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 don't see the incongruity there? Or are you so debased that you don't care to make logical sense?
You aren't even trying to be logical here are you...
Interesting...
If things go well in SC maybe the people of the 9th Circuit will get their 2nd amendment rights back.
Militia member: citizen? or agent of the state?
Not at all. There is such a thing as the unorganized militia. That's a civilian militia that is not part of any government military force.
Didn't you know that? Gosh, that's pretty fundamental.
That’s what evades him: for all practical purposes, what he describes is an “agent of the state”, carrying out the powers of the state as an agent thereof, and NOT as a free citizen exercising a right.
Which, according to you, is not "well-regulated" and therefore enjoys absolutely no 2nd Amdnement protection.
The only rights we really lose are those we willing discard.... I hang on to what God gives me................
The section of 922 you posted deals with GOVERNMENT military. Not the civilian "unorganized" militia.
When acquiring a weapon under 922(o)(A)(2), the militia member is acting as an agent of the state.
He can’t have it both ways. Although, I do note that he tries REALLY hard...
Which is no longer considered "unorganized" and is part of the military.
You aren't even trying to make sense are you...
You've got it! Finally!
922(o)(A)(2) deals with an agent of a state. The poster told me that he's a militia member -- a member of a well regulated state militia may purchase an M4 under 922(o)(A)(2).
It's illegal for civilians to acquire M4's.
Why? If they are part of the unorganized militia as you state, it shouldn't be illegal at all...
What are you talking about? Half the states have a State Defense Force or State Guard that is organized, well regulated, and NOT part of the military.
I've also stated that "unorganized" is not "well regulated".
State guards were all rolled up into the National Guard. Or did you miss that part? This is most certainly not the "civilian" militia.
Note the discconect between the reading of Article 1, Section 8, and the reading of this part of the Code. According to him, there's no explicit restriction spelled out on the power to regulate commerce in the clause, so therefore there is none. This part of the code says nothing about "militia" - federal, state, local, organized, unorganized, well-regulated, badly-regulated, unregulated or otherwise, yet magically "well-regulated state militia" is all right there.
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.