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.
The Constitution was written to grant regulatory powers for the purpose of ENHANCING individual rights, not limiting them. There is nothing in the “collective rights” argument which enhances the lives of individual citizens, only the enhancement of gov’t power over compliant subjects.
To a very precise end: I could be called up for national defense - but most assuredly when I’m called up (at 39, I’d be among the last called, and that under extremely dire circumstance) the gov’t won’t have much in the way of arms to hand out; under the “individual right” theory I’ll just bring my own which I already am familiar with, but under the “collective right” theory I’d be SOL on the front lines until I found what another dropped, with the hopes I could figure it out in time.
To wit: the “collective right” argument does nothing to enhance my ability to protect the nation.
FYI: Brady Goodthink, doubleplusgood
Doctors
(A) The number of doctors in the U.S. is 700,000
(B) Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year are 120,000
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 17.14%
Statistics courtesy of the U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services
Guns:
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000 (yes, that’s 80 million)
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.001875%
Statistics courtesy of the FBI
So statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners
Remember, guns don’t kill people, doctors do! (And there’s nothing in the Bill of Rights about them either.)
Another way of presenting it:
We all pretty much agree that the government is somehow delegated the power to “regulate” traffic, dictating which side of the road to drive on, behavior at stoplights, what signs mean and what people are supposed to do when encountered, the “right on red” allowance (or disallowance under certain conditions), vehicle sizes & standards, driver education minimums, etc. Surely we can all agree that traffic is, indeed, “well-regulated” in this country: you can own whatever vehicle you want and use it how you want, subject to certain rules which on the whole improve our collective experience of driving.
A “well-regulated militia” presumably is similar: everyone can own and use what they want how they want, so long as rules of direction of fire, safe carry & storage, ammo standards, user education minimums, interchangability, etc. all designed not to hinder usage, but to maximize usability and collective effectiveness.
‘troll’ No, not at all, I’m trully sympathetic with the plight of cbkaty, et al, on the Texas border...and 2A in general.
‘obtuse’ maybe. I guess I really didn’t see where the Pataki thang fit in @ your #599 to begin with...so let’s just say I honestly think we were both ‘out of the blue’ on that whole exchange, and I unilateraly take mine back!
‘apologetic’ sure, didn’t mean any offense at all, believe me. Not a NYer anyway, so no dog in the hunt there at all.
‘back to 2A’...
“...guns dont kill people, doctors do!”
You’re wise beyond your years...my grandfather told me (and anyone who would listen) that in the ‘50s. Great stats.
Oh, and I pretty much avoided doctors my whole life, thanks to him...
My point (apparently obtuse) was that all too often I’ve seen RINOs do more damage than Democrats precisely because they automatically get the support of enough Republicans to pass Leftist agendas.
To spin your post in a useful manner: Spitzer is having trouble with his licensing scheme partly because there’s a (D) after his name, and thus automatically is opposed by the (R)s; RINO Pataki probably could have passed the same scheme without difficulty because he’s an (R).
Many people tell stories about their pasts. I don’t think he has to fear prosecution. Better, anyway, to be judged by twelve...
Don’t know how I missed this one. Good post, Gilbo_3!
thanks, I’m trying to stay accepting of the situation we face today as His will, and some days its tough to go on with everyday stuff cause in my very fiber I see the writing on the wall, but it may be eons before the shtf has to happen...
Good health habits solves a lot of problems and keeps the smell of the infirmary at bay. Kudos to your father for wisdom.
Some of us just naturally have bad health habits or suffer from some genetic malady requiring a close association with medical teams and hospitals. I shudder when I count the times I've been under the knife, but over-all, I have to give the doctors and medical profession excellent grades. T've had to call upon them more than twenty times in my 78 years to extend my lease on life. I still have a whole list of major medical problems that haven't been addressed as yet, but happy to say at this point even if they fail the next time, I've had more than my share of oxygen, good times, and have fulfilled my 'production quota.'
May God bless everyone in the health and medical fields and care givers, especially for the skillful hands of the surgeons.
(I know I ain't gonna die soon. I owe too damn much money! ;<)
That's a good perspective for inner peace. For outer peace, other things may be required. I'm sure you'll be at your 'battle station' if and when that day comes. Meanwhile, keep those decks holystoned! ;>
“(I know I ain’t gonna die soon. I owe too damn much money! ;<)”
best insurance policy you can buy!;)
I too am indebted to VA health professionals, and (more or less) worship the ground they walk on....just can’t make the same claim out in the ‘real’ world!
Fox covered the Brady gungrabbers side this am....not so fair and definitely not balanced Fox mighta knowed sumpin we didn’t. The only ‘fact’ they gave was that we oughta know by 10am if the Supremes would hear it.
So where does that leave ‘the DC case’? Case closed? guess I’ll haveta use one of them great sites Publius gave us!
Looks like what I figured they’d do anyway...
Tease the unwashed by just saying they’ll take a look at it, and then say nahhhh, we need a little more time before we “really: look at it...
Folks...If I was right about this one...Then I highly recommend spending some fundage on ammo, additional “toys”...
And keep them handy...Make as many off the book purchases as you can as well...Thats not illegal, nor inappropriate...
Because with this delay, you can almost bet that the SCOTUS will not even conceive looking at this again till after January 2009...
If the Dems win the WH, we’ll see a mass exodus of aging associate justices (Ginsburg, Souter, Kennedy; gone) of the liberal persuasion, and installed, the newer younger liberal/living document supporting justices to counter our conservative justices...
We probably won’t get another shot at the SCOTUS for decades...
So as far as I am concerned...I’m philosophically ok to stand pat on gun-rights at the Federal level...For now...
Like I said before, the way it could have been presented could have been real bad for us...That court was not a lock in our favor...And this was too important to leave to chance...
So lets see what else is talked about, and see what happens...Patience...
I’m doing my part...ccw in two states!! Just call me, “ol Shep”.
Cheers
Guess I’ll have to be satisfied by my State CCW with the biggest reciprocity list, and stay away from the states that don’t! And like others have said, and perhaps you agree, the Supremes may have done us a favor, as it becomes a litmus test for the election for most of us!...not to mention a Death Knell for Juli Annie.
With, as you say, so little to gain and so much to lose, I don't understand the rush to get this issue before the U.S. Supreme Court.
I see the issue was addressed.
Sure, there were sharpshooters using rifles. There were also cannoneers using cannon. Calvary riding horseback.
But the average Militia member had a musket.
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.