U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Rule on Right to Own Gun

[pickdog]

U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Rule on Right to Own Gun (Update2)

By Greg Stohr


Nov. 20 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether individuals have a constitutional right to own firearms, agreeing to decide an election-year fight over the District of Columbia's decades-old handgun ban.

A ruling against Washington would give gun-rights advocates a long-sought legal victory and raise question about weapons restrictions in New York, Chicago and other cities. The high court has never directly said whether the Constitution's Second Amendment covers people who don't belong to a state-run militia.

The justices will review a lower court decision that struck down Washington's ban and said the Second Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable restrictions on their right to own firearms. The decision marked the first time a federal appeals court had ever voided a law on Second Amendment grounds.

``Having a handgun, whether in the home or outside it, comes at the expense of the safety of those who may be victims,'' Washington and its mayor, Adrian Fenty, argued in the appeal. ``Whatever right the Second Amendment guarantees, it does not require the district to stand by while its citizens die.''

Washington's 31-year-old gun law, perhaps the strictest in the nation, bars most residents from owning handguns and requires all legally owned firearms to be kept unloaded and either disassembled or under trigger lock. Six district residents challenged the law, some saying they want to keep handguns in their homes for self-defense purposes.

`Functional Firearms'

The restrictions ``amount to a complete prohibition of all functional firearms within the home,'' lawyers for the residents argued. ``The challenged laws are thus an absolute negation of the people's right to keep arms.''

The residents joined the city in urging the Supreme Court to hear the district's appeal.

The justices will hear arguments next year and most likely rule in June, in the midst of the U.S. presidential campaign. The case promises to be one of the highlights of a nine-month term that already includes disputes over the rights of Guantanamo Bay inmates and the legality of executions by lethal injection.

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.''

How the court will construe that language is largely guesswork. The justices last considered the Second Amendment in 1939, issuing a ruling that both sides in the debate now claim as support for their position.

Thomas and Scalia

Justice Clarence Thomas hinted in a 1997 case that he was receptive to the individual-rights approach, and Justice Antonin Scalia made similar suggestions in his 1997 book. Chief Justice John Roberts said during his 2005 confirmation hearings that the 1939 ruling ``sidestepped'' the individual-rights question.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled in March that Washington can't ban all handgun possession in the home. The 2-1 decision said the Second Amendment protects a right that ``existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self- defense.''

Washington's decision to appeal to the high court represented a gamble for gun-control advocates. The lower court decision applied only to the nation's capital, while the Supreme Court decision probably will have nationwide impact.

Kennedy's Role

``We are nervous,'' said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a Washington-based group that chose not to join the city in asking the court to hear the case. Helmke said in an interview the case might produce a 5-4 decision, with swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy determining the outcome.

In a statement, Helmke said the ruling will be ``the most important decision on guns in nearly 70 years and maybe the most important ever regarding the Second Amendment.''

The National Rifle Association similarly didn't take a position on whether the court should get involved. The organization said in a statement that it plans to file a brief before the court hears arguments.

Washington contends that the Second Amendment applies only to weapons used in the service of state-run militias, such as National Guard units. The city also argues that the amendment restricts only the federal government, not the states or the District of Columbia.

`Reasonable' Limit

In a third line of argument, Washington contends that even if residents can invoke Second Amendment rights, the handgun ban should be upheld as a ``reasonable'' limit on those rights. The city says it doesn't bar ownership of rifles or shotguns. The handgun ban doesn't apply to retired police officers.

The justices first considered the gun case at their private conference on Nov. 9. They postponed taking any action until they had met again this morning and had modified the question presented by Washington's appeal. The court will consider the rights of individuals ``who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes.''

The notion that the Second Amendment protects individual rights has gained credence among scholars in recent decades. Harvard's Laurence Tribe and Yale's Akhil Reed Amar are among the constitutional law professors who have taken that view. The Bush administration has also embraced the individual-rights approach.

Still, most U.S. appeals courts to consider the issue have said the Second Amendment is aimed at protecting state militias. Only the D.C. Circuit and the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit have taken the individual-rights approach.

Reducing Crime

Critics say the Washington law has been ineffective in reducing violent crime. The number of murders in the city peaked at 482 in 1991, up from 188 in 1976. The city recorded 169 homicides last year.

The group challenging Washington's restrictions originally consisted of six city residents. The D.C. Circuit said only one member of that group, Dick Heller, could sue because the others hadn't applied for a weapons permit. Heller, who works as an armed security guard at a federal government building in Washington, says he wants to keep a handgun in his home.

``D.C. has high-crime areas,'' said another member of the group, Gillian St. Lawrence, who said she keeps a disassembled shotgun in her home. ``For most of the 30 years that this law has been in effect, it's been the murder capital of America.''

The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.

To contact the reporter on this story: Greg Stohr in Washington at gstohr@bloomberg.net .

[vis-à-vis]

The fight is on!!!

[angelatc]

It's really going to suck if they decide against the 2nd Amendment. The fact that it is even considered an issue makes me almost cry.

[Dequeant]

Which is why i'm buying them up now and i'll be using them if they come for um!

BTW, a ccw lets you buy without a backround check and/or waiting period, w00t.

[10thAmendmentMan]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5317257.html

This'll be the first 2nd Amendment ruling by the SCOTUS in 70 years. I also believe it'll be the second in the history of the US.

