Court agrees to rule on gun case

SCOTUSBLOG.com ^ | 11-20-07 | SCOTUSblog

[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?”

[CDHart]

I never thought they'd rule the way they did on Kelo vs. New London.

Carolyn

[tacticalogic]

At least one of them inadvertently reminded me that I wanted to pick up a copy of The Screwtape Letters for my son for Christmas.

[William Tell]

robertpaulsen said: This "pre-existing right" you keep referencing -- are you referring to an individual right to self defense with a weapon? And that this pre-existing right to self defense with a weapon is protected by the second amendment?

Do you or do you not agree that the Second Amendment refers to a pre-existing right to keep and bear arms?

Do you or do you not agree that the Pennsylvania Constitution refer to a pre-existing right to keep and bear arms?

Or do you claim that these two documents created the rights to which they refer?

If you agree that there is a pre-existing right, then please tell us how you know that it does not include self-defense?

I showed how the US Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution, authored almost simultaneously, both refer to this right? How do you justify believing that the pre-existing right in the US Constitution is different from the pre-existing right referenced in the Pennsylvania Constitution?

[William Tell]

robertpaulsen said: The first amendment doesn’t limit the protection of speech or the press or religion. It does limit the protection of the right to assemble to “the people”.

You have noticed a difference in the wording of the protections of these rights and you assert that the difference constitutes a "limitation" in the case of the right to assembly.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to point out the various ways in which this perceived "limitation" is evident.

How would or nation's laws be different if the First Amendment had included "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of peacable assembly"?

[William Tell]

robertpaulsen said: "... because it means that right has been violated now for over 200 years, wouldn't you agree? And how is that possible?"

In another posting I pointed out that it is more like 75 years.

But why don't you tell us how long a right must be infringed before it ceases to exist? Is a century long enough? How about a decade?

The answer to your question, is that it is possible for our rights to be violated for lengthy periods of time because there are people like you who will twist the meaning of words to accomplish your own ends, regardless of what the words actually mean.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

Perhaps you would be kind enough to point out the various ways in which this perceived "limitation" is evident.

What I got out of robertpaulsen's reply was that the right to peaceably assemble only applied to rich property owners as they constituted in his mind "the people". Yet in the history course I took on women's rights from the Republic's inception women assembled for a redress of grievances for all kinds of political causes including suffrage, temperance laws, and greater spousal rights. There is absolutely no case law that I know of where they were denied this basic constitutional right on the grounds they didn't qualify or were not considered as being part of "the people".

[robertpaulsen]

You just won't answer the question, will you? But you expect me to answer yours, I bet.

"How do you justify believing that the pre-existing right in the US Constitution is different from the pre-existing right referenced in the Pennsylvania Constitution?"

The right? Or the protection of the right? The right exists. It's a natural right. No one gives it to us.

The different constitutions protect different rights. One individual. One collective. The wording is totally diferent.

[robertpaulsen]

"You have noticed a difference in the wording of the protections of these rights and you assert that the difference constitutes a "limitation" in the case of the right to assembly."

You didn't notice that?

"Perhaps you would be kind enough to point out the various ways in which this perceived "limitation" is evident."

The real limitation is evident by the wording. Kind like Article I, Section 2 that refers to "the people" electing house members. It doesn't say "persons" or "citizens" does it? Probably because not all persons are allowed to vote. Not even all citizens are allowed to vote, are they?

So, by inserting the phrase "the people", there's a very real limitation, isn't there?

Do words mean things to you, or do you just stick in your own definition to fit your preconceived notion of what you think the Founders really meant?

"How would or nation's laws be different if the First Amendment had included "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of peacable assembly"?

You sure do re-word the Constitution alot. I'm going to stick with commenting on the original wording.

[robertpaulsen]

"In another posting I pointed out that it is more like 75 years."

Oh. Well. That's different.

"But why don't you tell us how long a right must be infringed before it ceases to exist?"

I don't think a right IS being infringed. You do. So you tell me.

"The answer to your question, is that it is possible for our rights to be violated for lengthy periods of time because there are people like you who will twist the meaning of words to accomplish your own ends, regardless of what the words actually mean."

Those bastards!

[Reaganwuzthebest]

So, by inserting the phrase "the people", there's a very real limitation, isn't there?

Then how do explain the Militia Act of 1792 that you so persistently bring up? In that they required ALL able bodied male citizens to be enrolled in the militia and to possess a private firearm. They certainly didn't think then and only 3 years after the Constitution took effect that "The People" were property owning voters solely but at the very least entailed ALL males between 18 and 45.

Somehow I don’t think you’ll be carrying on about the Militia Act very much in the future because it points out the inconsistency of your arguments.

[robertpaulsen]

"Then how do explain the Militia Act of 1792 that you so persistently bring up?"

Explain what? I never said the Militia Act defined "the people".

"In that they required ALL able bodied male citizens to be enrolled in the militia and to possess a private firearm"

All able bodied white male citizens, 18-45. Congress established that as a minimal Militia requirement.

Certainly that included "the people", who were white male citizen landowners.

I'm sure there were white male citizen landowners who were not Militia members. I'm sure the were Militia members that were not landowners. I'm sure there were Militia members who were not white. So?

