View Full Version : Reuters: U.S. high court to rule on D.C. handgun ban
KintlaLake
11-20-07, 12:50
U.S. high court to rule on D.C. handgun ban (http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN2052735920071120)
Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:20pm EST
WASHINGTON, Nov 20 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court said on Tuesday it would decide whether handguns can be banned in the nation's capital, a case that could produce its first ruling in nearly 70 years on the right of Americans to bear arms.
The nation's highest court agreed to hear an appeal by officials from the District of Columbia government arguing that the city's 31-year-old law banning private possession of handguns should be upheld as constitutional.
The justices said they would review a precedent-setting ruling by a U.S. appeals court that broadly interpreted an individual's constitutional right under the Second Amendment to bear arms and struck down the city's law for violating those rights.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case most likely in late February or in March, with a ruling expected by the end of June. The decision could be a factor in the political debate in the 2008 elections.
Supporters and opponents of the law, one of the strictest in the nation, agreed the case could have important legal and political significance.
The Second Amendment says, "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."
City lawyers argued the amendment guaranteed the right to bear arms only in connection with service in a state-regulated militia, like today's National Guard, and not for individuals.
But the appeals court adopted the position that the Bush administration has advocated previously -- that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms.
The justices, in their decision to take the case, rephrased the issue as whether provisions of the Washington handgun ban violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals "who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes."
The Supreme Court has not ruled on the scope of the Second Amendment since a 1939 decision when it upheld a federal gun control law but did not definitively resolve the constitutional issue.
# # #
Edited to add link to SCOTUS docket page for District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290 (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/07-290.htm).
sonrider657
11-20-07, 14:43
I predict a great victory for the 2nd Ammendment!
KintlaLake
11-20-07, 14:55
In another thread, and before SCOTUS agreed to hear Heller (then Parker), another forum member offered an excellent take on the implications of this case. It's worth repeating a couple of excerpts here:
If the Supreme Court denies review and lets the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision stand, then the D.C. Circuit's ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual right will apply to Washington, D.C. only. While other courts may find the D.C. Circuit's decision and reasoning persausive, they would still be free to disagree and find that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right. ...
Basically, it is better if the Supreme Court accepts review and upholds the D.C. Circuit's decision, as that make it the recognized law of the land that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.
If they overturn the D.C. Circuit's decision, on the other hand, that would be very bad.
I am hopeful that the Supreme Court accepts review of the case, as I don't think the composition of the Court will be more favorable to our position for the foreseeable future... .
Is the "D. C." a State of the USA? Is it a state of the "UNION"?
If not, how is it governed by the "United States of America"?
Is it like "Guam" ect?
District of Columbia? Who's "Columbia"?
KintlaLake
11-20-07, 15:28
Is the "D. C." a State of the USA? Is it a state of the "UNION"?
If not, how is it governed by the "United States of America"?
Is it like "Guam" ect?
District of Columbia? Who's "Columbia"?
Interesting questions, actually, which are addressed in this commentary (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/court-agrees-to-rule-on-gun-case/) on scotusblog.com. Notably:
The Court did not mention any other issues that it might address as questions of its jurisdiction to reach the ultimate question: did the one individual who was found to have a right to sue — Dick Anthony Heller, a D.C. resident – have a right to challenge all three of the sections of the local law cited in the Court’s order, and, is the District of Columbia, as a federal enclave, even covered by the Second Amendment. While neither of those issues is posed in the grant order, the Court may have to be satisfied that the answer to both is affirmative before it would move on to the substantive question about the scope of any right protected by the Amendment.
Here, according to scotusblog.com, is the language SCOTUS used in agreeing to hear the case:
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?
I'd like to get some corroboration of Don G.'s assertion:
...the Supreme Court can still decide to dismiss without comment or render a decision...
It's been (and is) my understanding that when SCOTUS agrees to hear a case, it will rule on that case -- but since my understanding is always evolving...anyone?
This is a fight I've been waiting many years for.
Business_Casual
11-20-07, 16:21
Be careful for what you wish, it could go:
Individual Right Pro: Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito
Individual Right Con: Ginsberg, Souter, Kennedy, Stevens, Breyer
It's hard to know.
M_P
KintlaLake
11-20-07, 16:37
Be careful for what you wish...
Word.
I think it was Mike Huckabee who cautioned Republicans who are anxious for Hillary to get the Democratic Party nomination: "You may want what you get, but you might not get what you want."
Same applies here. It's in SCOTUS's hands now.
I would have rather seen the Supreme Court let the Appeals Court ruling stand.
another fellow over on fsn pointed this out and i qoute
Something that is not commonly understood:
During the time the 2nd amendment was written the word "regulated" was not used as it is today. At the time "regulated" meant "in good working order". If you don't believe me find a 1770's English dictionary and look it up!
Thus another way to spell out the Second Amendment is "A militia in good working order being necessary to the security of a free state......." That makes it pretty cut and dry------INDIVIDUAL RIGHT!!!!! un quote
:eek: wow who woulda Thunk well lets old our breaths and see .......