[10thAmendmentMan]

Does anyone know how soon this case will start?

[Dequeant]

Supposedly the verdict isn't expected until June.

Either way, i'm buying up now. I do recommend black rifles (ARs) since bolt actions and whatnot will not fare very well in a large engagement. Also.....ammo, you can never have enough of it.

[axiomata]

Will an increase in gun rights media attention help or hurt Paul? I'm thinking it will definitely help Paul in the primaries, mostly against Rudy and Mitt, but it may hurt Paul in the general election if the Democrats can rally anti-gun rights supporters due to the threat re-legalizing the 2nd Amendment.

[Bradley in DC]

Will an increase in gun rights media attention hep or hurt Paul?

Definitely helps Paul, hurts Rudy. :)

[pickdog]

from Austin American Statesman - The Supreme Court last looked at the Second Amendment nearly 70 years ago in United States v. Miller, a 1939 decision that suggested, without explicitly deciding, that the right to bear arms should be understood in connection with service in a militia. 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."

The justices chose what they want to decide in the new case, District of Columbia v. Heller. The question they posed is whether the provisions of the District of Columbia statute "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."

The court's choice of words is almost never inadvertent, and its use of the phrase "state-regulated militia" was somewhat curious. The District of Columbia, of course, isn't a state, and one of the arguments its lawyers are making in their appeal is that the Second Amendment simply does not apply to "legislation enacted exclusively for the District of Columbia."

For that matter, the Supreme Court has never ruled that the Second Amendment even applies to the states, as opposed to the federal government. The court has applied nearly all the other provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states, leaving the Second Amendment as the most prominent exception. The justices evidently decided that this case was not the proper vehicle for exploring that issue, because as a nonstate, the District of Columbia isn't in a position to argue it one way or another.

Because none of the justices on the court have ever confronted a Second Amendment case, any prediction about how the court will rule is little more than pure speculation.

I talked to an ex federal judge about this. Though he is a conservative, he thinks the SCOTUS will render an opinion that backs the pro-gun position with respect to the 2nd amendment. going to be interesting to see how this plays out. i may just have to sit in on this oral argument.

[Kruniac]

Supposedly the verdict isn't expected until June.

Either way, i'm buying up now. I do recommend black rifles (ARs) since bolt actions and whatnot will not fare very well in a large engagement. Also.....ammo, you can never have enough of it.

Not everyone can afford ARs. An SKS can be bought for $120, then modified to use a 30 round clip. Its good enough for me and my friends.

Also some hunting rifles are semi-automatic with a ten round mag. You'd be surprised what those hunting rounds can do to an oppressor.

[Dequeant]

I also have an SKS (yugo version). The 30rnd clips are a pain to actually load up into the gun (and unload). There is also a problem plaguing them with various types of ammo (such as the Wolf hollowpoints).

I like SKS's, but i'd much prefer an AR.

[noxagol]

Go with a real rifle and get something that uses a .308 round!

[Dequeant]

.308 is a good round, very few semi automatics to choose from in a .308 though, and generally speaking, it's a long distance round and not well suited for medium range assault rifles due to weight and recoil.

Now, when Al Quaeda is 500 yards out and you need to reach out and touch them, a bolt action .308 is hard to top.

[noxagol]

I'm designing a .308 Bullpup type assault rifle I hope to possible machine a prototype for one day heh.

[Bradley in DC]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/opinion/21wed2.html?th&emc=th

The Court and the Second Amendment

Published: November 21, 2007

By agreeing yesterday to rule on whether provisions of the District of Columbia’s stringent gun control law violate the Second Amendment to the Constitution, the Supreme Court has inserted itself into a roiling public controversy with large ramifications for public safety. The court’s move sowed hope and fear among supporters of reasonable gun control, and it ratcheted up the suspense surrounding the court’s current term.

The hope, which we share, is that the court will rise above the hard-right ideology of some justices to render a decision respectful of the Constitution’s text and the violent consequences of denying government broad room to regulate guns. The fear is that it will not.

At issue is a 2-to-1 ruling last March by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that found unconstitutional a law barring handguns in homes and requiring that shotguns and rifles be stored with trigger locks or disassembled. The ruling upheld a radical decision by a federal trial judge, who struck down the 31-year-old gun control law on spurious grounds that conform with the agenda of the anti-gun control lobby but cry out for rejection by the Supreme Court.

Much hinges on how the justices interpret the Second Amendment, which 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.”

Opponents of gun control sometimes claim a constitutional prohibition on any serious regulation of individual gun ownership. The court last weighed in on the amendment in 1939, concluding, correctly in our view, that the only absolute right conferred on individuals is for the private ownership of guns that has “some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well-regulated militia.” The federal, state and local governments may impose restrictions on other uses — like the trigger guards — or outright bans on types of weapons. Appellate courts followed that interpretation, until last spring’s departure.

A lot has changed since the nation’s founding, when people kept muskets to be ready for militia service. What has not changed is the actual language of the Constitution. To get past the first limiting clauses of the Second Amendment to find an unalienable individual right to bear arms seems to require creative editing.

Beyond grappling with fairly esoteric arguments about the Second Amendment, the justices need to responsibly confront modern-day reality. A decision that upends needed gun controls currently in place around the country would imperil the lives of Americans.

