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.
Can't bear arms against burglars, muggers, rapists and would be murderers ? The writers of the Pennsylvania Constitution beg to differ. (The language predates that of the second amendment,).
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21).
1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII.
Also that of the writers of the Vermont Constitution
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State - Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15).
The original Constitution of the Texas Republic also mentioned bearing arms for defense of self:
1836: "Every citizen shall have the right to bear arms in defence of himself and the republic. " Declaration of Rights, cl. 14.
So I'd say your contention that "bear arms" has or had a strictly martial connotation in the period is demolished.
Because the restrictions are not in the Commerce Clause. They are in Section 9 of Article I, and in several of the Bill of Rights and later amendments. Those, being amendments, override any power granted Congress in the main body of the Constitution, when their is a conflict.
Thus Congress can't regulate interstate commerce in such a manner so as to abridge "the freedom of speech, or of the press", or to infringe on "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
So you refuse to answer my question. No problem. But we are done on this thread.
Second, that 15% figure was a 1792 percentage -- it was Madison's estimate of the size of the militia. Given that blacks, women, and those as young as 18 are now allowed to vote, that percentage today is much higher.
Not according to the Founding Fathers, but hey, "living constitution" and all that, huh?
Not a problem at all. You can expect my response to loaded questions will be to "tag and bag", and not mess with them.
The analogy I used before is voting. We agree that the people, the citizens, have the individual right to vote. But it's a not a right that is exercised individually. It is exercised collectively only on certain occasions -- at certain times and places.
The process is protected which includes the right of the individual as part of the process. What good is the protected right to vote without a protected polling place (with certified ballots, judges, etc.)?
The second amendment protects the process of forming a state militia, necessary to the security of a free state. It protects the individuals, the weapons, the right to assemble, and the right to train, from federal infringement. Outside of that, our state constitutions protect our individual right to keep and bear arms.
To date, that's what the lower federal courts have concluded. But we'll see what the U.S. Supreme Court says.
God I get tired of reading your statist/socialist horse sh!t.
Are you ... worried?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH - you funny! that's REALLY dumb!
Hardly.
To the contrary, your “well...I’ll want something from you...yeah, an apology...and...something else...I’ll think of something...YOU BE SCARED BOY!” reply is frankly hysterical.
Not at all. I read that as, "The right of the citizens to bear arms in battle in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."
Well, there you go. Congress cannot regulate all guns out of existence because that would infringe on "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".
Which answers tacticalogic's question.
Yes, he envisioned the states using the Commerce Clause to resolve their differences in federal courts, rather than Congress passing a law correcting every single dispute - the "dormant commerce clause", if you will. And that's exactly how the Commerce Clause was initially used.
Of course, it was never limited to that. That's not what you're arguing, is it?
"Today we have a federal law on the books which says carrying a gun near a school is illegal because it affects interstate commerce, and you don't see that we have a problem?"
I thought it was correctly decided the first time.
Again, I don't see anything whatsoever in the Commerce Clause that lists any exceptions to what Congress is allowed to regulate. Any exceptions are decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"First. It is unnecessary to repeat what has frequently been said by this court with respect to the complete and paramount character of the power confided to Congress to regulate commerce among the several states. It is of the essence of this power that, where it exists, it dominates. Interstate trade was not left to be destroyed or impeded by the rivalries of local government. The purpose was to make impossible the recurrence of the evils which had overwhelmed the Confederation, and to provide the necessary basis of national unity by insuring 'uniformity of regulation against conflicting and discriminating state legislation."
-- The Shreveport Rate Cases, 1914
But, back on topic. Second amendment. The Founding Fathers never said or even implied that the second amendment protected "All ... who have an operational trigger finger". A living constitution, however, would allow for that.
Then that should make it easy to "copy and paste", yes? Will you do that?
This case originated in the 9th circuit. You'd know that if you weren't such a troll...
My point, if you forgot, was that "the people" did not mean every person.
No. Your point was to try and split the US population into groups. "The People" means all US Citizens within the jurisdiction of the US. As implied in the case above, it does not pertain to Mexican citizens living in Mexico.
However, it also doesn't establish any "collective" Right for anything you pathetic moron. And quite your whining about the "insults". Your very presence here is insult enough you gun grabbing, Constitution hating troll...
Are you serious? Read the second amendment.
It says, "a well regulated Militia, being necesary to the security of a free state", not "a well armed citizenry, being necesary to the security of a free state".
In Federalist 29, Alexander Hamilton said, "The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution."
"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. ... By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it."
You're making exactly the same mistake that DC is in Heller.
If they don't have those arms before battle, they won't have them in battle.
Your limitations would be fulfilled to your apparent satisfaction by the opening depiction in "Enemy at the Gates": men shipped to the front lines, handed 5 rounds just before engaging in combat, and told to go find a rifle somewhere. Why yes indeed, nobody is going to question their "right" to pick a rifle off a fallen comrade and use it in combat.
Better that every citizen be given plenty of time during peace to acquire arms and become familiar with them, lest their service be abruptly needed but the state unable to arm & train them in short order. You know, something added to the Constitution like "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". I could be drafted; if I am, I have reason to believe they'll have few arms left by then to supply draftees ... better that I show up with my M4LE in good condition and familiar therewith, rather than hope someone might have something to give me.
Your premise amounts to "RKBA by welfare state": the state decides who gets what arms when. That is anathema to the Founding Fathers, who sought a state that would facilitate strong self-sufficient free individuals.
The First clause is dependent upon the Second, not the other way around.
"In order for States to retain their Freedoms, they need militia. In order to have militia, the Right of the People of those States to keep and bear private arms shall not be infringed."
As for Hamilton, they did eventually come up with a way didn't they? The Militia Act. That is isn't "practiced" these days is not the fault of the legislation, but of anti-Constitution hoplophobes like you...
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.