Supremes To Decide First 2ND Amendment Case Since 1939 - Militias Only?
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the District of Columbia can ban handguns, a case that could produce the most in-depth examination of the constitutional right to “keep and bear arms” in nearly 70 years.
The justices’ decision to hear the case could make the divisive debate over guns an issue in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections.
The government of Washington, D.C., is asking the court to uphold its 31-year ban on handgun ownership in the face of a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban as incompatible with the Second Amendment. Tuesday’s announcement was widely expected, especially after both the District and the man who challenged the handgun ban asked for the high court review.
The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment of the Constitution protects an individual’s right to own guns or instead merely sets forth the collective right of states to maintain militias. The former interpretation would permit fewer restrictions on gun ownership.
Gun-control advocates say the Second amendment was intended to insure that states could maintain militias, a response to 18th century fears of an all-powerful national government. Gun rights proponents contend the amendment gives individuals the right to keep guns for private uses, including self-defense.
Alan Gura, a lawyer for the D.C. residents who challenged the ban, said he was pleased that the justices were considering the case.
“We believe the Supreme Court will acknowledge that, while the use of guns can be regulated, a complete prohibition on all functional firearms is too extreme,” Gura said. “It’s time to end this unconstitutional disaster. It’s time to restore a basic freedom to all Washington residents.”
Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the Supreme Court should “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.”
The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. That decision supported the collective rights view, but did not squarely answer the question in the view of many constitutional scholars. Chief Justice John Roberts said at his confirmation hearing that the correct reading of the Second Amendment was “still very much an open issue.”
The Second 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.”
Washington banned handguns in 1976, saying it was designed to reduce violent crime in the nation’s capital.
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.”
The District is making several arguments in defense of the restriction, including claiming that the Second Amendment involves militia service. It also said the ban is constitutional because it limits the choice of firearms, but does not prohibit residents from owning any guns at all. Rifles and shotguns are legal, if kept under lock or disassembled. Businesses may have guns for protection.
Chicago has a similar handgun ban, but few other gun-control laws are as strict as the District’s.
Four states—Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New York—urged the Supreme Court to take the case because broad application of the appeals court ruling would threaten “all federal and state laws restricting access to firearms.”
Dick Anthony Heller, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at home for protection.
The laws in question in the case do not “merely regulate the possession of firearms,” Heller said. Instead, they “amount to a complete prohibition of the possession of all functional firearms within the home.”
If the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to have guns, “the laws must yield,” he said.
Opponents say the ban plainly has not worked because guns still are readily available, through legal and illegal means. Although the city’s homicide rate has declined dramatically since peaking in the early 1990s, Washington still ranks among the nation’s highest murder cities, with 169 killings in 2006.
The U.S. Court Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 for Heller in March. Judge Laurence Silberman said reasonable regulations still could be permitted, but said the ban went too far.
The Bush administration, which has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, has yet to weigh in on this case.
Arguments will be heard early next year.
The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.
(AP)
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
“Celery, being tasty in a stew, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Whether it is celery in a stew or A militia being necessary for security, neither changes the fact that THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
November 20th, 2007 at 12:09 pmI share Heston’s view … “You can have my guns when you pry them from my cold, dead hands!”
November 20th, 2007 at 12:10 pmThis is why we can thank God that GW got elected and placed 2 on the SC. This had to come to a head before the Libtards were able to put another CS-er on the bench or we’d all be ass-Fk’d forever. There will be another judge or two placed on the SC during the next presidential term. Can you imagine what we are about to get with both houses and the white house controlled by the Libbies?? Had the SC taken this up 2 years from now, we’d be down to trade muskets and archery equipment.
November 20th, 2007 at 12:17 pmIn THREE seperate places in the Bill Of Rights the phrase “the right of the people” is used. These occur in the First, Second and Fourth admendments.
Would anyone argue the right to free speech and to peaceably assemble is a collective of the state? Would anyone argue that the right to illegal search and seizure is some sort of collective state’s right? No. Never. And this the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.
If the Supreme court doesn’t see this they are completely daft.
November 20th, 2007 at 12:17 pmTHE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
About time I get me a few more firearms.
November 20th, 2007 at 12:37 pmGreetings:
Allow me to quote Jefferson-ah hem…
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with
the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
– Thomas Jefferson (letter to William Stephens Smith, 13
November 1787)
I wonder if there are those in this country, left, who understand the import of this pending decision.
Tim Roesch
November 20th, 2007 at 12:41 pmCommand Private Major
No need to get excited. This S.Ct. is going to uphold the DC circuit. Gun control advocates are dreaming again.
November 20th, 2007 at 12:55 pmLee, I don’t find celery to be tasty in stew; can I still keep my guns?
To the point about militias. Maybe it is time that we learned yet another important lesson from our dealings with the average guy in Iraq. Time to start forming individual militias and see how the left feels about that. They will argue that the National Guard is our militia, but it is not. The National Guard is called the Army National Guard for a reason, it falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army. Think back to Hurricane Katrina, “W” was criticized for not sending the National Guard in sooner. If it was a State Militia Gov. Blanco could have just mobilized the National Guard herself.
November 20th, 2007 at 1:19 pmThe second point about the militias also covers the people. Back when our Nation was founded all abled bodied men were considered to be the States militia. Think about the scene in the movie the Patriot when Heath whatever his name is walked into the church and said that the State militia was being called on to serve. Any man or boy of fighting age was considered the militia and it was strictly voluntary.
Just when I think this is a dead issue not worthy of debate, some utopian politician or lefty idiot makes noise. I got news for some brain dead Dims and I’m not even a gun owner (though I have thought about getting one for home defense).
