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?”
It’s not just about upholding one ruling, it’s that there are conflicting rulings across the same level of appellate courts.
It’s also a once-in-more-than-a-lifetime case for people in the legal profession. Of just 10 points in the Bill of Rights, and its 200+ year history, this is the last Big Case (TM). This is _huge_; cases of this magnitude are extremely rare. It’s just way too good for ‘em to pass up.
Indeed, especially since there is no reference to a STATE-regulated militia in the text of the Second Amendment.
Here we go.
Soon, we could all be felons.
Buy your plastic pipe before the rush. ;>)
I read it the opposite way. The SC justices know full well that the Second Amendment says nothing about a STATE-regulated militia. I think the phrasing of this question is meant to lead to an easy answer, crushing the claim of the DC government and the dingbat appeals court dissenter that DC’s non-statehood has anything to do with this.
what will be interesting to see is if the ruling also settles the incorporation issue regarding the other “individual rights”
Can you remind us of the probable timeline of events again? THanks.
I rather doubt it. However, I think we should all be thrilled that it is in fact DC that has turned out to the big SC case for RKBA. It's not like all 9 justices don't have first-hand awareness of the utter ineffectiveness of DC's draconian gun ban towards its stated purpose of reducing violent crime. They all work in DC, after all. It won't even cross their minds that there might be a crime-reduction effect associated with the particular law being challenged.
This is the same court that says CO2 is a poison. There is a big chance that they will make guns illegal.
That sounds right, but I'm not so sure, not after SCOTUS decided last year to allow private property to be confiscated to increase the local tax base, IOW, to take and bulldoze your homes for some campaign contributor's fast food joint.
When it's time to bury them, it's already time to dig them up.
ROger that.
I’m no expert, but here’s what I’ve gathered...
SCOTUS will issue its formal acceptance of the case, laying out the question and any formalities (who is involved, scheduling, etc.).
DC will submit its brief.
Heller will submit his response.
DC will submit a response to the response.
Amicus briefs will be accepted.
Oral arguments, lasting no more than 1 hour, will be scheduled and held.
SCOTUS will issue a verdict, probably with explanation, and possibly with dissent explanation, no later than 1 year from now (probably sooner).
SCOTUS will set dates and requirements in stone, all parties submitting strictly thereto.
SCOTUS will do whatever it wants.
And the rest of us rabble will spend a lot of energy in the intervening periods blathering on about stuff we don’t know.
They probably live there too - and (ostensibly) have to submit to the same laws at question, and will have to live with their own ruling.
Good point.
That is the strongest argument I think.
Yeah, I would admit when you read it, it does emphasize the militia part.
But, the fact of the matter is, it is a Bill of Rights. It makes no sense that it would not be an individual right regardless of whether one is in a militia or not.
Everyone here should inundate them with letters, emails, phone calls, and faxes, asking them to STFU--(in nice, polite language, of course).
As I see it, the question presumes an individual right as it clearly deliniates the question as setting outside anything that could be deemed a “collective right” - so in a sense, we’ve already won. The court will be hard-pressed to answer “no” to their own question as posed.
Yeah, right! (THanks for the timeline.)
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.