[Bradley in DC]

(links in original)
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200711/CUL20071120c.html

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Challenge to DC Gun Ban
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
November 20, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - The U.S. Supreme Court announced on Tuesday that it will decide whether the ban on owning guns in the District of Columbia is constitutional, a pivotal case that could determine if the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the right to own firearms.

At issue is a 31-year-old Washington, D.C., law banning handguns and requiring that all shotguns and rifles be kept unloaded and either trigger-locked or disassembled at all times. There is no exception for self-defense.

"The Bill of Rights does not end at the District of Columbia's borders, and it includes the right to keep and bear arms," said Alan Gura, lead counsel for the plaintiffs in Heller v. District of Columbia.

"After three decades of failure trying to control firearms in the District, it's time for law-abiding city residents to be able to defend themselves in their homes," Gura added. "We are confident the Supreme Court will vindicate that right in Washington, D.C., and across the nation."

Dick Heller, a District resident who works as an armed security guard during the day but is forbidden by District law from keeping a handgun at home to protect himself, explained: "I want to be able to defend myself and my wife from violent criminals, and the Constitution says I have a right to do that by keeping a gun in my home."

"The police can't be everywhere, and they can't protect everyone all the time," he said. "Responsible gun ownership is a basic right we have as American citizens."

The Supreme Court has not heard a Second Amendment case since 1939, when it issued a confusing and inconclusive decision in a case involving the interstate transportation of a sawed-off shotgun.

However, the case ended before the defendant had the opportunity to establish whether sawed-off shotguns are covered by the word "arms" in the text of the Amendment. Regular shotguns, along with rifles and handguns, are precisely the kind of "arms" the framers had in mind in drafting the Second Amendment, the plaintiffs argue.

The District's functional firearms ban defies the framers' obvious intent to ensure that the government could never disarm citizens in America, as other governments have done elsewhere.

Clark Neily, a public interest lawyer specializing in constitutional law cases and co-counsel to the Heller plaintiffs said, "The Second Amendment is every bit as much a part of the Bill of Rights as freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion."

"The framers of our Constitution made clear that the government has no more business disarming citizens than it has censoring them or telling them what values to hold sacred," Neily said.

"The citizens of Washington, D.C. - indeed, all Americans - deserve a clear pronouncement from the nation's highest court on the real meaning of the Second Amendment," said Robert Levy, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and co-counsel to the Heller plaintiffs.

"Later cases will decide what gun regulations are constitutional, but an outright ban on all functional firearms clearly is not constitutional," Levy said.

Heller promises to be among the most closely watched constitutional law cases in decades. At stake is not just the question of whether people have a constitutional right to own guns, but also the court's willingness to stand up for rights that are expressed in the Constitution, even when those rights are strongly opposed by a vocal minority.

'Excited'

Tuesday's announcement sparked comment from Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, who stated in a news release that "the Supreme Court's decision in this case will be extremely significant - the most important decision on guns in nearly 70 years and maybe the most important ever regarding the Second Amendment."

He disagreed with the appeals court ruling last March in the Parker v. Heller case, which led to the gun ban being overturned.

"By agreeing to hear the appeal by the District of Columbia in the Parker/Heller case, the U.S. Supreme Court has the chance to reverse a clearly erroneous decision and make it clear that the Constitution does not prevent communities from having the gun laws they believe are needed to protect public safety," Helmke said.

The decision in the Parker case "ignored longstanding Supreme Court precedent, discounted the express language of the Second Amendment and substituted its policy preferences for those of the District's elected representatives," he added. "We are hopeful that the Supreme Court will reverse this flawed ruling."

Also on Tuesday, Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb said in a release of his own that he is "excited" about the Supreme Court's announcement.

"An affirmative ruling by the Supreme Court will probably not be the death knell for the extremist citizen disarmament movement," Gottlieb said, "but it will properly cripple their campaign to destroy an important civil right, the one that protects all of our other rights."

"The insidious effort to strip American citizens of their firearms rights, while at the same time permanently harming public safety, must end," he added.

"The Washington, D.C., gun ban has been a monumental failure, and the crime statistics prove that," Gottlieb said. "For almost 70 years, gun banners have deliberately misinterpreted and misrepresented the high court's language in the U.S. v Miller ruling in 1939.

"It is long past the time that this important issue be put to rest, and the Heller case will provide the court with that opportunity," he added.

As Cybercast News Service previously reported, the legal strategy behind the case has been under consideration for at least five years, and the U.S. House of Representatives voted to overturn the D.C. gun ban in 2004 and again in 2005.

Then, last March, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia overturned the ban, giving gun rights advocates a major victory in their long battle over the restrictions.

The ruling drew strong reaction from both sides of the gun control issue. One group called the decision "'judicial activism' at its absolute worst" and another hailed it as "a tremendous victory for the common man."

Soon afterwards, lawyers involved in the case said that attempts by "well-meaning members of Congress" to repeal the ban could backfire by keeping the issue out of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Oral arguments will most likely be scheduled for March, with a decision expected by June 2008.

[Bradley in DC]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/us/21scotus.html?th&emc=th

November 21, 2007
Justices to Decide on Right to Keep Handgun
By LINDA GREENHOUSE

WASHINGTON, Nov. 20 — The Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it would decide whether the Constitution grants individuals the right to keep guns in their homes for private use, plunging the justices headlong into a divisive and long-running debate over how to interpret the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the “right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

The court accepted a case on the District of Columbia’s 31-year-old prohibition on the ownership of handguns. In adding the case to its calendar, for argument in March with a decision most likely in June, the court not only raised the temperature of its current term but also inevitably injected the issue of gun control into the presidential campaign.

