Supreme Court to Take Up DC Ban Case

MSNBC ^ | 11/20/2007 | n/a

[Pyro7480]

Breaking now!

[kidd]

I have a good feeling about this

[LoneStarGI]

Just broke over DRUDGE REPORT as well.

Breitbart Link:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8T1I6H80&show_article=1

[DCBryan1]

PING!

BANG!

[goldstategop]

The U.S Supreme Court is finally going to have to look at the long-ignored Second Amendment and decide what the right to bear arms finally means.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Halls]

Just wow!

[Pyro7480]

From http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jZOi0QxIZk7wY8br0MHhsEz-wL-wD8T1I5LG0

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the District of Columbia can ban handguns, a case that could produce the most in-depth examination of the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" in nearly 70 years.

The justices' decision to hear the case could make the divisive debate over guns an issue in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections.

The government of Washington, D.C., is asking the court to uphold its 31-year ban on handgun ownership in the face of a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban as incompatible with the Second Amendment. Tuesday's announcement was widely expected, especially after both the District and the man who challenged the handgun ban asked for the high court review.

[Petronski]

I cannot imagine the Supreme Court possibly getting this right.

I’m sure the dissent will be a thrill to read, but that’s cold comfort.

[coloradan]

Crossing fingers. (Shower later.)

[coydog]

They must have finally gotten the courage to deal with it. Of course, they would have to realize that an unfavorable verdict would have a good portion of the population riled up.

[DCBryan1]

Best case: the second amendment means what it says;

Worst case: Jefferson was right, and its time to water the tree.

[Parley Baer]

With Roberts leading the court we have a good chance of winning. Now if everything went by the Constitution as written and not a “living document” this would be a slam dunk.

[rednek]

I hope your good feeling is correct. This case scares me to death...imagine the possibilities. The court strikes down the 2nd ammendment as an individual right and then the evil one is elected President....how long will our rights continue to exist. Fear the government that fears your guns!

regards - red

[DuncanWaring]

IBrp.

[this is my name not yours]

I feel very uneasy about this. I’m getting my watering can ready.

[DCBryan1]

I have a bad feeling about this

Worst case: Jefferson was right, and its time to water the tree.

Paging Henry Bowman.....paging Henry Bowman.

[Resolute Conservative]

Time to go and buy more ammo.

[rightinthemiddle]

I guess the question is: What is Anthony Kennedy going to do?

[oldfart]

As many have suggested, the question was re-written by the Justices to cover as narrow an issue as possible.
From the SCOTUS Blog:

“The Justices chose to write out for themselves the question(s) they will undertake to answer. Both sides had urged the Court to hear the city’s case, but they had disagreed over how to frame the Second Amendment issue.

Here is the way the Court phrased the granted issue:

“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?””

I think they’re trying very hard to cover their butts.

[DuncanWaring]

Ping.