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.
Then stick a fork in her, America is done.
A strict interpretation of the 2A makes the right to "keep and bear" available to all (people). That includes felons, children, nut-cases- essentially everyone.
Wearing a seatbelt voluntarily, rather than face a State fine- is American.
Putting your child in a car-seat voluntarily, rather than to avoid a State fine- is American.
Owning a bar where patrons are asked not to smoke, rather than instituting a ban at the behest of the State (to avoid that inevitable fine)- is American.
Extending the right to keep and bear arms to felons does not make them more dangerous, extending the right to all others will give them pause in their pursuits, as their adversary will possess the instantaneous means to thwart them.
Children can be taught the serious concern and consideration that must be given to weapons. There may even be instances where a child has prevented or deterred a crime with a gun. An American parent is entrusted with the common sense to determine at what age this instruction may be suitable.
Nut-cases would appear at first to be a problem, however, should people of limited mental ability be defenseless? Suppose a child with Downes Syndrome reached into his mother's purse to retreive a handgun and pointed it in the direction of an attacker who his mother thought stopped to help change a flat tire, but instead, was smashing her face against the car door. Would that be a 'bad' thing?
Would Road-Rage episodes escalate into shoot-outs? No more so than losing at poker. Besides, fore-knowledge that the other driver is likely armed as well, driving might once again return to a more courteous endevor as before. Instead of flipping one-another off, you might hear things like, "Excuse me, would you happen to have some Grey Poupon?"
Looks like the anti-second amendment mob isn’t too familiar with State constitutions. If I had time I’d read a few New England constitutions to find what they say about a militia.
I would like our constitution amended to read “all citizens over 18 years.” I don’t favor that 59 year cutoff or the exclusion of women.
I am deaf in my left ear....due to a car-jacker with a snub-nosed 38.......The bastard even attempted to shoot my dog....
One must ask one's self...if the choices are death or hearing loss...what'll it be?
The jacker went on to kill 2 other innocents.
The Constitution is only as powerful as "the people" that are prepared to defend it with their lives....
Some would say we vote from the rooftops as well...
They certainly understand they can exercise a policy that would ban and infringe on our inalienable and individual right to keep and bear arms...
But try to implement it is another totally issue and problem...
I’m sure this again will be an other in a long line of irritations to some of us...
We’ll manage to be the fly in the ointment once again...
One of these days someone up there will realize we are not the problem...We are a solution...
One other thing to note...And this is kinda important...
In order to trigger the strict scrutiny test or standard, the Court would have to find that the Second Amendment is a “fundamental right” which it will not do...I don’t believe the individual right camp is even arguing that it is a fundamental right. If the “fundamental right” issue is put before the Court, we loose 6-3...That’s because no gun law - none - would meet the strict scrutiny test and the Court would know such a holding would strike down every gun law in the Country. That they will not do...
The scope of a “good” ruling from the SCOTUS...On this issue will foster litigation on its scope for many years to come...In my view, it’s overly optimistic to believe that the Democratically-controlled Senate is going to approve any “strict constructionist” judges/justices you believe the Democrat-in-Republican-clothing Giuliani is going to appoint...It will never happen...
Also, there is absolutely no support for the contention that a proven liar like Giuliani is going to appoint strict constructionist judges...
Also, don’t be fooled by labels on judges...Unless the President is willing to make covert inquiries as to how a potential judge or SCOTUS...Justice feels specifically about guns, then we know nothing...
Giuliani would never make such an inquiry!!!
Judge Robert H. Bork was clearly the most qualified, most conservative, strict constructionist judge ever nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court...He was ALSO rabidly anti-gun and anti-2A. He would have been a disaster for us...
The folks who think “Giuliani isn’t great, but he’s okay” are going to be as surprised as President Eisenhower when he saw the opinions issued by his conservative choice for the Supreme Court. — William Brennan
Brennan turned out to be the most liberal Justice in modern times...We simply cannot let Giuliani get the Republican nomination.
Would you consider an idea I discussed with a friend of mine, who is qualified to argue cases to the Supreme Court (both in Texas and U.S.), and says that my analysis is an interesting and plausible boost to the “inalienable/individual” right to keep and bear arms as enumerated in the Second Amendment???
