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’ve also stated black is white and up is down and that things that can’t be infringed are damn well infringeable via your idiotic Brady logic.
This, despite the 9th and 10th Amendments. Yes, I know.
Yep...Kelly Wright must be Fox’ token liberal wacko....everything that came out of his mouth was a lie! And No One at Fox & Friends called him on them. Kirin Chetri(sp) used to be their token lib. Now she can show her true colors at CNN...Neither Fox nor CNN is worth the air time.
“You don’t think this gun ban is for the criminals do you?”
Note that you can take that question 2 ways....and the one way: yep the gun ban is definitely benefiting the criminals who don’t have to guess who owns guns! They only have to worry that they may be breaking into another criminal’s house, in which case they’ll get blown away (by their own gun of course, wink).
“Hence the brilliance of Leftism: it’s not about being right, it’s about not shutting up.”
Brilliant observation!
Hmmmm. Texas must not have heard that. Nor did Georgia nor did 20 other states.
"The Texas State Guard (TXSG) is one of three branches of the State Military Forces of Texas, reporting to The State Adjutant General and under the command of the Governor. The other branches of the State Military Forces of Texas are the Texas Army National Guard, and the Texas Air National Guard."
"The Georgia State Defense Force (GSDF, GASDF, or SDF) is a military unit of the Georgia Department of Defense, serving in support of the national and state constitutions under direction of the governor and the adjutant general of the State of Georgia. Members of the Georgia State Defense Force serve alongside the Georgia Army National Guard and the Georgia Air National Guard."
Just when I thought you couldn't get any dumber Bobby...
Me? You're the one saying that "unorganized" is "well regulated".
You are the only one trying to draw that distinction. Everyone else just reads it as "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"... regardless of whatever organized/unorganized status they may be in.
What? Where are you coming up with these?
One last time. And I mean one last time. I said members of a well regulated state militia may purchase an M4 under 922(o)(A)(2). I gave the State Defense Forces as an example of a well regulated state militia.
I said NOTHING about some civilian unorganized militia.
So... you admit that in your view, civilians have no RKBA and that despite the "right of the people", it isn't the Right of the people you advocate but the Right of Government military agents ONLY to have such a "right".
Which lines up perfectly with the Democrat and Brady Campaign talking points.
Well, there's your problem. Everyone I know reads it as, "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."
(Hint: That's where people get the "well regulated" from.)
Giving an example of WHY the RKBA should no be infringed in no way limits that right to only militia service.
You've been told this a number of times now. Let it sink in for once.
Never have. I have said that the second amendment does not protect the RKBA of civilians. That right is protected by their state constitution.
Despite the clear language of the Second Amendment stating that the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You still insist that said "People" are just select government agents.
This runs contrary to everything the Constitutional Convention and the 1st Congress discussed and ratified. You are aware of this, and yet you persist.
Are you sure it's because he's dumb? If your objective was to get firearms out of the hands of ordinary citizens and under exclusive control of the government would you do or argue anything differently than what he has?
You're the one calling them that.
I'm calling them members of a well regulated state Militia, and I'm saying their right to keep and bear arms is protected from federal infringement by the second amendment because they're necessary to the security of a free State.
Then bobby says, You're the one calling them that.
So... despite the prohibition being general, you still insist that its only "certain" people, acting as government agents, that have this Right. Despite there being tons of evidence that the "People" is all people within the jurisdiction of the United States as it is everywhere else in the Constituton. And despite the debates between the Founders about how best to protect an INDIVIDUAL Right.
IOW... you are just another anti-gun moron with an agenda.
If the objective was to get firearms out of the hands of ordinary citizens and under exclusive control of the government, I'd get people convinced that the second amendment protects their RKBA ... then pull a nationwide Washington DC gun confiscation move, leaving the residents wondering, "Wha happened? I thought the second amendment protected my rights!"
Admit it. You guys work for the VPC, right? I bet you know Sarah Brady personally.
I don't believe you're dumb enough to think Washington could execute a national gun confiscation. Too much at once. This is a "divide and conquer" strategy. One state at a time.
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.