My own guess is little will change. They will rule pistols, rifles and shotguns are protected and individuals can own. They will not touch NFA. They will not touch CA ban on handguns, AWB Laws, Import Laws, registration schemes, etc.
Little will change for the majority of us. Both sides will claim victory. A few people in DC and Morton Grove will now be able to buy a handgun, if they can find a dealer selling them...
_______
My prediction is they will strike down outright bans, but will not touch regulations.
KintlaLake
11-20-07, 19:23
Welcome to the M4Carbine.net Law Library. :D
Obviously, by virtue of SCOTUS agreeing to hear DC v. Heller, the case is well down the road. All petitions and briefs, as well as the petitioner's reply, have been filed with the Court.
Parties filing amicus briefs: the American Academy of Pediatrics (http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/07-290_cert_amicus_aap.pdf), also on behalf of the Society for Adolescent Medicine and Children's Defense Fund; the American Civil Rights Union (https://www.theacru.org/amicusbriefs/Heller-v-DC-cert-argument.pdf); and the Solicitor General of New York (http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/07-290_cert_amicus_states.pdf), also on behalf of the states of Hawaii, Illinois and Maryland.
Edit: Link to amicus brief filed by the National Rifle Association (http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/nra_amicus_parker.pdf) at the appellate level (then Parker v. District of Columbia).
BushmasterFanBoy
11-20-07, 19:41
another fellow over on fsn pointed this out and i qoute
Something that is not commonly understood:
During the time the 2nd amendment was written the word "regulated" was not used as it is today. At the time "regulated" meant "in good working order". If you don't believe me find a 1770's English dictionary and look it up!
Thus another way to spell out the Second Amendment is "A militia in good working order being necessary to the security of a free state......." That makes it pretty cut and dry------INDIVIDUAL RIGHT!!!!! un quote
:eek: wow who woulda Thunk well lets old our breaths and see .......
I thought that was obvious... well regulated simply means well trained, possibly even using standardized equipment.
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?
...this is the only question they'll address...
But it's enough...
The other questions will still have to be addressed as suits are filed and the process will be repeated for each...
...I would still rather know where we stand before the election...I'd rather not have them just allow the appeals decision to stand, I'd rather they tell us flat out what they think of us and draw a line in the sand...http://emoticons4u.com/smoking/rauch06.gif
I can't wait to see how the candidates start to dodge whether they stand for or against this decision...It's gonna' be a hellava' year...that's for certain...
Joseywales
11-20-07, 21:27
You never know what your going to get with the SC. The way I see it, it can go 3 ways.
#1) SC rules so narrowly and vaguely that there is virtually no impact or change to anything. Everyone left disappointed and SC happy that they really didn't do anything.
#2) SC rules that it is a collective right or that states or fed can ban or regulate gun ownership, transport, possession, ect. States start to ban guns and the Michigan "Militia" swells its numbers 1000X and starts looking for a fight. Things start to get ugly. America becomes more polarized than ever.
#3) SC rules that states and fed cannot ban guns or regulate ownership/Carry on private property. But public establishments under DIRECT control (not roadways, parks, ect), government can regulate possession. Everyone happy except banners. Eventually they get over it. Most states and fed start to fight crime. Population less polarized. Some senators move to remove 2nd Amendment from the Constitution. This becomes the new rally cry of the libtards. More and more establishments (Airports, ect) declare themselves goven't establishments in order to control arms possession.
Josey you've lived in Illinois too long.:D The fact that the court decided to hear this case allone is amazing. Unfortunately it could bring on the largest betrayal of the constitution in history. The country seems to be leaning back to the left again and I think all of the so called Conservatives are about to shaft us all. Of course I may be wrong so if I am. My Bad.:rolleyes:
I'm particularly interested in how this may result in the incorporation of the Second Amendment just like all the others (except Fourth), and possible ramifications for the concept of "full faith and credit" between states with regards to a person's ability to carry a concealed handgun under ANY state's permit (see: driver licenses).
Be very careful here....you license privileges, not rights. Privileges have no Constitutional safeguards and can be revoked at any time.
Very true, but we've already chosen to license this right...I've got the permit in my wallet to prove it. Although it wouldn't really be a step forward, perse, I wouldn't complain if incorporation of the 2nd Amendment allowed me to carry in any state under my Colorado CCW permit.
The problem, though, is the fact many, many more court cases will be needed to determine to what extent this ruling will affect the nation as a whole.
I have been waiting for a case like this to come before the supreme court for a long, long time. This case will make or break the Second Amendment. If it breaks it, prepare for CIVIL WAR.If it dosen't our rights will remain intact for all our children,I pray to GOD for the later.Our country is facing a gathering storm of enemies and we don't need to fight amongst ourselvs. Lets all hope for a good outcome.
If the district of columbia is not a state or U.S. territory then what do they call it! And if they have total home rule that sounds like something out of a George Orwell novel!
This case will make or break the Second Amendment. If it breaks it, prepare for CIVIL WAR.
