Posted on 11/20/2007 10:14:54 AM PST by ctdonath2
After a hiatus of 68 years, the Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to rule on the meaning of the Second Amendment — the hotly contested part of the Constitution that guarantees “a right to keep and bear arms.” Not since 1939 has the Court heard a case directly testing the Amendment’s scope — and there is a debate about whether it actually decided anything in that earlier ruling. In a sense, the Court may well be writing on a clean slate if it, in the end, decides the ultimate question: does the Second Amendment guarantee an individual right to have a gun for private use, or does it only guarantee a collective right to have guns in an organized military force such as a state National Guard unit?
The city of Washington’s appeal (District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290) is expected to be heard in March — slightly more than a year after the D.C. Circuit Court ruled that the right is a personal one, at least to have a gun for self-defense in one’s own home.
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?”
But they could/would be allowing D.C. registration to stand.
Now how many here think court approval of your rights to defend self,family, and home is good IF registration of your guns is the price?
I,for one, believe registration is the tool by which government knows where to confiscate anything,from guns to printing presses.
Meanwhile, I’ll be praying for a Federal-level Castle Doctrine.
That would solely depend upon which way Kennedy flops.
A fragile reed upon which to pin one's hopes, I fear.
Kennedy could see his inside-the-Beltway social life evaporate if he decides the "wrong" way...
Meaning you can count on four Justices to exercise self-deception and outright stupidity -- Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer and Stevens.
In the end, it will be Anthony Kennedy who will determine what our gun rights are...
It goes to the very foundation of why governments are instituted. But specifically in this instance, it also is an argument that like every other thing in the Constitution called a "right" the RKBA belongs to individuals, not the government, at any level.
While true, they can not rule on the question of whether the DC code sections violate the second amendment rights of individuals, without ruling if individuals have such rights, and without at least hinting at what those rights might or might not be. If they don't have any such rights, then the opinion will be very short, if they do, then it should contain an analysis of why the DC code does or does not violate those rights, which will give at least an outline of what those rights are. IOW they can rule 3 basic ways.
1) Individuals have no RKBA.
2) Individuals have an RKBA but the code sections in question do not violate them. (This is the tact taken by many state Supreme Courts in regards to even much stronger RKBA provisions)
3) Individuals have an RKBA and one or more sections of the code violate them, and thus violate the Second Amendment.
I'd say:
You seem to be correct. The very wording assumes that there are "Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia." Just as the Second Amendment itself assumes that the "Right of The People to keep and bear arms" exists, and states that it is not to be infringed.
I can imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth over in the Brady camp.
The makeup of the Court has changed since then. Kelo was decided, that is the ruling issued, on June 23rd, 2005. Alito joined the Court in January of 2006. It might change again before this case is heard, even if that only means one or more Justices are unable to take part, even if they don't formally resign, or kick the bucket or are not yet replaced.
Some of them anyway. You might have to "beat feet" to fast to take them all, or any, with you. Then you'd need to dip into the cache. Very, very cautiously.
How do you think a Supreme Court decision in this matter will affect the several state constitutions that appear to define the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right?
All in good time, all in good time.
But if they rule that it's an individual right, and based on the Miller rulings "Militia suitable arms are protected", it's going to be awfully difficult for a future court to rule that the same individual weapons issued to the military can be banned from keeping and bearing by members of the group, "The People".
In a way the Court should not have to rule on whether the right is an individual, because if it weren't, the Miller court would have ruled that his keeping of even a militia suitable weapon was not protected because he didn't formally belong to any state organized militia.
Since the wording of "the question" seems to indicate that the rights are those of individuals, the court might just rule on whether the DC code sections in the question violate those rights. Hopefully that would in some way define what the Courtthinks those rights are, and what it would mean for a law to infringe upon them.
These last two are proved as bogus quotes. The supposed "Washington" quote is part of a larger one that mentions things that had not yet come on the scence, and that 99% thing sounds like an Ivory Soap commerical, not GW. The Jefferson "quote" does sound like Jefferson, but no one has been able to find it in any of the various "collected works" of TJ, I've looked in two collections myself, with no joy.
The Court is now split 5-4 on most issues with the liberals having the 5. We all know how Stevens, Breyer, Ginsberg, and Souter will vote. The only opinion in question is Kennedy's, and given his recent enthusiasm for honoring international law above the US Constitution I seriously doubt that he will vote for the individual right interpretation.
If the Court rules in favor of the corporate right interpretation, a precedent will have been set that pulls the teeth of the 2nd Amendment and will eventually lead to full fledged gun control in the US copied directly from severe European gun control laws.
No it doesn't, it protects a right of the people. The right of the people is protected because a well-regulated militia is necessary ... , but the right is "of the people" and not the militia.
The language of the Second Amendment makes clear that it refers to a pre-existing right. Nothing in the Second Amendment itself would be able to modify what that pre-existing right was.
Remain calm, all is well. And btw, John Roberts will write the majority opinion enshrining himself with the founders.
Feeling much better after the institutions in defense of liberty have embraced the battle. I can just see Chief Justice Roberts lining up everyone behind his lead opinion.
It may be the greatest joy he’s known. Really admire him.
You're exactly right. I am very much afraid that we gun rights advocates will live to regret the day that this case came before the high court. Just one strike and you're out in this game.
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.