All Americans May Lose Private Gun Ownership Rights This Month
UCB:
CU Law Prof Says Gun Ownership Nationwide To Be Decided With U.S. Supreme Court Ruling This Week
March 14, 2008
For the first time in nearly 70 years, the United States Supreme Court will rule on the Second Amendment’s meaning of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” and according to Scott Moss, a law professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, the ruling will most likely affect gun control laws across the nation.
“The case of the District of Columbia versus Heller not only will decide whether Washington, D.C., can keep its handgun ban, but ultimately will determine the fate of gun control laws across the country,” said Moss. “Remarkably, this case is likely to be the first time the Supreme Court, in its over two centuries of interpreting the constitution, truly will have to decide, once and for all, whether the Second Amendment protects individual citizens’ rights to own guns or protects only states’ rights to maintain armed police forces and militias.”
The Supreme Court will hear the case March 18.
“District of Columbia v. Heller” is about a handgun that Dick Anthony Heller tried to register with the city, but was turned down. The District has the nation’s most restrictive gun law, essentially banning private handgun ownership. Heller challenged the D.C. law and by a 2 – 1 vote last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declared it unconstitutional. Heller argues that he has a Second Amendment right to have the gun in his home for self defense.
The last time the court addressed the Second Amendment was in “U.S. v. Miller” in 1939. But many constitutional experts agree that it is uncertain if the Court’s ruling at that time set a precedent about whether the Second Amendment stands for the individual right to bear arms or the state’s right to form a militia, a distinction that could influence the current Court’s decision, said Moss.
“With the Second Amendment such an uncharted area of constitutional law, on which few Justices have expressed any opinions at all, there is no telling what the Court will decide. But the implications of a decision striking down the Washington, D.C., handgun ban would be clear,” said Moss. “If the court decides to strike down the D.C. handgun ban, that decision would be sure to spark a firestorm of nationwide litigation likely to succeed at mowing down gun control laws across the nation.”
But, according to Moss, the case also implicates broader fundamental questions, including:
• Should constitutional rights be interpreted as they were originally intended in the 1700s — when widespread gun ownership arguably was key to security and order — or in light of modern social circumstances — when limiting gun access arguably is key to security and order?
• Will Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both still new enough to the court to be question marks on many issues, side with Justice Thomas’s view that the Second Amendment calls into question much modern gun control legislation?
• Will the court “duck” the hard call, as it did in refusing to decide the constitutionality of public school recitations of the pledge of allegiance, by deciding the case on a technicality?
Because this case implicates so many unknowns, said Moss, oral argument, often a formality in Supreme Court cases, may be unusually illuminating, especially if any of the Justices make their views clear through their questioning of the attorneys.
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.
I would not be comfortable with a complete repeal of the 2nd amendment. Gun ownership should be up to the person, and no one else, provided the person is not a criminal.
March 16th, 2008 at 3:33 amIt’s blatantly obvious how the founders intended it, I just hope the Supreme Court doesn’t decide it doesn’t like the founder’s intention.
March 16th, 2008 at 3:48 amI have a feeling the Supreme Court has a very good idea what kind of social chaos it invites upon this country if it says everybody has to surrender their weapons.
Do you want to be unarmed when the jihadis make their next move?
March 16th, 2008 at 4:33 amand it took over 200 years to declare english as our official language..and they still dont know how to interpret our 2nd amendment..unfrikken believable.
March 16th, 2008 at 5:27 amThe time may come when the SC has to be corrected by the electorate. Clearly, every man and women in Government must be replaced. This group’s mark will be the lawlessness that they call government.
March 16th, 2008 at 5:52 amThey fully understand that Americans have rights to bear arms, however government can’t fully implement the next round of laws without collecting guns.
The time will come when the SC moves to the left. Clearly, every man and women in Government must be replaced. This group’s mark will be the lawlessness that they call government.
March 16th, 2008 at 6:06 amThey fully understand that Americans have rights to bear arms, however government can’t fully implement the next round of laws without collecting guns.
Seeing since the armed American public out numbers anything they can through against I hope they stop to consider that the next revolution will be triggered if they choose poorly. Well over 100 million people are “known” to legally own firearms in our nation. Just those that are known to have them far out number all of the combined armies of the entire world.
So if they want to commit suicide just come and try and take them. WE DARE YOU!
