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.
You start arguing that there are separate “rights” to keep and bear different kinds of firearms to dance around the issue of infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, and you accuse me of being a “piece of work”.
Not well regulated at all.
Then in terms of complying with the 2A, this "right to keep and bear shotguns" is just a red herring.
Nope. It's not that complicated. It's very simple, actually. In my opinion:
You have the natural right to keep and bear any arm your heart desires. No one "gives" you that right. The question is, who protects that right and to what extent?
The second amendment protects your individual right, as a member of a militia, to keep and bear arms suitable for use by a militia from federal infringement. (So say the courts.)
Your state constitution protects your individual right to keep and bear the arms defined in your state constitution. Note: If your state constitution does not protect your right, that does NOT mean you don't have the right nor does it mean the activity is now illegal.
If there is some constitutional federal law out there that affects your gun ownership, that federal law takes precedence over everything else.
What do you mean "Nope."? You did exactly that.
You bet. Leading me to ask why you brought it up.
If you were confused, my post should clarify that for you. If you're still confused, I'll try to be more specific.
The Founders discussed this in the debates and concluded that a well regulated militia was better for the security of a free state than a well armed citizenry.
You say there’s a “right to keep and bear shotguns”. Is there a “right to keep and bear a new machine gun”, or a “right to keep and bear assault weapons”?
By 922(o), that right IS infringed.
922(o) says you can't.
Well, considering that the militia is drawn from the citizenry, and well regulated begins with well armed, I'd like to see where you get that crazy notion.
Clarification: “crazy” insofar as you, RP, define “well regulated” and “militia”, which is in a manner practically indistinguishable from a “standing army” (select individuals operating as agents of the state with state-supplied arms).
The most efficient route to a “well regulated militia” is to start with a “well armed citizenry”, from which militiamen can be drawn, already armed & familiar therewith.
I already explained that. You have the right. Whether or not it’s protected, and by what, for who, and to what extent, is a different story.
In your opinion, is there any limit to the number of these separate "rights" to own different kinds of firearms the federal government can "not protect" as an exercise in "regulating commerce"?
Yes it is. But why are you looking at 922(o)? That doesn't apply to you.
922(o)(2)(A) applies -- possession under the authority of a state. As a member of the California State Militia, you may possess a machine gun under that statute.
I’ve missed you, RP. You’re a funny guy. Usually, I’m quoting Madison, and you’re quoting some New Deal era Supreme Court decision. Now I guess turnabout is fair play. As noted in my post, the Supreme Court said this about the makeup of the militia:
“These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.”
Why? Does well armed mean proficient? Does it mean practiced in the arms of the Militia? Were those citizens out practicing with their musket once a week? Once a month? Once a year?
I don't see the connection. Neither did the Founders. They said training the general citizenry would be hopeless.
Then surely at least ONE member of a state militia (by your definition) would have one. Name one.
Oh, that’s right, we’ve been over that one. You can’t.
They said training the general citizenry would be hopeless.
...which is why they made arrangements to do so, right? MA1792: every able-bodied male 17-45 to arm himself to minimum standards, and participate in periodic training?
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.