BTW, he agrees that this is something that needs to be “kicked” around to see if it can stand on its own...He beleive that things like this take time to develop and be analized themselves, and that it may be accepted only after I have been “planted” so to speak...hehehe
The term “free state” when the Second Amendment has been written, in certain publications I have noted that the phrase is either capitalized or not...But either way if you somehow manage to apply that phrase in other Amendments it simply makes more sense that the term is referring to the individuals “state” of existence, in society...And not so much or not at all about the “State” in reference to the government, or some geographic boundary on a map...
Yours and my (and others) “free state” is in my opinion and a few others that I’ve presented this to, is more in line with the individuals existense in a society that is based upon that persons “freedom” and condition of existance in a country that is based upon an individuals freedom to exist and prosper in that society...
When the first ten Amendments were approved, it was widely understood that those Amendments were not so much a guideline for the citizenry to use as a template or other way to conduct themselves...
But they were certainly guidelines and “restrictions and regulations” to how the government elected to “oversee” the conducting of business as a nation was to be restricted and nominally unable to infringe upon a great many things that would interfere tremendously against the “freedom” of the individual citizen...
You make some fantastic points in what you posted earlier...And I am glad to have seen them...
I’m all for, and have been at the point of really desiring to “sucker punch” elected officials who seem to not get it that even though we elect them to represent us...The control needs to always be flowing towards Washington D.C. and not the other way around...
If that little burr under the saddle were to ever be an irritation again, I believe things would really run a lot better in this country...
Just my humble opinion...
JV
“Not really, folk LIKE the medicare prescription drug benefit but hate pork. The dems ran against pork and then, in less than a year, decided on record pork....
Now if the republicans are too dmb to take advantage, well, they deserve to lose.”
generally in agreement ‘hypothetically’. Practically, that’s what gave us the Pelosi/Reid communist caucus...so pragmatism dictates absolutely that the only repub ‘survival plan’ is to hold nose and pull lever “R”, just like was SOP 40 years ago.
oh, and onliest thing that made me write this was cause I really like pork...pulled pork sandwiches is my favorite. Sure wish us small Gov afficionadoes had picked a different word!
CD...
so you’re sayin’ you like the Spitser illegal drivers license?
ok, I’ll bite:
the 10th only delegates to states “powers not delegated” to the Feds....in the words of the 10th....NO Rights are mentioned. dunno why mincing of nuance here. Nuance rights are reserved for JFnK (please don’t think I’m trying to hijack thread by using that 4 letter word, no response is required whether you love’m or hate’m)
just saying!
“Sorry, but I will vote for ANYBODY to prevent HITLERY from taking office.”
yep Rule #1 at the Polls!
Rule #2 “See Rule #1”
ABC....enybuddy but clinton
Wow...10000 Gun stores near LA, who’d a thunk it.
or, if that was multiple choice I’d pick the one in Long Beach! Point made!
Oh, but then I noticed if you get much past 100 or so, most of those sites deal with confiscating guns, so the guugle bias is alive and well.
“At least the people aren’t a part of the system of “Checks and Balances.”
Oh but they are. That, in the end, is the point of the second amendment. See tag line.”
Deserves repeating....often!
I agree with every bit of that.
“Every single one of these SKSs was purchased legally but only later made subject to registration and then confisction.”
How about Mosin-Nagants?
just askin’...ie, how far back do you have to go to be legal? then go to store and buy! but that’s just me!
-ccm
Deserve’s repeating...often. The irony is that this country of cult worshipers may be about to VOTE FOR their own suicide (unlike the countries below):
“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!”
then right after the Constitution we had the Tories, many of whom moved to the Bahamas ...now if we could get the communist caucus to move to the Bahamas............
Actually, I read the 10th as another People’s Right...the Right to find solace that there are two large organizations who can hold the Feds accountable, ie, 1) the People, and 2) the States. At the time, the federal government was understood clearly to be an organization severely limited in scope to ONLY those powers specifically designated to it by the States in the Constitution, as amended.
the creeping bureaucracy we have now was never envisioned by the Founders. In that one way perhaps I’m an idealist, and not the cynic people think I am!
or as another famous statesman once said:
“a liberal is a conservative who hasn’t been mugged yet.”
and there are a whole lot more muggers now for each of us muggees than there were when that was said!
oh, and the corollary:
Dem = Mugger
Repub = Muggee, per McCarthy...did I mention McCarthy was right?
and no where in that statement should you interpret a “victim card” being played. A victim, like a subject or slave, is often a willing accomplice. Some muggees are simply unsuccessful (sometimes) defenders against a mugger. Other muggees welcome the opportunity to practice our latest defense against a mugger.
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.