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.
I think the gun control proponents will argue that if the Court upholds the ban. I’m not aware of any reason to believe it.
Or re-institute an Assault Weapons Ban, and expand the defenition of "assault weapon" to include handguns.
The would be Queen must be defeated by any means necessary, if we are to keep our rights (including the RKBA). All else must be secondary.
IF rudeie gets the nod, you might as well lock & load.
I do not think he can beat the b!tch, but if he did, we would see her policies implemented MUCH faster with the support of a few rinos than if she[it] were pushing them against a few rinos.
Ideologically weve been forced to 'choose the lesser of two evils' for so damn many long that the whole exercise is like fingernails on the blackboard.
I will NOT compromise any further to the left, just to do it again in the next cycle.
Either the party starts nominating public servants again or just go ahead and 'tag'...
Naw! Technically, "shall not be infringed" is not ambiguous.
So does anyone here disagree with UCC 703? (Unhappy Camper Code). That would be Reply 703. Is it time to issue an ultimatum or should we wait until we see what the supremes are going to do?
Piss off a Liberal Today....Buy A Handgun!!
Come to think of it they could do the same with abortion. Let abortion stay 100% legal, but the only catch is you need a tax stamp to have an abortion. Don’t tell anyone, but when we pass that, we just won’t print up any tax stamps.
Remember, shh.
I certainly don’t want a Rudy vs. Hillary matchup. I want a confirmed Conservative to battle Hillary. Who do you want to battle the would be Commissar Queen?
If the Supremes waffle and screw us:
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --
Rule .308 in effect... "Think globally, act locally..."
I love those provisions of the Declaration of Independence. Another one is the one about the right to "alter or abolish" a government. We are headed, at warp speed, toward having to invoke those provisions.
Seems like it’s might get alittle hotter:
Here in Bama,,,,long but might fit..
Man arrested for gun explains himself
In Thursday’s issue of The Andalusia Star-News, you reported a story of a man who was arrested at Wal-Mart for carrying a pistol in the store. I am the man who was arrested at that time and wish to submit to you my version of the story and some thoughts and concerns about what in fact happened from my perspective.
When people find out that I carry a gun for self defense, I am always posed with the question of “Why?” I tend to use metaphors when trying to explain my reasoning behind carrying a pistol. I carry a gun for the same reason I wear a seatbelt, have health insurance and lock my doors at night when I go to bed. I do not leave my home expecting to have a car accident or become ill, just as I do not leave everyday expecting to have to defend myself with my sidearm. I do however believe in preparing for the worst.
Any and every parent would tell you that one of the biggest fears they have is something terrible happening to their children, and I believe that my parents feel this same way. Not unlike wearing a seatbelt in the case of a car accident, I carry a gun to insure that if I come into contact with a threat to my life, I can have some hope of defending myself. The last thing I want is for my mother and father to have to bury their son because some drug addict decided his wallet was worth more than his life.
The events that took place on the morning of 9 May 2007 are what I believe to be the result of misinformation, miscommunication, and just plain confusion. The best way to explain my perspective on what happened, I believe, is to tell my entire story:
I entered Wal-Mart Wednesday afternoon in search of a summer job to help out my mother while I am home from college for the summer. As you may well know, summer days in Alabama are extremely hot, so I decided that rather than carrying my pistol inside the waistband of my pants (which is a common place for concealed carry inside of a sleeve-like holster) I would wear my hip holster that day and carry it outside. It is far more comfortable that way, and according to the Code of Alabama (which lacks any restrictions on carrying a pistol openly) and Alabama Attorney General Opinion #84-00205 is perfectly legal.
After leaving the customer service department where I filled out the application, I joined the friend who had accompanied me and we continued to do a little shopping. On the way to the auto-maintenance department, I was approached by two Wal-Mart employees (I assume either security guards or managers). They asked me to speak with them in private for a moment, so I left my friend who was chatting with a few other people we had just met and joined the two officials. They asked me if the pistol was real, and when I confirmed that it was, they informed me that it was Wal-Mart policy not to allow anyone who was not a law enforcement officer on the premises with a firearm.
After informing me that I needed to leave, I turned back around to my friend and muttered that, “It looks like the anti-Second Amendment Nazis are running Wal-Mart now, we have to leave.” As surveillance tapes will show (good luck getting a copy of them if you’d like to confirm this) I then immediately began walking to the front of the store under the supervision of the two Wal-Mart officials. During the walk to the front, I apologized to the man who asked me to leave telling him that I knew he was just doing his job and that he didn’t write the policy, but I could assure him that the policy had just cost Wal-Mart a life long customer. I then asked permission to wait outside for my friend who still had to pay for his items as he had the keys to the truck we had come in. The official assured me that that would be fine, but he would have to stay with me. As I reached the door, he and the other man stopped, and continued to watch me as I waited outside.
When my friend left the store, I rejoined him and we walked back to our truck with the intention of leaving the premises immediately. However, he was followed by a group of approximately five Wal-Mart employees who waited in the entrance to watch us leave. As we were backing out of the parking space, my friend noticed a police cruiser, driven by Officer Steve McGowin, rank unknown. We figured that the officer was there to inform me that the Wal-Mart people didn’t want me back on the premises with a gun, so we put the truck in park and waited for the car to pull up to us.
Sure enough, seconds later, the officer sped around the corner and pulled up behind us in the parking lot. He then exited his car, gun drawn, ordering us to put our hands out the windows. We both complied and my friend was dragged from the car onto the ground and put into handcuffs. I informed the officer that I was the one carrying the gun, and suddenly nearly 10 officers appeared to disarm me. I was then dragged out of the truck and thrown to the ground where I was handcuffed and left there while the officers searched their law books to find something with which to charge me.
