Posted on 03/18/2008 9:45:02 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court appeared ready Tuesday to endorse the view that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own guns, but was less clear about whether to retain the District of Columbia's ban on handguns.
The justices were aware of the historic nature of their undertaking, engaging in an extended 98-minute session of questions and answers that could yield the first definition of the meaning of the Second Amendment in its 216 years.
A key justice, Anthony Kennedy, left little doubt about his view when he said early in the proceedings that the Second Amendment gives "a general right to bear arms."
Several justices were skeptical that the Constitution, if it gives individuals' gun rights, could allow a complete ban on handguns when, as Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out, those weapons are most suited for protection at home.
"What is reasonable about a ban on possession" of handguns?" Roberts asked at one point.
But Justice Stephen Breyer suggested that the District's public safety concerns could be relevant in evaluating its 32-year-old ban on handguns, perhaps the strictest gun control law in the nation.
"Does that make it unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate...to say no handguns here?" Breyer said.
Solicitor General Paul Clement, the Bush administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, supported the individual right, but urged the justices not to decide the other question. Instead, Clement said the court should allow for reasonable restrictions that allow banning certain types of weapons, including existing federal laws.
He did not take a position on the District law.
While the arguments raged inside, advocates of gun rights and opponents of gun violence demonstrated outside court Tuesday.
Dozens of protesters mingled with tourists and waved signs saying "Ban the Washington elitists, not our guns" or "The NRA helps criminals and terrorist buy guns."
Members of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence chanted "guns kill" as followers of the Second Amendment Sisters and Maryland Shall Issue.Org shouted "more guns, less crime."
A line to get into the court for the historic arguments began forming two days earlier and extended more than a block by early Tuesday.
The high court's first extensive examination of the Second Amendment since 1939 grew out of challenge to the District's ban.
Anise Jenkins, president of a coalition called Stand Up for Democracy in D.C., defended the district's prohibition on handguns.
"We feel our local council knows what we need for a good standard of life and to keep us safe," Jenkins said.
Genie Jennings, a resident of South Perwick, Maine, and national spokeswoman for Second Amendment Sisters, said the law banning handguns in Washington "is denying individuals the right to defend themselves."
The court has not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment in the 216 years since its ratification. The basic issue for the justices is whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
Even if the court determines there is an individual right, the justices still will have to decide whether the District's ban can stand and how to evaluate other gun control laws. This issue has caused division within the Bush administration, with Vice President Dick Cheney taking a harder line than the administration's official position at the court.
The local Washington government argues that its law should be allowed to remain in force whether or not the amendment applies to individuals, although it reads the amendment as intended to allow states to have armed forces.
The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because "handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia."
Dick Anthony Heller, 65, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection. His lawyers say the amendment plainly protects an individual's right.
The 27 words and three enigmatic commas of the Second Amendment have been analyzed again and again by legal scholars, but hardly at all by the Supreme Court.
The amendment reads: "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."
The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights.
Chief Justice John Roberts said at his confirmation hearing that the correct reading of the Second Amendment was "still very much an open issue."
...if you can hang with the initial flogging...
You must have been a very bad person. =) (j/k)
Besides, "shall not be infringed". Give the bastards an inch and, well, here we sit.
But agreed, aimed fire - long distance aimed fire - is the way to run a backyard fireworks show.
Well I’m for stricter sentences across the board. I would have alot more prisons operating, maybe more than some here would want, maybe less.
Our justice system has created and continues to create a new class of citizens, the criminal class. They cause harm, get caught (hopefully), get convicted (hopefully), and imprisoned. Unfortunately in many cases these people become more dangerous, and then they are released into our civilization to pick up where they left off.
Could be gang bangers, could be twisted individuals, I would prefer they were sent away for long stretches.
2-5 for robbery? make it 12-15. 5-10 for assault? 20-25.
rape? murder? life sounds good to me.
Too much?
Blacks don't want more prisons and longer sentences, but look who is the victims those particular criminals. HEL-LOOO!
The problem is that the government fills the prisons with too many people who are comparatively harmless, rather than keeping in prison those people who really need to be there. It also gives a free pass to some government personnel who really deserve prison.
If the DC ban stands, all is lost.
If the case is remanded with a lesser standard than "strict scrutiny", then there will soon be a "blue" America and a "red" America, with little in common.
I see little to suggest that Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, and Alito will join in a "mealy-mouthed" decision.
The weakest decision I see is for an individual right and a punt on the level of scrutiny, with a statement that ANY LEVEL OF SCRUTINY bars the DC ban. Roberts has expressed the opinion that these decisions should be no broader than is necessary to address the issues before the Court.
The worst of all worlds will be if Kennedy joins the four communists and votes to permit disarming of the American people. There will be little that one could call "mealy-mouthed" about that.
I believe that the four conservatives are too strong to be dragged off point by Kennedy. They may have to compromise the scope of the decision, but not its correctness. If that happens, I foresee a separate concurring opinion from the four conservatives, demonstrating very clearly how important it will be to control future appointments to the Supreme Court.
Let's rephrase slightly and see if this passes the smell test:
Let me try rephrasing that too: "Does that make it unreasonable for a city with a very low birth rate...to say no abortions here?"
It wasn't so many years ago that the citizens of Birmingham overwhelmingly supported segregation and Jim Crow laws. And going back a little more in time, the citizens of Charleston overwhelmingly supported enslaving the Negro race. Were those justified as well Mr. Mayor because that's what the citizens overwhelmingly wanted?
“When there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them.”
Atlas Shrugged
I think the ol gal was right on the money with this one.
Welcome to FR
If it comes to CW2, our semi-autos would be enough to procure an ongoing supply of full-autos from govt stocks.
That would be the plan. The ammo itself would be more critical.
No, but it should at least get rid of the boatload of academia BS about how the 2nd Amendment is meant for the state's militia.
Yes, It is my true desire to cut a large layer of BS off the top.
If it comes to CW2, I would expect a non-trivial supply of full-autos from govt stocks to transferred by their "custodians".
You bet.
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.