitution. However the state courts have refused to overturn a single gun control law on the basis of violation of this provision of the state Constitution. And there are several laws, both local and state, that deny or infringe upon the right. Such as the requirement to obtain a state permission slip before purchasing a handgun, the prohibition against going armed with a handgun, with or without a permit, openly or concealed, and even more onerous city laws. Several have been challenged, even in the state supreme court, and yet none have been overturned. It would be the same with any new RKBA provision in the federal Constitution, if the Courts refuse to enforce the current provision.
Actually the 2nd Amendment itself used the word arms with specific reason. The founding fathers (most of 'em) were certified "gun nuts" and they knew that firearms technology didn't start, nor would it end with the current technology available at that point in time. Hence the reason that the word arms is given rather than a specific type of weapon. They knew that firearms technology was still evolving, even after over 300 years. That's why our firearms are covered, including semi and full auto and why our PHASERs will one day be covered (God willing this nation will still exist)! This little bit of genius is why I always laugh at the antis who try the juvenile assertion that the Amendment -- even if it DID cover citizens firearms -- only extends to the type available during the Revolution.
Hopefully we won't have to find out. Hell of a thing isn't it? But remember the American Revolution did not spring full born on April 19th, 1775. There were years of build up, with increasingly restrictive laws, and increasing arrogance on the part of the British Parliament. Even after April of '75, the farmers were fighting for their rights as Englishmen, not to fight a revolution. It took 15 months of war to convince them that they should be fighting a revolution, not just a rebellion. Even then, only about 1/3 of the people actively supported Independence, 1/3 wanted to remain Englishmen, and 1/3 just wanted to be left alone, by both sides.
Today, we see what kind of havoc relatively small numbers of insurgents can create. And those are a bunch of camel humpers, most with little education and no ability to create anything, they even have to import "Improvised" Explosive Devices. Fewer relative numbers of more sophisticated "insurgents" could make a heck of a mess here. Which again is something NOT to wished for.
The 10th is a catch-all, making it absolutely clear that if a power/right/whatchamacallit isn’t delegated to the federal government in the Constitution, the federal government doesn’t have that power/right/whatchamacallit.
The Constitution is not absolute perfection. There is, as with any human-written document, a certain degree of “reasonable people get the point without having huge arguments about alleged obtusities.”
And that’s all I’m going to go into on that point, as it seems you’re trying to take over for robertpaulsen in getting argumentative over something that most people understand, and is sufficiently clear for the issue at hand, without getting into fierce arguments over tangents.
Well as long as they use the 3 comma and 1 comma versions, both of which can claim some degree of being official, I suppose that's OK.
But you'd have thought they'd have chosen one and then stuck with it.
That has been addressed by improved ammunition. Mk262 77gr ammo reportedly works very nicely from the shorter barrel.
FWIW: the “machine gun” was effectively invented in 1717. Go look up “Puckle Gun” - it was a sort of crank-operated cylinder-loaded 9-round muzzleloader. While not as handy as an M16, the basic premise was there. ...and, FWIW, the M16 is a 50-year-old relic with little modification thereafter - we aren’t talking bleeding-edge unpredictable technology here.
Nice find! Don't you just love it when a judge gets it right?
NTSA! Tagteam? ;0
Time to ratchet up the campaign? ;’)
But I checked, and they didn't. Instead, in their second use, they used a two comma version, which has no historical basis, AFAIK.
That just goes to show that commas or the lack thereof, are about as likely to be typos, or the hand copying equivalent thereof.
Thats brilliant! I may send that to all my latte lib friends at work. Perfect sentence!
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.