The federal appeals court here, breaking with the great majority of federal courts to have examined the issue over the decades, ruled last March that the Second Amendment right was an individual one, not tied to service in a militia, and that the District of Columbia’s categorical ban on handguns was therefore unconstitutional.

Both the District of Columbia government and the winning plaintiff, Dick Anthony Heller, a security officer, urged the justices to review the decision. Mr. Heller, who carries a gun while on duty guarding the federal building that houses the administrative offices of the federal court system, wants to be able to keep his gun at home for self-defense.

Mr. Heller was one of six plaintiffs recruited by a wealthy libertarian lawyer, Robert A. Levy, who created and financed the lawsuit for the purpose of getting a Second Amendment case before the Supreme Court. The appeals court threw out the other five plaintiffs for lack of standing; only Mr. Heller had actually applied for permission to keep a gun at home and been rejected.

The Supreme Court last looked at the Second Amendment nearly 70 years ago in United States v. Miller, a 1939 decision that suggested, without explicitly deciding, that the right should be understood in connection with service in a militia. The amendment states, “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 justices chose their own wording for what they want to decide in the new case, District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290. The question they posed is whether the provisions of the statute “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.”

The court’s choice of words is almost never inadvertent, and its use of the phrase “state-regulated militia” was somewhat curious. The District of Columbia, of course, is not a state, and one of the arguments its lawyers are making in their appeal is that the Second Amendment simply does not apply to “legislation enacted exclusively for the District of Columbia.”

For that matter, the Supreme Court has never ruled that the Second Amendment even applies to the states, as opposed to the federal government. It has applied nearly all the other provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states, leaving the Second Amendment as the most prominent exception. The justices evidently decided that this case was not the proper vehicle for exploring that issue, because as a nonstate, the District of Columbia is not in a position to argue it one way or another.

Because none of the justices now on the court have ever confronted a Second Amendment case, any prediction about how the court will rule is little more than pure speculation.

Of the hundreds of gun regulations on the books in states and localities around the country, the district’s ordinance is generally regarded as the strictest. Chicago comes the closest to it, banning the possession of handguns acquired since 1983 and requiring re-registration of older guns every two years. New York City permits handgun ownership with a permit issued by the Police Department.

The District of Columbia ordinance not only bans ownership of handguns, but also requires other guns that may be legally kept in the home, rifles and shotguns, to be disassembled or kept under a trigger lock. The capital’s newly empowered City Council enacted the ordinance in 1976 as one of its first measures after receiving home-rule authority from Congress.

The court’s order on Tuesday indicated that it would review the handgun ban in light of the provision that permits, with restrictions, the other guns. The opposing sides in the lawsuit presented very different views of how the various provisions interact.

To the plaintiffs, the restrictions on the conditions under which rifles and shotguns may be kept means that homeowners are denied the right to possess “functional” weapons for self-defense. To the District of Columbia, the fact that these other guns are permitted shows that the ordinance is nuanced and sensitive to gun owners’ needs. It takes about one minute to disengage a trigger lock.

In any event, a Supreme Court decision that finds the district’s ordinance unconstitutional would not necessarily invalidate other, more modest restrictions, like those that permit handgun ownership for those who pass a background check and obtain a license. Since the only claim in the case is that law-abiding people have the right to keep a gun at home, the court will not have occasion to address restrictions on carrying guns.

In fact, lawyers on both sides of the case agreed Tuesday that a victory for the plaintiff in this case would amount to the opening chapter in an examination of the constitutionality of gun control rather than anything close to the final word.

“This is just the beginning,” said Alan Gura, the lead counsel for the plaintiff.

Mr. Gura said in an interview that “gun laws that make sense,” like those requiring background checks, would survive the legal attack, which he said was limited to “laws that do no good other than disarm law-abiding citizens.”

Whether the handgun ban has reduced crime in a city surrounded by less restrictive jurisdictions is a matter of heated dispute. Crime in the District of Columbia has mirrored trends in the rest of the country, dropping quite sharply during the 1990s but now experiencing some increase.

In striking down the district’s ordinance, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said that an individual-right interpretation of the Second Amendment would still permit “reasonable regulations,” but that a flat ban was not reasonable.

Dennis A. Henigan, a lawyer at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which advocates strict gun control, said that if the justices agree with the appeals court, an important question for future cases will be “what legal standard the court will eventually adopt for evaluating other gun regulations.”

[Bradley in DC]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/20/AR2007112000893.html?wpisrc=newsletter

Justices To Rule On D.C. Gun Ban
2nd Amendment Case Could Affect Laws Nationwide

By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 21, 2007; A01

The Supreme Court announced yesterday that it will determine whether the District of Columbia's strict firearms law violates the Constitution, a decision that will raise the politically and culturally divisive issue of gun control just in time for the 2008 elections.

The court's examination of the meaning of the Second Amendment for the first time in nearly 70 years carries broad implications for gun-control measures locally and across the country.

