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.
OK, El Gato,
as a historian, you’ve found a new word for me: “firelock”. I’ve seen flintlock, wheel-lock, snaphance, box lock, dog lock, Spanish lock, and match lock, but never firelock. Had you seen that before anywhere but in the Militia Act?
as were they aware that the burgeoning ‘arms industry’ was a good chunk of the GNP and employment at the time...and was equally necessary for national ‘security’. “the first US Government pistol, the Model 1799 flintlock, had been a direct copy of a French design of 1777. (French and Germans used barrel bands. The English hard joined the stock and barrel, and were only accurate to about 20 ft.). Springfield and Harper’s Ferry Arsenals were producing weapons around 1794. dunno if they were also producing dueling pistols or not...if we’re lucky we’ll get back to that form of peaceful debate soon. ;)
And I'm sure the folks owned and used guns as part of their daily lives long before the American Revolution or the Bill of Rights/Constitution.
They didn't feel they needed permission to own and use guns or defend their lives whereever they happended to be when they were attacked. Many still live that way. If 2A wasn't on the books it would still be that way, I'm sure. The 2A must hae been an after-thought, but a vital one written to insure that the new government would never forget that they were accountable to the people, who retained every right and means to keep their elected officials from acting outside the narrow confines of their mandate.
Lot of gun owners in the Los Angeles area. Until the P.C. members of the county Board of Supervisors shut it down, we even used to have the country's largest gun show west of the Mississippi.
permission to use your eloquent 2A defense,sir!
and ask to make one change:
“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.”
to
Children should be taught the serious concern and consideration that must be given to weapons. There are instances where children have prevented or deterred crime with a weapon. An American parent is entrusted with the common sense to determine at what age this instruction be given and on what birthday they get their first weapon. At that point common sense will show a carry permit is excess baggage.
or equal!
Is it true that, although the government doesn’t (can’t) retain purchase paperwork, it can obtain records from gunshops which retain them for a long period of time? Can the government do this without a specific court order pertaining to one particular individual? Thanks.
well, at Long Beach you definitely have the largest marina west of the Mississippi! (I was ‘house shopping’ there last month) Seems to be a real ‘friendly’ town. Do you know off the top of your head whether the City of Long Beach is gun friendly or gun ban oriented...just asking (rhetorically, if you don’t have the info).
the various fed/state/county/city/burough/district/PUD laws/regulations are all over the map on that issue. In Florida’s case, one generous lawyer publishes a book every year attempting to keep up with this morass of confusing/conflicting issues related thereto. Perhaps some states are even less gunfriendly...we at least now have Castle Doctrine, and Stand your ground in law...as to record keeping, who knows? Every now and then an anti-american newspaper editor publishes a list of gunowners he weaseled out of some anti-American bureaucrat. Usually at little cost to himself and serious cost to many others. Apparently, ‘that’s American’ nowadays...g’luck in your quest.
This sounds like obtaining a new firearm suitable for militia duty would be practically impossible for the average citizen.
Think the stupid part far outweighs the "honest". I would feel no compunction about lying to the devil.
The one thing I really don’t understand here is why the new D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty is taking this all the way to the top after the D.C. Circuit Court ruled against him. He has sold himself as the man to turn the District around. He is doing a fairly good job in other areas. Why should he fight tooth-and-nail for gun control?
The only possible explanation is that the DNC and 527’s have ordered him to fight the case if this obviously ambitious, young Dem politician expects their help in the future.
Massa’ has spoken.
Quibble for you there, FRiend. In 1911 there was no nation called Turkey. It was the Ottoman (or more properly Osmanli) Empire. Hardly a democratic society, and the emperor, who was also the Caliph of Islam, was most assuredly not a democratic leader.
while Im not effectively 'regulated' to take pre-emtive action, the defensive reserve will stand with you...
So long as we agree that theres only One Master with the authority to revoke rights, then we are unified...
Okay, I gotta know where that question came from ???
Technically, all Congress needs to do is say you need a tax stamp to own a handgun, then simply not print up any tax stamps. That’s a full proof method to get around the 2nd amendment.
Without question. That was always a 'given.'
Sure wish I’d not sold all my guns...........:o)
Ulius Louis Amoss had some really good ideas. Do not allow those ideas to be muddied up by the Louis Beam BS versions of the Colonels skills.......
Stay safe !
Vote with your dollars and your time !
Flush Congress 2008 !
dont bet on it if rudeymcrinomy gets nominated...
Notice it’s a DC case (which by default will apply to all the 50 states?)
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.