GUN Supreme Court agrees to rule on gun case

Discussion in 'On Topic' started by TL1000RSquid, Nov 20, 2007.

  1. TL1000RSquid

    TL1000RSquid ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    14,257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NY
    www.scotusblog.com/wp/

    Court agrees to rule on gun case

    Tuesday, November 20th, 2007 1:02 pm
    Lyle Denniston

    After a hiatus of 68 years, the Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to rule on the meaning of the Second Amendment — the hotly contested part of the Constitution that guarantees “a right to keep and bear arms.” Not since 1939 has the Court heard a case directly testing the Amendment’s scope — and there is a debate about whether it actually decided anything in that earlier ruling. In a sense, the Court may well be writing on a clean slate if it, in the end, decides the ultimate question: does the Second Amendment guarantee an individual right to have a gun for private use, or does it only guarantee a collective right to have guns in an organized military force such as a state National Guard unit?

    The city of Washington’s appeal (District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290) is expected to be heard in March — slightly more than a year after the D.C. Circuit Court ruled that the right is a personal one, at least to have a gun for self-defense in one’s own home.

    The Justices chose to write out for themselves the question(s) they will undertake to answer. Both sides had urged the Court to hear the city’s case, but they had disagreed over how to frame the Second Amendment issue.
     
  2. Milky

    Milky I'm in your Millenium Falcon, rumbling your Wookie

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,067
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Mississippi State
    Uh oh...
     
  3. PanzerAce

    PanzerAce Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    14,502
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    N37°18'37" W120°29'50"
    :bowdown: that they are taking it. possible ruroh about them writing their own questions...
     
  4. PanzerAce

    PanzerAce Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    14,502
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    N37°18'37" W120°29'50"
    interesting...
     
  5. david_4x4

    david_4x4 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,468
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Texas
    This could go very wrong...
     
  6. TL1000RSquid

    TL1000RSquid ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    14,257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NY
    www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8T1IL100&show_article=1


    Supreme Court Will Hear D.C. Guns Case

    Nov 20 02:39 PM US/Eastern
    By MARK SHERMAN
    Associated Press Writer

    WASHINGTON (AP) - 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
     
  7. Alphaeus

    Alphaeus New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Messages:
    12,101
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chicago
    That really makes me nervous. I just hope the Supreme Court considers ALL the aspects of the amendment and what's really at stake in making a sweeping Supreme Court decision on the issue.

    To me, the amendment is very clear. The bill of rights was adopted primarily at the demand of anti-federalists who feared an over-powerful federal government. Therefore in order to maintain the security of a free state, STATES ("state" does not refer to the federal government here, based on the circumstances and intentions of those supporting a bill of rights), need a militia that is well-regulated to maintain efficiency and effectiveness.

    However, more than anything else, the bill of rights were a response to the almost total lack of individual rights protections in the original Constitution, which is to say the very purpose of the bill of rights was to LIMIT, the government: it is incredibly naive to think that any amendment in the bill of rights is intended to limit the rights of individual citizens. The "shall not be infringed" clause speaks clearly to the fact that in order for a meaningful militia to exist, and for security to be protected, the individual right to own weapons is imperative and absolutely necessary. And all that is completely separate from the unmistakable clarity of the views of the Founders on individual gun ownership.

    The only reasons to think the 2nd Amendment speaks to a collective right are (1) personal fear or distaste for guns, which leads to an intentional skewing of the 2nd's glaringly obvious meaning, (2) The baseless and naive belief that individual gun ownership is the cause of gun crime, and (3) A misguided and ignorant view and interpretation of the Constitution and its history.
     
  8. TL1000RSquid

    TL1000RSquid ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    14,257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NY
    Heres a Brady email going out

     
  9. PanzerAce

    PanzerAce Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    14,502
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    N37°18'37" W120°29'50"
    :big grin:

    Personally, I think we won this one before it even started. read this again:

    Now, take a look at this part: Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals

    Seems to me atleast that the SCOTUS has already decided that the 2A is an individual right, and that all they are deciding is if the DC gun ban violates them....
     