The District has the nation's most restrictive law, essentially banning private handgun ownership and requiring that rifles and shotguns kept in private homes be unloaded and disassembled or outfitted with a trigger lock. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declared it unconstitutional last year, becoming the first appeals court to overturn a gun-control law because of the Second Amendment.

For years, legal scholars, historians and grammarians have debated the meaning of the amendment because of its enigmatic wording and odd punctuation: "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."

Gun-rights proponents say the words guarantee the right of an individual to possess firearms. Gun-control supporters say the words convey only a civic or "collective" right to own guns as part of service in an organized military organization. The Bush administration said in 2002 that it supports the individual-rights position.

Robert A. Levy, a scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute who has spent years planning a challenge that would reach the Supreme Court, called the court's decision to take the case "good news for all Americans who would like to be able to defend themselves where they live and sleep."

"And it's especially good news for residents of Washington, D.C., which has been the murder capital of the nation despite an outright ban on all functional firearms since 1976," he said.

Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) has said the District's up-and-down homicide rate would have been higher without the ban, and that the law is a locally supported move to protect police officers, children and other victims of gun violence.

"It's the will of the people of the District of Columbia that has to be respected," Fenty said at a news conference with D.C. Attorney General Linda Singer and several D.C. Council members. "We should have the right to make our own decisions."

He added: "We believe the U.S. Constitution is on our side."

The two sides proposed competing constitutional questions, so the court wrote its own, saying it would determine whether provisions of the District's law "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." The court will probably hear the case in March.

The court's last examination of the amendment was in 1939, when it ruled in U.S. v. Miller that a sawed-off shotgun transported across state lines by a bootlegger was not what the amendment's authors had in mind when they were protecting arms needed for military service.

Since then, almost all of the nation's courts of appeal have read the ruling to mean that the amendment conveys only a collective right to gun ownership. But two of them, the D.C. Circuit and the 5th Circuit, have endorsed the individual-rights view, and so have some legal scholars who normally take positions on the left.

Mark V. Tushnet, a Harvard law professor whose new book, "Out of Range," is a legal and historical examination of the Second Amendment, concluded that the legal arguments on each side "are in reasonably close balance."

There is scant evidence about the justices' views.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia have made statements that seem to show their sympathy for the individual-rights argument. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said at his confirmation hearing that he believed the court in its Miller decision "sidestepped" the fundamental question.

Levy and co-counsel Clark M. Neily III and Alan Gura worked for years to assemble a challenge to the D.C. ban that the courts would accept. Their plaintiffs are law-abiding citizens who want the weapons for self-defense rather than people appealing criminal convictions for possessing weapons.

The case is called District of Columbia v. Heller because of security guard and D.C. resident Dick A. Heller, 65, whose application for a permit to keep a handgun in his home was denied by the city.

A federal district judge ruled against Heller and other residents who brought the suit, but a three-judge panel of the appeals court overturned that decision. By a 2 to 1 vote, the judges ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to private firearms and self-defense that "existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution."

The petition filed by the D.C. attorney general said the appeals court is wrong for three reasons: It recognizes an individual rather than a collective right, the Second Amendment serves as a restriction only on federal interference with state-regulated militias and state-recognized gun rights, and the District is within its rights to protect its citizens by banning a certain type of gun.

The gun-rights lawyers said they agreed that even a recognition of an individual right could allow the government to make reasonable restrictions, but not the ban the District imposes.

Both sides acknowledge that the Second Amendment pertains to federal restrictions rather than to restrictions imposed by states and that the District's unique status presents something of a jurisdictional quandary. But Maryland and three other states filed a brief saying that all have a stake in the case, because allowing the appeals court ruling to stand would destabilize current law and "cast a cloud over all federal and state law restricting access to firearms."

National groups on both sides of the gun-control issue are jittery about bringing the case to the Supreme Court, because of the uncertainty about the outcome.

"We're nervous," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "Anytime you go to the Supreme Court, you could end up with all sorts of gun laws being called into question."

The National Rifle Association was also initially skeptical about the case, but Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said he is more confident of a positive outcome for his group with Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. on the court.

[Dequeant]

Hey bradley, make sure you spam that one more time, i'm not sure everyone got to read it.....tard.

[noxagol]

Hey bradley, make sure you spam that one more time, i'm not sure everyone got to read it.....tard.

Hey, tard, they are all different articles, ass.

[sharedvoice]

This case is very polarized and only applies to the District of Columbia. Remember the District is not a state, so states rights do not normally apply. However, I do not understand why the High Court is even reviewing this case. It should be immediately returned to the lower district courts for consideration.

[pcosmar]

This case is very polarized and only applies to the District of Columbia. Remember the District is not a state, so states rights do not normally apply. However, I do not understand why the High Court is even reviewing this case. It should be immediately returned to the lower district courts for consideration.

Wrong, this case belongs to the American people.
This is a Constitutional issue, The court is ruling on the constitutionality of the ban.
This will affect every American.

[noztnac]

This shouldn't take more than 2 minutes. Read the second amendment. Render a verdict. A third grader could do it. (...shall not be infringed!!!!!!!!!!)

[pcosmar]

This shouldn't take more than 2 minutes. Read the second amendment. Render a verdict. A third grader could do it. (...shall not be infringed!!!!!!!!!!)

You would think.
But then Bill Clinton was in the news for "What the definition of IS is".

