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.
Yeah, don’t ya know that you’re “allowed” to keep long guns in DC - as long as they are rendered inoperable to the point of uselessness in an emergency.
Except that to you, "the people" is only whoever is allowed to vote (remember, voting is not a right), "keep" does not include personal ownership but instead mere custody of gov't property, "bear" is only in active service under the direction of state-appointed officers organized by the feds, and "arms" is whatever the state deems appropriate for combat.
Ergo, that "right" can be limited to gov't-owned flintlocks handed out to conscripts entering active combat. No?
No. Done it before, and you just ignore it. If you didn't understand/accept it the first time, repetition obviously won't work because repetition obviously hasn't worked.
Some people just can't let go of their delusions. Who knows, maybe he really is a Brady Shill and is being PAID to obfuscate things on forums like this.
What I don’t understand is how he spends SO MUCH TIME at this.
I've answered that before and you just ignore it. If you didn't understand/accept it the first time, repetition obviously won't work because repetition obviously hasn't worked.
Then again, I have gotten the feeling over the years that Bobby is a government worker/clock puncher. "Work" for him is probably a paper shuffle as part of our Nations bureaucratic nightmare...
Your list contained non-citizens. Why are you twisting my words?
He's got the bureaucrat's attitude about government power down pat. They'll always argue in favor of the most sweeping and absolute reading of government authority, because that authority is, by proxy, their authority. That's why you should always be skeptical of any bureaucratic opinion on government power - they have an inherent personal interest in twisting it to their advantage.
I'm responding to YOUR posts. I should ask you the same question!
Plus, I went away for 4 days and you continued to post! What a flaming hypocrite.
My list contained one non-citizen. What of the others?
No, you haven't answered: I keep asking about 922(o) vs. M4s, and you keep ducking. There are none in private hands, and you can't demonstrate otherwise legally or practically.
It took us that long to catch up with your blatherings. Things were settling down until you returned and made up for those 4 days.
Each of us is just responding mostly to you.
You’re responding to each of us, an order of magnitude more posts than anyone else.
Yup. Only bureaucrats demonstrate that “government first” axiom, not realizing that it’s really “people first”.
If they are incapable of voting or if they are not allowed to vote, how can you say they have a "sufficient connection" with this country? They're not connected. They're bystanders.
When someone complains about the government but says they don't vote, what's your reaction?
Anyways, that's who the Founders were talking about. If you want to include others, be my guest.
And this now makes the third time I've told you that 922(o) doesn't apply.
"There are none in private hands"
Private? You said militia member. Make up your mind.
922(o)(A)(2) allows a member of a well regulated state militia to keep and bear an M4.
It's amazing the things you're able to "see" in the text when you want to.
As opposed to what? Your way of simply refusing to see the first clause?
As opposed to the dogmatic assertion that whatever is not explicitly declared in one place must not exist anywhere when it suits 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.