My friend was then released and I was taken to the police station where I was booked, photographed and fingerprinted as a criminal. The officer told me that I was being charged with Disorderly Conduct because of the commotion that my arrest caused in the Wal-Mart parking lot and carrying a pistol illegally by violating Section 13A-11-52 of the Code of Alabama which states:
“Except as otherwise provided in this article, no person shall carry a pistol about his person on premises not his own or under his control;”( http://www.legislature.state.al.us/ CodeofAlabama/1975/coatoc.htm)
However, it was and is my understanding (based on the Attorney General’s opinion cited above which can be found at http://www.ago.state.al.us/oldopinions/8400205.pdf) that anyone over the age of 18 and otherwise legally permitted to carry a pistol may do so anywhere that is open to public access, unless otherwise notified by the owner/manager of any private property. My concern is that Wal-Mart did not have posted at the entrance their “No Guns” policy, so until I was notified of the policy, I had no idea I was doing anything wrong. Again, as surveillance tapes will show, once I was informed of the policy, though annoyed, I immediately left the store peacefully.
The article printed yesterday says that I entered into a “verbal altercation” and became “ugly” and resorted to name calling. I suppose my comment to my friend could have been overheard, and could be considered name calling, but, again, as video surveillance will show, there was no aggressive argument of any kind. When issuing their report, I believe that the police did not take into account any of my statements about what happened, and therefore have provided you with an unfair, unbalanced picture of me as an aggressive instigator. Innocent until proven guilty indeed...
I now am faced with a whole new set of problems. First, I have been charged with two crimes that if convicted could cost me more than $500 in fines. Secondly, if convicted of a firearms violation, I could lose my right to carry a weapon for protection. Because of the minor status of these offenses, the City of Andalusia will not provide me with a lawyer, and as I cannot afford one, I am in no position to mount any sort of criminal defense. While anyone who knows me can tell you that I would never harm any innocent person and that I would never do anything if I thought it was against the law, I am now faced with the very probable conviction of two crimes that I cannot defend myself against.
If any of your readers have any advice or would be willing to provide any assistance, I ask that they contact your office to receive my contact information. Any and all help would be greatly appreciated. I feel that as Americans, we should all hold our Constitution as sacred, and peacefully bearing arms for self protection is a right that I take very seriously. I thank you for taking the time to hear my side of the story and God bless America.
Victor Andrew Mathis
Opp..
Result:
This is the Story printed about the charges being dropped in the Andalusia Star News. It was only released in print version and was written by Stephanie Nelson.
The charges against an Opp man accused of displaying a gun inside the local
Wal-Mart Supercenter in May have been dropped.
On May 9, Victor Andrew Mathis, 18, was arrested and charged with disorderly
conduct and carrying a pistol unlawfully after he entered Wal-Mart with a
³pistol on his side.²
In a ³Letter to the Editor² printed in the May 12 edition of The Star-News,
Mathis defended his actions by stating, ³The events that took place on the
morning of 9 May 2007 are what I believe to be the result of misinformation,
miscommunication and just plain confusion.²
Before being taken into custody, Mathis alleges he and a friend were pulled
from their vehicle at gunpoint, wrestled to the ground and placed into
handcuffs.
J. Scott Hooper of Montgomery, Mathis¹ attorney, said the motion to dismiss
all charges against Mathis was granted for two reasons.
³The key point was that Andrew had a permit to carry a weapon,² Hooper said.
³According to the attorney general¹s opinion and Alabama Code, a person may
carry a weapon concealed or exposed anywhere not so prohibited.
³[Mathis] was licensed to carry a weapon and there was no sign out front of
Wal-Mart that said no guns. I can tell you I¹ve been a little more observant
when visiting the store. They¹ve got placards that says you have to wear a
shirt and shoes and you can¹t smoke, but it doesn¹t say anything about
carrying a weapon inside.²
Hooper, who responded Mathis¹ plea printed as part of his letter asking for
assistance, said he took the case strictly on a pro-bono basis.
³I too am a staunch supporter of a person¹s right to bear arms,² he said.
³But the law is the law and Andrew needed someone in his corner.²
And apparently the law has made quite the impression on Mathis. He is
currently enrolled as a sophomore at Troy University as a pre-law student
studying international relations.
³[The incident] has really led me to examine the policies of the law,²
Mathis said. ³All while instilling in me a desire to understand the workings
of our legal system.²
“WE ARE THE GUN LOBBY and We VOTE in DROVES!”
If the court decides against the 2nd, THIS could be THE issue of the ‘08 election.
I'm sayin' you're an argumentative troll, considering that post #599 said absolutely nothing about Spitser, illegals, driving, or liking any of 'em, and the only license indicated regarded handgun possession & carry. I don't know how you pulled that one out of your *. Your post is incredibly and stupidly inflammatory, akin to accusing someone of wanting to be a serial killer because they said they're tired of birthday parties at Chuck E. Cheese's.
He believes in the ban (for whatever reason). He can’t just sit back and accept it being overturned without fighting it all the way. If he accepts the DC Circuit Court’s ruling, then the ban is gone; if he appeals the ruling, then there is at least a chance that it may be restored.
“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.”
1) Why, in the Bill of Rights (concerning the rights of INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS), is one right devoted to saying the government has the right to possess weapons?
In a similar vein:
2) Why does “the people” mean “the state” in the 2nd amendment, but not the first and fourth, for example?
In the same line of thought, beating the dead horse senseless:
3) Why in the world would people as smart and forward-looking as the Founders stick a right for the government into a bill of rights for individuals (since people that self-soil at the idea of an individual right to bear arms don’t seem to think the other amendments are there for the government)?
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.