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.
A lot of people will be wondering: why is robertpaulsen back?
How about, "A bank checking account, being necessary to the security of a household, the right of the parents to write and cash checks, shall not be infringed"?
What is being protected? Can you protect one and not the other? Do you see a connection between the two?
The preamble states that the right is protected because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
Interesting to note that the preamble does not state that the right is protected because a well armed citizenry is necessary to the security of a free state.
I noted you dodged my direct question. I merely assumed you couldn't answer it. Which is fine.
I agree.
All I'm saying is that an unorganized militia, by definition, wouldn't qualify. I don't consider an unorganized militia to be well regulated.
If the Founding Fathers didn't care, they wouldn't have added the phrase "well regulated" to the second amendment.
...you again?
What a cad!
I thought you were run out of town!
Please, stay gone next time!
This is the same non-news as we have seen over the past few days. Since when is it news that the court receives a petition and has not yet decided on cert? This is an everyday occurance.
what he said!
Then you don't think Kelo was damaging?
SCOTUS overturning Parker would be similar -- no direct harm, but it would give the green light and the justification to those who wish to undermine our rights.
"Undermine" or "correct bad laws"?
A good counter-argument with supporting documentation might do the trick.
You know as well as I that the second amendment has never applied to the states. Why do I have to tell your buddy that? Why aren't you telling him that? Seriously. Why do you let that stand without rebuttal?
You want to get rid of me? Fine. Then take over. Make me unnecessary.
That is EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS in conjunction with the whole sentence.
Something is "necessary to the security of a free state".
What is that something?
That something is "a well-regulated militia".
What is a militia?
The militia is "civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion".
How is a militia "well-regulated"?
Among other things, it is "well armed".
How can we most easily and thoroughly achieve a "well-regulated militia", which is no less than a "well armed citizenry"?
We can efficiently achieve a well armed citizenry by protecting "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".
Who are "the people"?
The people are the aggregate of individual citizens.
Who is to "keep ... arms"?
Individual citizens keep arms - their own, at their own cost, under their own control.
Who is to "bear arms"?
Individual citizens bear arms - under the organization of Congress when called up, under their own responsible discretion when not.
Ergo, the preamble (in conjunction with that which it is a preamble to) states that the right is protected because (along with the fact that it is a natural right) a well armed citizenry is necessary to the security of a free state.
"These men" being a fairly select group of individuals. In Federalist 46, Madison envisioned "... a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands ...". In 1788, that represented only 15-20% of the population.
No, but voting is included in other amendments -- the 15th, 19th, 24th, and the 26th -- and they say, "shall not be denied or abridged".
Those amendments count too, don't they?
"The people is the aggregate of individual citizens.
The militia is the aggregate of individual citizens, individually self-armed.
That was plainly the understanding of the time."
Of certain individual citizens, yes. I agree. And the second amendment protected their inividual right to keep and bear arms when they acted in the aggregate.
How "well regulated" would you consider a militia that can field nothing but shotguns?
As members of the California State Militia, the right of Californians to keep and bear M4's cannot be infringed by the federal government.
Ah. Allow me to re-phrase.
The Militia Act of 1792 described a militia that was organized, armed, trained and accoutered. The Militia Act of 1792 also said that officers were appointed by the state.
You only asked me for one!!
I do what you ask, I give you one, and then you come back and say, "Well, if that's all you got what kind of protection is that?"
You are a piece of work.
Correct.
"In the margin some of the more important opinions and comments by writers are cited. 3 [307 U.S. 174, 183] We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below and the challenged judgment must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS took no part in the consideration or decision of this cause."
If you are a member of your state's well regulated militia, the federal government cannot infringe your right to keep and bear an M4. I'm saying you can get an M4.
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.