[sharedvoice]

Wrong, this case belongs to the American people.
This is a Constitutional issue, The court is ruling on the constitutionality of the ban.
This will affect every American.

This case involves the American people, but it does not belong in the hands of the Supreme Court based on local District of Columbia handgun restrictions. This case should be addressed by the lower court, then appeal if overturned. Every American does not live in DC. It isn't even a state, so states rights DO NOT APPLY.

We must be extremely cautious whenever the High Court gets involved, because it may draw unintended consequences if there is a favorable decision supporting the ban. Compare this to the Roe v Wade case.


choose your fights wisely...

[pcosmar]

We must be extremely cautious whenever the High Court gets involved, because it may draw unintended consequences if there is a favorable decision supporting the ban. Compare this to the Roe v Wade case.


choose your fights wisely...
I agree,to some extent. It was a lower court decision that threw out the gun ban, and it was appealed to the higher court.
It is the Federal Gun Laws that are the basis for most state laws. They should have been challenged long ago, This is the first time the issue will be before the court.
I will remain hopeful that the court will rule that the right belongs to the People.

[angelatc]

This case is very polarized and only applies to the District of Columbia. Remember the District is not a state, so states rights do not normally apply. However, I do not understand why the High Court is even reviewing this case. It should be immediately returned to the lower district courts for consideration.

I find the fact that they are hearing the case to be frightening. If they are going to rule Constitutionally, then they don't even need to hear the case. They just need to let the lower court ruling stand.

They are intent on being lawmakers these days, which is just so wrong it makes me want to cry. I was brought up believing that their sole function was to keep the other two branches from taking away our Constitutional rights, only to grow up and realize they've changed into something much, much different.

[sharedvoice]

I find the fact that they are hearing the case to be frightening. If they are going to rule Constitutionally, then they don't even need to hear the case. They just need to let the lower court ruling stand.

That is exactly my point. Thanks.

[267]

Men used to be able to understand the constitution by reading it. Then something went wrong. Prayer for the return of wisdom and understanding might be what is required. Men in high sensitive places never want to lead. But they will follow if they see strong political support in the populace. Could that be the reason they took the case?

[MicroBalrog]

Kennedy voted in favor of the pro-gun majority in US v. Lopez.

while that was a 10th amendment case, I think that may serve as a clue as to how he will vote on this one.

[Kruniac]

You know, one of those articles stated something along the lines of "things are different from back when citizens kept muskets for a militia". How so? The media really tries to coat the facts with sugar - we have a constitutional right to bear arms to fight against a tyrannical government.

If that meant the British at one point, so be it. If it meant the United States should the government ever try to take away our rights or take advantage of the people, so be it.

I wish someone would just have the balls to point that out in the media.

[jaybone]

I fear 'they' are pushing this in order to disarm the populace before trying something BIG.
I hope I'm wrong.

[noxagol]

I fear 'they' are pushing this in order to disarm the populace before trying something BIG.
I hope I'm wrong.

History says you are right.

[Maz2331]

I'm not worried about this case. The current Court since the appointment of Alito and Roberts is very much the most "friendly" we've seen in ages. Coupled with the official Justice Department position on the 2A recognizing an individual right, and the fact that there's a sympathetic defendant are all positives. Some of the worst decisions have been due to the Court needing to find a way to "burn a bad guy" and creating a precident just because otherwise they would need to release a criminal. In very clear-cut cases, they don't do that, but when it is close it does slightly tilt the argument.

DC is pretty well going to be hammered here.

[Dr.3D]

"things are different from back when citizens kept muskets for a militia".

If they try to take away the right of the people to keep and bear arms, saying it refers to only the National Guard, wouldn't that mean the government would be in control? Doesn't the government control the National Guard?

In order to protect the "security of a free state", how would having only the government armed against the people of that state allow any protection for the security of the state from the government?

I don't see any arguement for keeping citizens from keeping and bearing arms.
Wasn't the whole idea of the second amendment to allow for an armed militia? A militia is not controlled by the government, it is controlled by the people.

[DamianTV]

Gun Control is PEOPLE CONTROL. Criminals dont care if guns are outlawed, they will still be just as happy to use an illegal weapon to shoot you dead in a robbery as a legal weapon.

Or read my new sig...

Personally I agree that something BIG is coming. We just dont know exactly what that is yet...

[qednick]

If they rule against the 2A there will be one hell of a lot of pissed off people in this country.

[Fox McCloud]

the national guard is not the militia. It's entirely controlled and operated by the US Government.

The militia is controlled by no one but the people. There's a few whack-jobs in the militia (Kill them all!) but the vast majority of them just want to defend the country from invaders, or, if need be, their own Federal government.

if they rule against guns, I'll definitely be waiting for something to happen in the US; every other time a country has ruled against guns in a major way, dictatorships quickly followed....

[SimpleName]

Sad when it comes to this, but I am anxiously awaiting the verdict in the case, which some of you have said will be in June. Long time to wait, but very important to me. As many of you, I simply can NOT STAND the idea of the government taking away people's guns. Those people BOUGHT those guns to protect themselves and the government goes right ahead, after raping you for all of your income and forcing you into a ridiculous social security system. It is absurd to even comprehend that. Plus, you throw a whole market that many people spent their entire lives on right down the drain. I can't believe we even live in a world like this.

