US Supreme Court agrees to hear DC gun case

[Bradley in DC]

This was just announced. The Parker case is going to have huge implications. It will be the first case in 70 years on the Second Amendment and whether we recognize an individual right to gun ownership or not.

One of the Parker Six plaintiffs is a delegate candidate for Ron Paul in DC.

[Green Mountain Boy]

70 years, wow..I did not know it had been that long.

[Sematary]

This was just announced. The Parker case is going to have huge implications. It will be the first case in 70 years on the Second Amendment and whether we recognize an individual right to gun ownership or not.

One of the Parker Six plaintiffs is a delegate candidate for Ron Paul in DC.

If it fails, we may see the beginning of the end for private ownership of weapons in this nation.

[Bradley in DC]

Some background here:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8717

[Bradley in DC]

Second Amendment Foundation

D.C. APPEALS COURT RULING HOLDS SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTS ‘INDIVIDUAL RIGHT’

BELLEVUE, WA – A ruling Friday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that strikes down the District’s 1976 handgun ban and holds that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms is “a landmark for liberty, and an affirmation that everything the gun rights community has been saying for years is correct,” the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

The 2-1 ruling came in the case of Parker v. District of Columbia. Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote the opinion, with Judge Thomas B. Griffith concurring. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented. The ruling holds that the District’s long-standing ban on carrying a pistol in the home for personal protection is unconstitutional. SAF filed an amicus brief in the case.

In his ruling, Judge Silberman wrote, “In sum, the phrase ‘the right of the people,’ when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual.”

“This is a huge victory for firearm civil rights,” said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb. “It shreds the so-called ‘collective right theory’ of gun control proponents, and squarely puts the Second Amendment where it has always belonged, as a protection of the individual citizen’s right to have a firearm for personal defense.”

Judge Silberman’s ruling notes that the Second Amendment “acknowledges…a right that pre-existed the Constitution like ‘the freedom of speech’.”

“Because the right to arms existed prior to the formation of the new government,” Judge Silberman wrote, “the Second Amendment only guarantees that the right ‘shall not be infringed’.”

Silberman’s ruling also observed, “The right of self-preservation…was understood as the right to defend oneself against attacks by lawless individuals, or, if absolutely necessary, to resist and throw off a tyrannical government.”

“Judge Silberman’s ruling,” Gottlieb said, “reverses 31 years of unconstitutional infringement on the rights of District of Columbia residents, not only to keep and bear arms, but to be safe and secure in their own homes. This is a ruling that should make all citizens proud that we live in a nation where the rights of individual citizens trump political correctness.”

The ruling may be viewed at http://www.saf.org/dc.lawsuit/parker.decision.pdf 194 KiB

[Cowlesy]

This is HUGE!!!

[Ron Paul Fan]

In this my post 1776, I strongly urge the conservative leaning Supreme Court to uphold the lower court's ruling! The 2nd amendment clearly states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The D.C. court is absolutely correct in their interpretation. If they overturn the lower court ruling then we are on a path to destruction and gun grabbing. The rights of the people to protect their property and to be able to resist an oppressive government are essential! The purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the law and the law of the land says, "shall NOT be infringed."

[Bradley in DC]

My apologies for the lack of links, information. I got a very short message from a friend with the US Bill of Rights Foundation who has been working with the lawyer on this case. I'm going to be offline for a while with the holiday, best to all--we have much to be Thankful for this season!

[Bradley in DC]

http://www.SCotuswiki.com/index.php?...ler#Background

[kylejack]

The fact that they decided to take the case concerns me. I sincerely doubt that they're going to overturn the current rights of municipalities to ban guns.

[pcosmar]

I am watchful and guardedly hopeful.
We are living in interesting times.

[paulpwns]

They are going to take away the individual right to bear arms, and replace with a collective right.

[Brent H]

There's a lot of ignorance on this forum from people who don't understand the background of the case.

Currently, ALL of the circuit courts of appeal with the exception of the 5th and D.C. courts hold the "collective rights" interpretation. The only thing that could be "lost" is the rulings in the 5th and D.C. courts. Either 7 circuit courts are going to have "collective rights" rulings struck down, or 2 circuit courts are going to have their "individual rights"' rulings struck down.

The only restraint politicians have shown in passing additional "gun control" laws comes from a fear of the voters, and it doesn't have anything to do with the 2nd Amendment, as 7 of 9 the circuit courts have never recognized the 2nd Amendment as an individual right.

If people would take time to research this issue, they would realize that the lawyers representing the gun owners carefully crafted the best possible case that they could force up to the Supreme Court. When they won in the D.C. court, pro-gun activists posed as supporters of "gun control" and agitated agitated D.C. into appealing it to the Supreme Court.

In short there's very little downside for us, and a huge upside potential.