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?”
How can this apply when there is no "state"?
If there is no “state” (to wit: DC), then obviously everyone in that jurisdiction fits “who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia”.
For a great reference on the topic, see:
“SUPREME COURT GUN CASES” (Two Centuries of Gun Rights Revealed) by David B. Kopel, Stephen P. Halbrook, PhD, and Alan Korwin.
There have been lots more cases concerning Gun Rights than I expected. Pay special attention to the Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856). Who would have thought that the Dred Scott Decision would be so important as a Second Amendment Gun Rights Case? Page 149.
RamingtonStall
This an interesting way to frame the question. Miller is generally cited by the courts to advance the principle that 2A rights arise when there is “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia” [Lewis v. U.S.]Furthermore, one claim is that even if not in official militia service, the 2A reflects a principle that there is an unorganized militia as well, a possible resource for the state [see esp. U.S. v. Miller] as well as a guard against tyranny.
This militia IOW is not really solely for ‘private’ use by definition. Likewise, even if the arms are used for “private” use (again, a misleading term here), they still are “regulated” by the state in some ways. This is so even if it is not done so as part of a “state regulated militia” as such.
Finally, is “the home” an important aspect here? The dissent in a 1980s 7th Cir. case (Quilici) argued privacy rights are at stake here.
Does the phrasing of the question prejudge the case in any significant fashion?
The Heller case is one of the most important cases of our lifetime and the SCOTUS review will keep millions of Americans on the edge of their seat awaiting the decision and opinions. After decades of infringements on the basic right to self-protection (the most basic right of all living beings), we await the words of nine individuals.
Lives have been lost because individuals could not protect themselves, criminals have thrived by taking advantage of unprotected citizens, good people have suffered fees charged, delays, and official whimsy just to exercise a right, and many Americans have simply been denied a basic right. Now we may find out if the abuses will cease or if our rights enter more prolonged infringement.
Over two centuries of fighting for and championing freedom should, at the least, have affirmed such basic rights. It should never have come to this.
They probably took the case because of conflicting Circuit Court rulings. Here’s their chance to set the record straight that the 2nd Amendment is indeed what we all know it to be, which is an individual right.
Be Ever Vigilant!
This is ominous. The "question" as formulated represents a poison-pill which can be used as a pretext to destroy the Second Amendment. The conflation of the term "well-regulated militia" with "state-regulated militia" is a dangerous sophistry. The terms are not synonymous.
I think this is bad timing.
Alitto, Scalia, Roberts, Thomas - individual right
Kennedy, Bader-Ginsbugr et al - not an individual right.
The Second Amendment people should be scouring the speeches of the liberal justices to see if they have prejudiced themselves in this case by prior assumptions on the subject.
Normal people see it as an individual right, just like the other Rights; left wing control freaks, and there are many in Congress, see it as a roadblock to supreme power.
I fully expect the SCOTUS to uphold the DC Circuit Court's ruling. It appears likely that it will end up being a 5-4 decision but I really hope that it's 9-0 or maybe 8-1 with someone being selected to write a dissent just because it would look bad without one.
I do too, but it does seem to be a very narrow question limited to DC, but we will have to wait and see how it plays out in the rest of the country.
"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."
Amen.
The balance is about as good as we’re gonna get.
Some of the liberals HAVE said things to the effect of it being “individual”, even if they seem unhappy about it. We just need 1 of 5 to agree it’s “individual”.
Heck, the question itself seems to presume RKBA is “individual”...
I think it is pretty obvious that the Constitution makes a distinction between the rights of the Federal Government, the rights of the states and the rights of individuals and that it is pretty clear in the Second Amendment that this is an individual right.
Yet many libs, judges, attorneys and even some so-called “conservatives” - even in this forum think otherwise.
The SCOTUS revisionists could view “militia” as they view “cruel and unusual punishment” as being subject to interpretation in the light of present thinking.
I will be sweating this one out. You can be sure that many Church groups, liberal organizations, etc will be filing amicus curae briefs on this one.
According to this State it is,,SCOTUS is treading light on this,,
Alabama,,,:
State Constitution Article I Section 26
That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.
That's how I see it also.
Same here, I think it's time to finally get a ruling on this. Just reading up on some of the late 18th and early 19th century political thought it was obvious they believed in the individual right of the 2nd Amendment. The militia part was intended as a complementary clause and not a prerequisite to firearm ownership. For the justices to rule otherwise and against plain English would mean they view the Constitution as a living document.
"Supreme Court radically redefines millions of years of judicial precedent, experts say ruling dangerous, controversial"
Does the Court usually hear a case because they want to uphold a ruling?
Would they want to do it for a rkba ruling?
There are a lot of Democrats who firmly believe in rkba, but they are not Sup Ct justices.
I’m a pessimist. Especially after Kelo.
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.