And yes, that whole National Guard is the militia idea...sad excuse to take away your gun rights. The original wording of the 2nd amendment is actually backwards. So in fact, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is the real beginning of the amendment. And THEN they mention the militia. When it came time to finalize, they reversed the order.

[pickdog]

my bet is that SCOTUS finds for individual right with caveats (reasonable restrictions) that will be used to start rounding up guns.

[Gunpartsguy]

.308 is a good round, very few semi automatics to choose from in a .308 though, and generally speaking, it's a long distance round and not well suited for medium range assault rifles due to weight and recoil.

Now, when Al Quaeda is 500 yards out and you need to reach out and touch them, a bolt action .308 is hard to top.

Hmmmmmm.......... There's lot's of .308/7.62 NATO semi auto, magazine fed rifles. The FN FAL/L1A1 , M1A (M-14), Saiga .308's (AK Style- BUT NOT 7.62x39!), G-3/PTR-91, CETME and AR-10's come to mind right off the bat.

It's about penetration, stopping/killing power. FIREPOWER. 147gn 7.62 NATO (7.62x51/.308 Winchester) hardball will punch level 3 body armor a bit over 100 yards. AP will do it even further out. Reports at close range in the sandbox with 5.56 NATO(.223 Rem) has been that it usually takes several hits to put them down. .308 usually does it in one. A good rifleman with a .308 will be a deadly opponent. 5.56 has it's advantages...more ammo/less weight to carry per round, easier recoil- Thus better and quicker follow up shots and generally better accuracy when pucker factor is involved. Also great for small framed folks.

But I'll take my 7.62 NATO/.308's. I want maximum impact and take down my adversaries with the first hit. A trained rifleman can lay down some serious firepower with great accuracy using a semi .308. Not to mention take on light skinned vehicles.

These ARE NOT "Assault Rifles". They are "Battle Rifles" An Assault Rifle is smaller, lighter and most importantly...selective fire. "Assault rifle" is a scary tag given to any semi military type rifle to frighten the sheep. Mainly used by anti second types.

Let's not use that misnomer. OK?

The M16/M4 are considered assault rifles. Selective fire AK's and such also. AR15's are semi auto only but are not in the same class as a battle rifle like an FN FAL , M1A, AR10 or G3 etc......... Although the lines do get blurred.

[Gunpartsguy]

my bet is that SCOTUS finds for individual right with caveats (reasonable restrictions) that will be used to start rounding up guns.

You are sooooooooo right! :(

And if they do try to round them up...They can reach through a pile of their own dead bodies to get them!

[pickdog]

You are sooooooooo right! :(

And if they do try to round them up...They can reach through a pile of their own dead bodies to get them!




agreed....sadly, we even have to talk about this

[Ira Aten]

Nov. 20 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether individuals have a constitutional right to own firearms, agreeing to decide an election-year fight over the District of Columbia's decades-old handgun ban.


Anyone notice something weird in the statement above?

The 2nd Amendment doesn't deal with a right to own firearms.

It declares and clearly states The People have THE RIGHT TO KEEP, and TO BEAR ARMS.

That means to carry them on their person, fully loaded and ready to utilize in order to protect life, property and liberty.

The statement in the story, talks about a right to own guns. But the question is on KEEPING and BEARING ARMS.

The news media just simply does NOT "get it". (See what twelve years of "free" education earns us?)

[Ira Aten]

The seat of a Supreme Court Justice is for a lifetime appontment, CONDITIONED on them conducting themselves in "good behavior".

Clearly, any Justice who plays the horse shit game of trying to twist the 2nd Amendment into saying "The People" means "the Government Military." then they are not acting in good conduct, and would simply be defying Article VI.

Such a "Justice" should be impeached by the House and removed by the Senate, if they claim the 2nd Amendment does not say what it says.

It says..."A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.If the Founders meant that the militiary had a right to keep and bear arms, they would have written that. But it would have appeared somewhat STUPID, since the government was granted POWERS, not RIGHTS, and any moron knows when Congress forms the army, they fully intend the Army to be armed.

Any lawyer who tries to pull the stupid assed nonsense about the militia being the Federal Government Military, is simply not being intellectually honest, nor acting in good conduct.

They should be impeached if they try that shit. Such an intellectually dishonest attempt, is nothing short of, if not the very definition of, treason.

[Nicketas]

,.,.

[Dequeant]

Such a "Justice" should be impeached by the House and removed by the Senate, if they claim the 2nd Amendment does not say what it says.

Do you seriously believe that horsesh*t?

If they don't think i have a right to bear arms, just let them try and take them. I don't mean my AK, SKS, or my 6.8SPC AR15.....if they come to confiscate my crack-barrel pellet gun they will have to deal with all of the above.

[XNavyNuke]

Urban prosecutors line up against Heller.

Prosecutors Urge Supremes Not To Erode Gun Laws (http://www.northcountrygazette.org/news/2008/01/13/amicus_gun_laws/)


In filing the brief, the district attorneys are highlighting the compelling interest they have in the outcome of District of Columbia v. Heller and the high priority they individually and collectively place on the prosecution of criminals who commit gun-related offenses. An affirming opinion by the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller could cast doubt upon the constitutionality of criminal gun laws the District Attorneys believe to be critical to public safety. The reasoning in the lower court opinion, if adopted wholesale by the U.S. Supreme Court, could erode many existing laws that have been built up over the past few decades against the illegal possession of guns.