Civil War occurring over the SCOTUS decision to uphold the D.C. ban is more wishful thinking than having any basis in reality.
There is no good civil war (or any war). I think a large percentage of us have fought in war(s) and have seen first hand how it destroys a nation and a People.
Those who believe in the U.S. Constitution will follow our system of government (as laid out in the Constitution). Here we have a perfect example of checks and balances at work. We will fight for sure, but in the election booths and in the courts.
Exactly - when Jefferson suggested that we should have a revolution every generation, he wasn't implying the use of violence. We had our first revolution in 1776, our second in 1787, and none since. I don't know that it's time for another, but it's safe to say that John Locke and our Founding Fathers are turning in their graves right now...
I thought this was a pretty good analysis of what may come.
Link to Story (http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article4053.html)
Buckeye Firearms Association Legislative Chair Ken Hanson Esq. has offered the following examination of the Supreme Court's decision to review the D.C. Gun Ban case. Please keep in mind that the announced decision is basically one sentence, and it is hard, verging on folly, to read into the decision much insight.
The Heller Decision - Some Initial Analysis
The following really amounts to nothing more than educated guessing at this point, and simply represents one person's musings.
The Supreme Court limited the case to the following issue:
Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 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?
This is completely reading tea leaves, but the particular issue that they limited this case to is one sentence packed with four important points:
1. "...violate the Second Amendment Right of individuals..."
2. "...who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia..."
3. "...handguns and other firearms..."
4. "...for private use in their homes."
1. It appears the court has already indicated the Second Amendment is an individual right, and will rule as such. This has always been my reading of the prior Miller decision. The collective rights view will be summarily dismissed and the court doesn't want a bunch of time spent on whether the Second Amendment is an individual right versus a collective right. Being highly educated men and women, if they wanted a generalist brief on whether the Second Amendment was a collective right or an individual right, they would have asked for it. Words such as "Is the Second Amendment an individual right or a collective right of the states?" would have been used. Instead, they asked for whether the dc gun ban violates "the Second Amendment Right of individuals." That portion of Second Amendment argument appears to have been decided in favor of the individual rights view.
2. Lord, here we go again with the Militia. Their Order seems to be worded as the court not wanting to waste time arguing about who is or isn't in a militia, which necessarily means they don't view this issue as controlling. By saying they want the argument limited to people who are not affiliated with a militia, they indicate the being in the militia or not is immaterial. This case will not be decided under some obscure section of law defining militia membership, the Court seems to want to resolve the issue independent of the militia being material to the right or not. i.e. they don't want to revisit the issue if the definition of the militia changes, militia statues are withdrawn or something similar.
3. It appears that the Court wants to talk about firearms in general. This is important, because DC has been trying to say "we can ban handguns so long as we let you own rifles or shotguns." This appears to me to indicate that they aren't going to get into a Miller-type of analysis, a firearm is a firearm for the purposes of this Second Amendment decision.
4. This is the most problematic point as far as getting a broad pro-gun decision, but honestly it is one that the Plaintiffs asked for and welcome. This ruling will be restricted to use of a firearm in your own home. This is probably the cleanest, easiest route home for gun proponents. We aren't going to have to talk about guns in schools, guns in bars or whatever other sort of horror show the Bradys want to dream up while trying to determine whether or not this is a right and what it protects. The threshold issue will be determined (is it a right or isn't it) in the cleanest environment possible. Homes have always enjoyed the strongest presumption of protection and privacy, and this is the most secure environment to get the right established. My GUESS is that there is a majority of justices who are willing to rule for pro-gun advocates, perhaps even a unanimous group, but only if it is strictly limited to inside the home for the first round decision. The hardcore group of pro-gun justices want the camels nose in the tent as strong as possible, so the compromise that was made was that this case would be limited to just a nice, clean issue of in your own home, which they can all agree upon.
We have everything to win and nothing to lose. The courts in the past have ALREADY generally ruled in favor of "collective" over "individual" right in regards to the 2nd Amendment, including the Supreme Court way back.
If the court changes it's mind here, then that's HUGE. If not, then we're par for the course at this point.
Even with the "militia" argument however, I find that the Anti's argument falls apart. I personally do not feel that the National Guard fills the role of the state militia. It's too closely involved with the federal military - and the Fed call the the Guard all the time now, regularly. They have become an extension of the regular military and are not really under state control anymore, at least most of the time.
Think about - can a state elect to disband it's National Guard entirely? Is it a federal requirement to maintain the National Guard? If the purpose of the "militia" is to provide the states with a force seperate from the federal army, and the Guard is the "militia" - then why would the Feds require a Guard (if they do)? If they require it, it's for one reason only - because they treat it like the Army Reserve.
My personal thoughts have always been that the Guard should NEVER be called up for federal service OUTCONUS - and should purely be reserved for "homeland" (I hate that term) defense.
KintlaLake
11-23-07, 13:14
Here's today's edition of Non Sequitur (http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/) cartoon, for those who appreciate such editorial wit. ;)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v337/kintlalake/NonSequitur.gif
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.