March 16th, 2008 at 6:19 amFrom my reading of the case going to the SC this should be a positive decision for gun owners. The clarity of the argument and logic for the gun owner side of the case is very very compelling.
March 16th, 2008 at 6:40 amGandalf
I pray that you are right since we could have another executive order come from the next White House that could ban assault rifles again.
As it stands now, we don’t see the import of cheap munitions anymore. The price of old surplus military ammo has gone sky high. Personally, I think that surplus is safer in the hands of US citizens then any where else.
March 16th, 2008 at 7:21 amGovernment is a sneakthief. The method working against us is incremental, as with the Political Cowardliness censorship phenomenon, the citizen disarmament operations have heretofore pro-ceded by making activities formally known to be reasonable and legal, suddenly illegal. They won’t attempt confiscation on a large scale, too dangerous, obviously suicidal. They’ll simply make more Americans criminals, disarming us slowly with ordinary police action.
Truism: When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.
March 16th, 2008 at 7:34 amGuess I’ll be an outlaw… bring it on mother fuckers.
March 16th, 2008 at 8:16 amI agree with Gandolf.
I believe we will see the second amendment re-enshrined with this judgement. That will end the roundabout the pansies are using via local/state gov to limit or outright take our rights. The reason the bill or rights was recorded as a federal and not local/state document was the founders intended it to be the basis for ALL THE NATION.
California state or NY city has not right to limit my rights as a US CITIZEN.
5yrs ago this case before the Supreme Court would have had me wetting myself. But one of Bush’s true lasting achievements is shifting the supreme court 5/4 conservative.
This maybe the first real test of that achievement but I wager it will be the first of many judgments and re-hearings of many many more cases.
Look at the Supreme Court record over the last 30 years and you see the vast bulk of 5/4 (liberal favor) decisions that have resulted in the withering/weakening of the US pillars, GOD-COUNTRY-FAMILY.
March 16th, 2008 at 8:22 amInstead of wrangling over the meaning of “militia” as used in the Second, will the court simply look for the meaning of “militia” in what the new government actually DID, or did NOT do in the years following the start of our new government? Surely that would tell us the meaning they meant, would it not — what they actually DID?
That is, will we see late 18th century copies arrest warrants for owners of illegal guns? Will we see records of trials convicting people of illegal gun ownership? Will we see copies of contemporary newspapers, and diaries recounting how citizen soldiers of the Revolution marched en masse to armories to turn in their guns to the new government?
We will not. Because it didn’t happen. Because that’s not what the Second Amendment meant, and everybody then knew it.
The “militia” was every able bodied man, not an as yet unheard of national guard, and everybody knew it.
“To keep” meant to have it near, in your house, instantly available like The Minutemen did, and everybody knew it.
“To bear” meant to carry it around with you, on your person, and everybody knew it.
“Arms” meant military-capable weapons, because those are the weapons the framers of the Constitution had just got finished fighting a long, bloody, ruinous war for Liberty with, and everybody knew it — especially The Framers.
“Shall” meant definitely will happen, definitely will do, a command, and everybody knew it.
“Not be infringed” meant you don’t even get close to messing with it, and everybody knew it.
Are there really five Supreme Court Justices who really think that those men, those founders would really have just handed over their guns to the new government?
And, if so, then WHY DIDN’T THEY?
March 16th, 2008 at 9:08 amMy hat is off to you Mr. Smith, very solid, the one thing that we do have to be very weary of is the push by UN for the one world government and they know that the only way to accomplish this is thru total population control. Their high priests; Hitler, Stalin and all others taught them that pow’s are a risk to their dreams of absolute power.
March 16th, 2008 at 10:37 amThe fear of the founding fathers lay on a government that would become too powerful and thus too greedy.
Political elites fear the people, specially well armed people because it is such people that have the right to terminate their contracts and tenure.
In the words of that great philosopher and guru: YOU ARE FIRED!
If they’re going to interpret this, they should also interpret giving citizenship to people who have illegal parents here. That was put in there to allow slaves to become citizens, not illegals.
March 16th, 2008 at 10:39 amIf the federal government attempts to revoke private gun ownership, I will happily begin a secession movement in my state. We led the way once, we’ll do it again if necessary.
——–
Very well put Mr. Smith. If only I could be so confident that our government leaders could see an issue in such simple, logical and obvious terms.