The District Attorneys’ co-counsel, Professor Laurie Levenson of Loyola Law School, noted that if the Court strikes down the D.C. law, the validity of existing laws against illegal guns could be called into question as well. “These public officials have made it clear what is at stake in this case – it is an issue of public safety,” said Professor Laurie Levinson. “The District Attorneys who signed this brief have done a great public service. They have let the Justices know exactly how a decision in this case is likely to impair law enforcement’s ability to do its job. That is an interest that no one can afford to ignore.”

XNN

[Maz2331]

“The District Attorneys who signed this brief have done a great public service. They have let the Justices know exactly how a decision in this case is likely to impair law enforcement’s ability to do its job. That is an interest that no one can afford to ignore.”

That's a pretty rich argument. Rephrased it is only:

"Please don't do anything that might actually make us follow the Constitution. Come on now, you can't actually believe that a right actually means anything nowadays!"

[Fields]

///

[PismoPam]

[URL="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/"]

The case will be heard at 10AM Tuesday, and posted at the above site at 11:15AM same day.

[IPSecure]

Who gave them the authority to rule on anything written in the Constitution?

[Strike-Fighter]

[URL="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/"]

The case will be heard at 10AM Tuesday, and posted at the above site at 11:15AM same day.

We get to hear the actual argument? Awesome

[maeqFREEDOMfree]

Which is why i'm buying them up now and i'll be using them if they come for um!

BTW, a ccw lets you buy without a backround check and/or waiting period, w00t.

but in michigan you have to give up your finger prints :-(

[wv@SC]

but in michigan you have to give up your finger prints :-(

Which states do you NOT have to do ballistic finger-printing in?

[Doktor_Jeep]

The right to arms precedes the existence of the court and these wanna-be gods.

They can rule all they want. It changes NOTHING.

Let them rule against and see what it's like to grab the wrong end of a running chainsaw.

[torchbearer]

The right to arms precedes the existence of the court and these wanna-be gods.

They can rule all they want. It changes NOTHING.

Let them rule against and see what it's like to grab the wrong end of a running chainsaw.

qft.

I need to go buy up plenty of ammo while i still can. get a reloader kit too.

[wv@SC]

qft.

I need to go buy up plenty of ammo while i still can. get a reloader kit too.

You going to carry your guns into Congress?

[torchbearer]

You going to carry your guns into Congress?

An interesting idea... was there ever a time that congressmen packed heat into capital hill?

[weslinder]

An interesting idea... was there ever a time that congressmen packed heat into capital hill?

I don't know, but my congressman, Ted Poe, carried into court when he was judge. (He also rode a Harley to court.)

[wv@SC]

An interesting idea... was there ever a time that congressmen packed heat into capital hill?

As a matter of fact, during the 1850s when the abolitionists were trying to subject the South, most congressmen had two revolvers and a dirk while in session. Many feared the War was going to start in the halls of Congress!

Sorry I dont have any references, but I heard of this in a lecture not long ago.

[Doktor_Jeep]

War in the halls of Congress.

I like the idea.

I'll bring a brace of pistols.

[tekkierich]

My position on the Second Amendment.

http://www.richardmatthews.org/read/?The-Second-Amendment-3761

[GunnyFreedom]

My position on the Second Amendment.

http://www.richardmatthews.org/read/?The-Second-Amendment-3761

Very nice. I am in full agreement.

[Primbs]

There are about fifty to one people sleeping in front of the US Supreme Court right. I don't know which side they are on.

This is a rare sight.

The meaning of 27 words in the Constitution will be debated tomorrow.

[GunnyFreedom]

Ladies and Gentlemen, please pray about this hearing.

[TruckinMike]

Scalia asked if permissible limits could restrict you to one gun, or
> only a few guns, or if a collector couldn't complete a set like a
> stamp
> collector because of a quantity restriction, and then launched into a
> demonstration of his familiarity with firearms by suggesting a need
> to
> have a turkey gun, and a duck gun, and a thirty-ought-six, and a
> .270,
> which sent Thomas into a fit of off-mic laughter that other observers
> missed because they were focused on Scalia;

Is this a good thing or bad? The way I see it is Scalia is ignoring the meaning of the second. He should have responded with:


"multiple firearms would be necessary in order to protect the "free" state from enemies both foreign and domestic. To regulate or infringe on ones right to possess and bear multiple firearms would directly violate the intent of the founders as expressed by george Washington when he stated "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth." Inferring that the firearm is not about hunting or even self-defense, but about preserving liberty. Or as Thomas jefferson put it "Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state." I understand the "governments" position, of course they want to disarm the folks - the armed people can hold a tyrannical government to the constraints of the constitution. But only with the might of multiple firearms of war.

Thats the way I see it. But he weakened the argument by using the hunting analogy. I think he did it with FULL and BLATANT disregard to the intent. He knows better. And he knows the words of our founders. This "shaping" technique of debate is commonly used in argument after argument after argument to manipulate the listener away from real point. Its typical lawyer prowess.

Why is no one talking about this?

TMike

[Dr.3D]

So how did the case come out?
How long is this going to be going on?
Does it take a year or two to get a decision?

[GunnyFreedom]

When they were hearing deliberations, they said some time middle of June we'd hear the decision.

[PatriotnMore]

June 5th is the expected date for ruling to be addressed to the public.