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."
What things KLINTOON has wrought! May his own afflictions last as long as she has.......
“BURY YOUR GUNS, DEEP!”
By
Lhatsov Amunishun
THAT IS GREAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Goes with the “Rusty Bedsprings” by I.P. Nightly, kind of books, but that’s GREAT!)
Just FYI ... Anthony Kennedy ... long time clamper ... member of LSD3 Lord Sholto Douglas chapter Auburn Ca
I found long ago that questions like you pose can be easily answered by substituting "car" for "gun". Do that, and see if your question sounds reasonable.
Examples: "CARS kill X teenagers and children annually, so only police and emergency services should be able to own them."
"Criminals can readily find CARS to use in their crimes, Commonly they steal them, so you shouldn't have a CAR in your home."
"CARS are commonly used by depressed people to commit suicide. There should be a national registry so clinically depressed people can't buy CARS"
Correct - gun rights people oppose violence. The reporter is a liar.
Punish the criminal, not the property.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE
Meanwhile, FNC contributor judge Andrew Napolitano was prepared with the actual facts, stating that since 1976 (when the current gun D.C. gun laws were passed) the D.C. crime rate has risen every single year but one.
Napolitano also said the case looks very good for our side.
The framers of the constitution, 35 state AGs and a majority of Congress have come out in favor of Heller.
If the Robed Masters overturn this, they will be going against the intent and will of the writers of the Bill of Rights and the will of the people to recognize their rights.
Now if this was a case about a thugs who killed a cop, you can bet Ginsbug, et al, would be falling all over herself making sure that that “rights” were recognized.
Do you support Chicago’s gun ban?
Choice Votes Percentage of 843 Votes
Yes 368 44%
No 475 56%
This is unscientific, but thank you for sharing your perspective in this poll.
Second Question: The police return the gun to the rightful owner and leave. The perp gets a harsher sentence.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
The local Washington government, of all people, is evidently clueless as to how the history of the 14th A. has clarified how we are to interpret the 2nd Amendment.
As evidenced by John Bingham's discussion of the scope and purpose of the 14th A., Bingham being the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th A., all the Constitution's privileges and immunities, including those defined in the first eight amendments have been applied to the states via the 14th Amendment.
"Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, fourteenth amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as contradistinguished from citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States. --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4nSo there is no doubt in my mind that the 2nd and 14th Amendments protect the personal right to keep and bear arms from the federal and state government as much as any other constitutional privilege and immunity protects other personal rights.
Well, yes and no. You have a right to not be unjustly punished. The Amended Constitution grants a right to a fair trial as a form to protect that right. Likewise, there is a right to attempt to pursuade and inform the government and your fellow humans. The Amended Constitution provides the form of the First Amendment, mechanisms for voting, and several other forms for protecting and exercising your inherent rights.
“Does that make it unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate...to say no handguns here?” Breyer said.
“Reasonable” or “unreasonable” - in your estimation or anyone else’s - is not the question, Bonehead. The question is “What does the US constitution say?” Period. End of story.
I'll answer that with another hypothetical: What if somebody steals your car and uses it in a bank robbery?
Given that the USSC determines there is an individual right in D.C. v. Heller which the history of the 14th A. has already decided in favor of Heller anyway, then what part of "shall not be infringed" doesn't the USSC understand?
Is that the crack head the DC voters re-elected, or did they finally get rid of him?
How do you all feel about raising the mandatory sentences for crimes where a gun is involved (robbery, assault, and worse)?
And in a similar vein, what about as gun owner who has their weapon used in a crime they didn’t commit (a kid takes a parent’s weapon from a secure locale and does harm)?
Please no flaming, no anger. I don’t own a gun, nor do I have kids, so I’m really intersted in what law-abiding gun-owners have to say.
Thanks.<
How do you all feel about raising the mandatory sentences for crimes where a automobile is involved (robbery, assault, hit and run, drunk driving, kidnapping, and worse)?
And in a similar vein, what about as automobile owner who has their automobile used in a crime they didn’t commit (a kid takes a parent’s automobile from a secure locale and does harm)?
What is it about guns that makes you shake? Have you ever slaughtered a cow on your own property. Did you club it to death with a steel crowbar or humanely shoot it in the brain with a .22 rifle.
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.