March 16th, 2008 at 11:01 amWell, the real question is: Can the States repel the tyranny of a rogue Federalist government? If not than we are out of balance and King George has reared his ugly head again.
Think about what I just said before you reply. It is not an attack on George Bush. It has to do with reconstruction after the Civil War and how the Bill of Rights has been gutted ever since.
Also, I don’t think our forefathers thought a State would be foolish enough to disarm itself which is exactly what gun regulation does.
March 16th, 2008 at 11:14 amGF
The States never had the right to overrule the Bill of Rights prior, during, or after Reconstruction.
States rights and the basic rights the federal constitution enshrines to ALL US CITIZENS (Bill of Rights) are not the same animal.
Listen I would fully agree the Federal government since the 60’s on have way overreached their intended purpose and allot of the state rights and responsibilities have been absorbed and made worse by a bureaucratic fed.
However if the state/city government can take your 2nd amendment then they can take the rest at their pleasure as well.
March 16th, 2008 at 11:46 amKansas for one has been in overdrive gaving back gun rights to it’s citizens.
Most recently:
Friday, March 14, 2008
This week, the Kansas House Committee on Elections and Governmental Organization unanimously passed House Bill 2811. This legislation now heads to the House of Representatives for a possible vote early next week.
HB2811 would prevent the State of Kansas from confiscating, registering, or regulating the lawful sale, possession, transfer, transport or carry of firearms during a state of emergency, such as occurred in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. This bill will protect Kansans’ right to self-defense, even during a declared state of emergency.
March 16th, 2008 at 12:11 pm‘or in light of modern social circumstances — when limiting gun access arguably is key to security and order?’
I particularly find that statement interesting. Exactly who’s security and order does it benefit?
There are no social circumstances to warrant disavowing the 2nd Amendment Rights. Who benefits….Maybe the corrupt politicians, their handlers and the criminal element, but it doesn’t benfit me and all the other law abiding citizens of this country.
March 16th, 2008 at 12:28 pmC-Low
I never said the States can overrule the Bill of Rights. My interpretation is that the 2nd amendment is a right of the States to redress problems with the Federal government by force if necessary. One could ask that if the State by being part of the United States has the right to impose action against its own militia - basically any able bodied man in that state - with things such as gun laws. Would it in so doing make it fail at its own obligation to the other States. That obligation is to defend other States from invasion from without or within? Do you see what I’m getting at? Have our States been neglectful of their duties? Has the Federal government been over reaching by creating Federal gun laws and trying to enforce them in the States? In other words can there be any gun laws at all, State or Federal in the States? This, leads to the widely held belief that U.S. citizens have a right to bear arms, which would sometimes be true. But would it be true for citizens in the territories of the United States which are not States. Are Federal gun laws only legal in the territories? And this is what I think D.C. is all about. And yes it should bring up questions about the ATF’s authority within States.
March 16th, 2008 at 12:31 pmGlad I bought my
Pow-Pow 
ahead of time just in case the Justices become un-just and turn on the people and the Constitution they are sworn to protect.
March 16th, 2008 at 2:35 pmI pray that you are right since we could have another executive order come from the next White House that could ban assault rifles again. MR. STANDFAST
IT WOULD REQUIRE LEGISLATIVE ACTION, JUST LIKE IT DID LAST TIME.
March 16th, 2008 at 5:45 pmGF
Well, the real question is: Can the States repel the tyranny of a rogue Federalist government? If not than we are out of balance and King George has reared his ugly head again.
MOST STATES HAVE THEIR OWN EQUIVELENT 2ND AMEND. THE 9TH AND 10TH AMEND. SHOULD PROTECT US FROM ANY FEDERAL POWER GRABIN THIS AREA.
March 16th, 2008 at 5:51 pmNatchaz, AIM and AmmoToGo have some decent prices on .223/5.56 and 7.62
March 16th, 2008 at 7:04 pmWhen each individual State joined the Union a contract was negotiated between the two parties and then signed by both.
In a dozen or so of the state contracts is a REQUIREMENT that the word PEOPLE in the 2nd amendment means the individual, if the SC rules the other way the FEDS will violate the contract , the state (i.e. Montana) can declare the contract null and void and could in-fact LEGALLY secede from the U.S..