If the Founding Fathers wanted to protect the right of citizens to keep and bear arms (as you're suggesting), they would have said so in the second amendment.

[William Tell]

I said:"How would or nation's laws be different if the First Amendment had included "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of peacable assembly"?

robertpaulsen said: "You sure do re-word the Constitution alot. "

And you sure do avoid justifying your claims. You claimed that the protection of the people's right to assemble was "limited" due to its wording being different than the wording of the protection of free speech.

You say things but then fail to back them up.

[William Tell]

robertpaulsen said: "The different constitutions protect different rights. One individual. One collective. The wording is totally diferent."

I say that the pre-existing right of the people to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment and in the Pennsylvania Constitution both include defense of self, family, community, and state.

Why don't you tell us whether you believe the right was pre-existing and what it consisted of? Is that so really hard for you?

I think you refuse to answer because courts have stated that the right was pre-existing and therefor any claim that the militia clause limits the pre-existing right is illogical nonsense.

[Lurker]

If the Founding Fathers wanted to protect the right of citizens to keep and bear arms (as you're suggesting), they would have said so in the second amendment.

They did.

Apparently you have difficulty with standard English.

So here is the 2nd in toto:

A well regulated militia being a necessity to a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Therefore the Fathers didn't intend to enumerate the right to bear arms merely for citizens. They could have easily written that word into the Amendment.

Instead they said "the people". They didn't say "the States" or "Free white landowning males" they said "the people".

They said that because that's what they meant.

Your lies, distortions, and obfuscations of this simple, clearly worded Amendment are tiresome.

L

[William Tell]

robertpaulsen said: "If the Founding Fathers wanted to protect the right of citizens to keep and bear arms (as you're suggesting), they would have said so in the second amendment."

You're in the minority here in believing that the Militia clause limited the scope of the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms. Are your rules of grammar different from other peoples'?

[Reaganwuzthebest]

Explain what? I never said the Militia Act defined "the people".

But you did state that in post 236. Here is what you said:

If we're looking for the original meaning of "the people" in the second amendment, then 1792 is the place to go. We have the Militia Act telling us exactly who was in the Militia.

You seem to be backtracking from your earlier statements now because you're locked into the interpretation of white property owners only as defining "the people". It's an important distinction because as far as I know women too were protected under the BoR from the very beginning as they were considered citizens of the US as were non-property owning males.

You are free however to show me case law that says otherwise or provide a precedent whereby they had no such rights. The only ones I'm aware of involve slaves who were not considered citizens.

[William Tell]

robertpaulsen said: "I don't think a right IS being infringed. You do. So you tell me. "

You don't think the DC handgun ban and the prohibition against working firearms is an infringement of the rights of the citizens of DC? That's truly amazing.

You're on record as saying that a person's right to keep and bear arms is to be protected by their state. So the people of DC lack firearm's rights because DC is not a state? Do they lose freedom of speech, too?

[robertpaulsen]

"You claimed that the protection of the people's right to assemble was "limited" due to its wording being different than the wording of the protection of free speech."

Yeah, I do. The wording IS different. Or is your copy of the first amendment different than mine?

" You say things but then fail to back them up"

Coming from you, that's rich. Anything to back up your "75 years of violating an individual right" claim? Nada. Zilch. Zero.

Let's see. Different wording. OK. How about this? Madison's original wording for the first amendment's right to assemble was:

"The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the legislature by petitions, or remonstrances for redress of their grievances."

He seemed to be pretty adamant about using the term, "the people". Then again, given how he evisioned the right to assembly would be used, who but white, male citizen landowners would have a need to have this right protected?

You sure are getting nitpicky -- delving into first amendment issues. Care to get back on topic?

[William Tell]

robertpaulsen said: Coming from you, that's rich. Anything to back up your "75 years of violating an individual right" claim? Nada. Zilch. Zero.

So you don't believe that today's prohibition on the manufacture of machineguns for civilian use, an extension of the NFA 34, violates the individual right to own such machineguns? Again, you are very much in the minority around here.

Sometimes you claim there is no right.

Sometimes you claim the right is only for militias or states.

Sometimes you claim that there is a right, but it must be protected by the states.

I don't think I am alone in being unable to make sense of your position.

I'm still trying to get you on record regarding whether the pre-existing right mentioned in the Second Amendment included self-defense.

[robertpaulsen]

"I say that the pre-existing right of the people to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment and in the Pennsylvania Constitution both include defense of self, family, community, and state."

Gosh, I'm sure it also includes hunting, collecting, sport shooting, competitive shooting, and a whole bunch of other pre-existing rights. Yes? No?

"Why don't you tell us whether you believe the right was pre-existing and what it consisted of? Is that so really hard for you?"

I think I just did. But I'll go ahead and repeat what I said just a few minutes ago in my post #267 to you: The right exists. It's a natural right. No one gives it to us.

"I think you refuse to answer because courts have stated that the right was pre-existing and therefor any claim that the militia clause limits the pre-existing right is illogical nonsense."

The militia clause doesn't limit any right. It limits the protection of the right. It protects the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms as part of a Miltia. State constitutions protect the other preexisting rights.