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.
Pardon me for asking, but... Is THIS what you call “Breaking News?”
This was decided what, three weeks? a month ago??
Did YOU just now hear about this?
Were they to go one step further and require people to turn their firearms into authorities, I would expect this to be done incrementally as with their legislation and not in one massive swoop.
I, personally, prefer the M1 Abrams, but will use the handheld in a pinch.
Actually, 2A says nothing about Congress. The 1st says Congress shall make no law... (personally, I think they should have stopped after one .) The second says "shall not be infringed" and applies to everybody. Congress shall not infringe. The State shall not infringe. The County and Municipality shall not infringe. Your neighbor shall not infringe.
IOW, you can, in terms of the absolute nature of the 2nd, carry a pig sticker into the State house, a rifle onto the airplane, and a concealed sawed-off shotgun into the courthouse, and anybody who tried to stop you would be infringing.
However, if you assault with said weapon(s), there may be actions afterwards taken against you. Just a humble Constitutional opinion.
I was sad to see Santorum and others get the ax. But I think Mark Foley and Democrats constantly complaining about the war is what did Republicans in.
the other mob has no 'friends', just power hungary elitists that will do what must be done 'or else'...
the coming ruling of the supremes is huge, as was the recent local elections, and coming national elections.
Honestly Im about 'rules & regulations'-ed out. If we cant start to compromise to the right soon there wont be any choice if we are to have free children. We are already slaves, we just havent put the official policy legislation on it that outright says so.
Maybe we should all print up a copy of the original D O I and send em to the critters, although I fear that even if they attempted to act like representatives, it would only be for show as they will not give up absolute power willingly, it just aint human nature.
Play the game through the fourth quarter, and if the bullies are in the parking lot and itchin for a fight , then UCC 7.62 UCC 1911.45 UCC 12G.00 UCC .357 ...
Revised UCC update duly acknowledged.
Id like to find a conservative that I would have to compromise to the right over !!!
since that aint happenin, I really dont think the field is very strong considering the amount of pandering and fraud the toon machine will bring to bear, but Thompson/Hunter is prolly the best chance to beat her/it.
Even they will probably compromise away more freedom and only slow the bleeding a little and give an unreal sense of turning the corner...
How strange that we are practically right back where we started over 200 years ago. Doubly strange because its for the same reason. Let’s hope that history doesn’t have to repeat itself. But it’s their call, you know.
The last couple years Ive been realizing more and more that man's nature is pure egocentric and evil. While many accept Gods authority and pursue politics only as a means of helping their fellow man, unfortunately, the desire of free men in our society to politely resolve debate has slowly [boil the frog] drifted towards evil.
For every decent heart of man, there are countless souls who desire to enrich themselves without regard to Gods rules. Evil is never content to 'live and let live', the definition of evil is to destroy by any means necessary.
As such, I believe that the last couple hundred years has been simply an exercise to prove that man doesnt/cant have mans best interest at heart overall, and that evil triumphs whenever man allows it go go uncontested. the resistance slowly eroded as more lure of the 'easy life' crept into the system. evil has become more emboldened as an institution [clinton inc for example] and now its almost an overt action against free men comparable to an evil hearted 'individual' personally assaulting us. IMHO that is the point where the battle must be engaged.
The battle will come eventually, like alot of people, I would rather face it today with the tools still available than have my kids do it later with no teeth [less God graces them with victory ] against even greater odds.
The fact that the fight is a repeat of our history just reinforces my idea that He has a sense of humor about mans folly, that we cant see the forest for the trees...
Trolls do serve a function, they keep threads bumped.
I'm really late to this thread, but wanted to ditto your comment. The other purpose they serve is to sharpen our ability to debate the issues. Always good to know your enemy's tactics...
Hey smart ass....it is breaking news as of last wekk when I posted it... I'd explain, but since you are so very sharp....do it yourself...!
Wait!!!
Why do they get to move to the Bahamas???
I vote we send them to Greenland!
Mr. Redbob...
Had you bothered to read the article before you pronounced your colossal ignorance, you would have read, "The Supreme Court will discuss gun control today in a private conference that soon could explode publicly." TODAY was November 9, 2007.
....BTW...this was the 1st sentence of the article.....
Do I hear a world-wide chanting of of..........
Mr. REDBOB?
Yes, FFLs are required to keep paperwork for 20 years (at which point it may then be destroyed) but the BATFE may come in and “inspect” the paperwork at any time, including by making copies of anything and everything. Needless to say, the BATFE is pushing towards electronic 4473s, meaning, a database of purchases (make, model, serial number, + name, address, SSN), meaning, de facto registration.
No argument here.
sure does look like we’re half way down the slippery slope, doesn’t it! If the gummit were serious about finding out how criminals get weapons, they’d be recruiting us law-abiding types to help, not wacking us upside our heads....not that I’ve ever watched a criminal getting a weapon! Closest I came was seeing my (God rest his soul) old boss the day after he’d been pistol whipped by his own gun in his house...perp took gun and a car. Pretty sure the police report had as much info as a 4473 original purchase! Until a weapon is stolen that 4473 looks like so much toilet paper to me! Guess I’m thick headed!
“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.”
Now there’s some convoluted logic: the gun grabbers expect us to go to the armory to get guns to defend them (since they couldn’t be expected to know how to use them) while also expecting us to accept the repeal of the 2nd Amendment—by judicial fiat.
Incredible . . . .
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.