The Montana attorney General submitted a brief to the SC saying just that
It could get very interesting
March 16th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
It is a trite saying, but: Whom-ever will only be able to take my guns away from me after my cold dead fingers have been pryed off of them after my hands have been rapped around them.
March 16th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
It is a trite saying, but: Whom-ever will only be able to take my guns away from me after my cold dead fingers have been pryed off of them after my hands have been rapped around them. 
March 16th, 2008 at 7:58 pm‘
It is a trite saying, but: Whom-ever will only be able to take my guns away from me after my cold dead fingers have been pryed off of them after my hands have been rapped around them.’
X2
March 16th, 2008 at 7:59 pmA guns primary function is not to kill humans, it is to kill animals. It also doesnt explain ones intent. it is a tool much like a car and it can be an abused privelege. Ban the guns, then ban the cars next. I dont own a gun, but there may come a time when I need one. I want that option.
March 17th, 2008 at 12:00 amThe SC is going to hold that individuals have a right to bear arms, they know better than not to. There will be a shit storm if they rule any other way.
March 17th, 2008 at 12:55 amI think this will prove to be the firming up of the original intention of the 2nd Amdt. Miltia has always been composed of the populace and always will be. Any attempt to subvert the 2nd amdt will result in a mustering of the militia in numbers never before seen.
“The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” Thomas Jefferson
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” - Thomas Jefferson
“The best we can hope for the people at large is that they be properly armed.” - Alexander Hamilton
“History will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.” - Ghandi
March 17th, 2008 at 9:46 am@mindy abrahams
“provided the person is not a criminal”
Where in the constitution does it say the second amendment is contingent on the person not being a criminal? Do criminals also not have a right to free speech or anything else in the bill of rights?
March 17th, 2008 at 1:20 pmGF - in partial answer to your question, the Bill of Rights historically only sets out a list of things the Federal Government cannot do - it’s silent as to what the States can do. Thus, the States could, if we were looking at just the Bill of Rights, prohibit free speech, gun rights, etc.
However, through a process called “Incorporation”, the Supreme Court has applied various provisions of the Bill of Rights to the State - thus a State cannot inhibit free speech any more than the Federal Government can.
However, a few oddities have yet to be “incorporated” to the states yet - the right to indictment by grand jury, for example, is a funadmental right granted by the bill of rights, yet the states are free to ignore it. As of now, it’s my understanding that the second amendment has yet to be “incorporated” - thus Texas could, as it stands now, strip every Texan of their right to bear arms - the constitution only speaks to the federal government.
March 17th, 2008 at 1:25 pmC-Low -
That’s not entirely accurate, see above. Also check:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)
March 17th, 2008 at 1:27 pmC-Low - if you read the above, the argument that the state couldn’t infringe on the rights protected by the bill of rights (what the federal government cannot do) didn’t materialize until 1868 with the passage of the 14th amendment.
March 17th, 2008 at 1:30 pmWhen will we finally learn how to stop these socialist dictating lib’s!? Per usual when they fail to pass a law through the legislating body they turn to activist judges to make the law for them (Roe v Wade.) I hate to sound like a defeatist but history shows these rulings never favor private citizens’ liberties, but usually strengthens government’s control. This is why it is so important to have a Conservative in office to appoint a Judge that has actually read the Constitution and believes in the Constitution. There is a reason the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, it is supposed to keep the government from gaining too much power over the citizen’s. As long as we remain reactionary to these political attacks we will continue to loose these battles. We need to learn how to get ahead of these assaults on the Constitution and defeat these points of views before they gain too much traction. We also need to learn even if we beat them once they will always come back and try again (Amnesty for illegal aliens, global warming.) If McCain where to be elected we really need to hold his feet to the fire on his word he will appoint the kind of judges that will uphold the Constitution.
March 17th, 2008 at 1:45 pmAll I can say is “Come and Take It”
March 17th, 2008 at 1:59 pmAny of you guys ever play Doom? Remember Doom? I’m an old fart, but I loved it when he says, “Come get some.”
March 17th, 2008 at 7:01 pmOr, “Let God clean it up…”
Molan Labe — What the Leonidas said to Xerxes Thermopylae when invited to lay down his arms
Come and get them
March 17th, 2008 at 7:37 pmBy the way - George Washington didn’t say that quote.
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html
March 19th, 2008 at 12:05 pm