The courts can decide how they like. There’s about fifty million gun owners, many of them my crazy friends, who wouldn’t just cede their 2nd amendment rights. Trust me on this one…
And did I mention most of them are damn good shots?
November 20th, 2007 at 2:09 pmHowie,
According to the US Code, Title 10, male United States citizens (and some women) between the ages of 17 and 45 are already automatically part of the “unorganized militia”. They just haven’t been called to duty yet.
”
TITLE 10–ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A–General Military Law
PART I–ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13–THE MILITIA
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
November 20th, 2007 at 2:43 pm(b) The classes of the militia are–
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. …”
Excerpted from URL
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite: 10USC311
My response is thus:
According to most modern accounts, there are somewhere between 300 and 320 millions functional firearms in the hands of the armed American populace. Any political moron who proceeds with an effort to disarm this populace, will meet with a resistance, I personally beleive, that they do not comprehend.
I know that I am both ready and prepared to do my part!
CPLViper, I agree with Mr. Heston too.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:00 pmThe majority opinion of the Appeals Court was a very well written. The decision of the court was 2-1 with the majority putting the smack-down on the minority opinion (which was the “collective right argument”). In May, the DC Circuit denied a request by the city for an en banc rehearing of the court’s March decision (hearing of a case by all the judges of the court rather than the 3 judge panel). This set the set the stage for the SC to hear the case. The hope is that the SC will finally make a decisive ruling that debunks the collective right nonsense.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:15 pmBelow is the DC Court’s ruling:
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf
November 20th, 2007 at 4:16 pmGreetings:
Just a thought…
When Hilary gets elected and really tosses the country’s lunch out the window, methinks there will be a great deal of forgetting of a multitude of troops coming home from Iraq and the ’stan who might not, shall we say, go easy into that long goodnight.
I look forward to the next Presidential election.
I am thinking the real reason the second amendment is there (it ain’t hunting) will become apparent. I am thinking the liberals in this country, used to victims, will not understand those of us who are not.
“Fasten your seat belts. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.”
Tim Roesch - CPM
November 20th, 2007 at 4:47 pmThe 2nd Amendment is more of a responsibility than a right. The Founders of our Great Nation remembered the tyranny that had come before, and expected that one day voting would not be enough to keep politicians in line. When that day finally comes an armed populous has the responsibility to stand up and take back the reins of this Great Nation by whatever force necessary.
November 20th, 2007 at 7:34 pmThe left does not want the populous to have guns, just like Stalin and Hitler, because unarmed constiuents cannot fight back!!!
If you live in D.C. and don’t want your house burglarized fo your Guns, then you can go to the nearest Crack House and surrender them!
Damn Dirty Apes!
November 21st, 2007 at 1:49 amHowie;
It’s not the 1700s any more; an “armed populus” [note the spelling; populous is not a noun, it’s an adjective meaning ‘heavily populated’] would not last long against trained state forces.
For all the apocalyptic ranting about revolting, etc., the main upside to armed citizenry is the ability to resist criminals. Aside from that, the ability of citizens to kill each other isn’t of much use.
November 21st, 2007 at 1:58 amThere are only 2 relavent sentences in the article:
“Washington banned handguns in 1976, saying it was designed to reduce violent crime in the nation’s capital.”
and
“Although the city’s homicide rate has declined dramatically since peaking in the early 1990s, Washington still ranks among the nation’s highest murder cities, with 169 killings in 2006.”
Yeah, that handgun ban has worked to perfection, hasn’t it?
November 21st, 2007 at 5:10 amBrian I apologize for my spelling error.
November 21st, 2007 at 6:09 amThat does not change the fact that the Constitution has and is still interpreted by the original intent of the Signers. The fact that we are beyond the 1700’s does not change their intent.
Although I am correct that the 2nd Amendment is a responsibility and not a Right. And when voting no longer works to rein in our politicians we are expected to take control of our government by whatever means necessary. As of today armed insurection is not the answer, the vote is still working, and the U.S. Government has not become tyranical or overbearing, yet.
Greetings:
Brian H wrote:
It’s not the 1700s any more; an “armed populus” [note the spelling; populous is not a noun, it’s an adjective meaning ‘heavily populated’] would not last long against trained state forces.
People, regular people, stood up to the British Army and Navy, two of the strongest, best trained military forces the world had then known and won…again and again. What did Andrew Jackson have against 10:1 odds with the Redcoats?
Could an armed group stand up to an American Military Unit? No…but then, would an American Military Unit kill Americans? Maybe…but you forget, Brian, that for every member of the Armed Forces there are many, many retired ones and I am fairly certain a retired SEAL or Ranger can ‘find’ a SAW or a grenade launcher and never, never underestimate a 16 year old with a Molotov Cocktail; a drink created in Slavic countries and used to great effect against one of the best, most disciplined and equipped militaries in the world-The German Army.
Don’t underestimate a group of pissed off citizens with rifles…the British did, the Germans did. Hell, look what Ghandi did without rifles!
Pistols and rifles are tools and we, my friends, are tool users.
Viva la THUMB!
Vote for Billary!
The end is near!
Tim Roesch
November 21st, 2007 at 8:09 amCommand Private Major
I would like to pose this question: If the ownership of fire arms by private citizens were not intended by the Constitution; Then why was this interpretation never implemented during the Old West?
The Liberal concept that the police are there to protect you all the time is Hogwash; when somebody is burglarizing your home you need to protect yourself immediately, not when someone shows up to file a report!
November 21st, 2007 at 4:57 pm