  10. Alphaeus

    Alphaeus New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Messages:
    12,101
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chicago
    Now THIS is good news. It's a relief it won't be wide-sweeping legislation from the bench, as they say. And hopefully such a ruling would negate Chicago's handgun ban.
     
  11. DaninTexas

    DaninTexas OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,232
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Houston, Tx
    This case will end the DC ban or start a civil war.

    I love living right now - such interesting times.
     
  12. TwistedMind

    TwistedMind New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,608
    Likes Received:
    0
    This has me anxious. It could go the gun lobbys way, (which I hope it does ) and restore one of our basic freedoms, or it could go the Brady way and start a cluster fuck unlike this country has seen in 200 years.
     
  13. PanzerAce

    PanzerAce Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    14,502
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    N37°18'37" W120°29'50"
    what makes you think that people are going to take it lying down if they rule that it is a collective right (somehow opposing how they phrased the question in the first place)? Sure, alot of gun owners wouldn't really vote from the rooftops, but if it goes the BAD way, and it keeps going like that fast, something will snap. All it takes is one guy that shoots 1000 yard matches to get REALLY pissed, and its all over. Hell, in a city, they couldn't do shit if the guy knew what he was doing and was way the hell away.
     
  14. VladTemplar

    VladTemplar New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,489
    Likes Received:
    0
    Quite frankly gentlemen, I would rather die shooting than hand my firearms over.

    One of my flatmates just asked me what I would do (they all know I'm an avid gun owner) if they ruled against individual rights. I said I'd resist handing over my firearms, but they wanted a clearer answer so he asked what I'd do if he was a police officer and he came to take my firearms. I said that myself and my father (a former police officer and a current deputy US Marshall) would sooner shoot him than hand our guns over.

    Civil war isn't what would happen here gentlement, the better answer would be a full scale revolution. After all you can't have a civil war when one side is armed and the other isn't. I do NOT see the various police and military forces turning on their own citizens, often their own families, to take away the right that most of them believe in themselves.

    Simply put, if they ruled against individual ownership, a bloodbath would ensue. For this reason alone I'm not afraid of them doing it, because their heads would be in the scopes of the people they'd anger.

    /rant
     
  15. cjj92yj

    cjj92yj Guest

    I can see the headlines now:

    17 dead by unknown gunman

    23 shot, not a sound heard

    34 LEO's dead trying to uphold law


    I would look forward to reading those stories should it happen.
     
  16. VladTemplar

    VladTemplar New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,489
    Likes Received:
    0
    I honestly think most LEOs would walk out of their jobs if they were asked to do this. LEO unions (FOP being the biggest) would probably encourage a massive strike.
     
  17. cjj92yj

    cjj92yj Guest

    You're most likely correct on this assumption. I know I would, provided I were a LEO. There would be a few who remain, but only a few.
     
  18. TwistedMind

    TwistedMind New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,608
    Likes Received:
    0
    thats the real question thats needs an answer isn't it.

    If they ruled this a collective right, would the LEO's and Military enforce it?

    I can't give a honest answer. I know a few LEO friends that would sooner quit than try and take someones guns away in this situation, but theres also alot of douche canoes on a power trip in the military, police departments that would jump at the chance to enforce their authority.

    Personally, I wouldn't hand my firearms over, but I don't think I would be willing to kill some joe blow trying to do his job to get them. I think I would need an organized movement with the objective of overturning this hypothetical law, before I would be comfortable taking a life over it. Because one man alone isn't going to change anything.

    Then again I live in Texas, and we are pretty funny when it comes to our guns, I doubt id be the only one unwilling to surrender peacfully my weapons.
    My buddy has a come and take it flag he flys every spring break when the liberals and hippies invade our beaches, I know where he stands on the issue.
     
  19. PanzerAce

    PanzerAce Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    14,502
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    N37°18'37" W120°29'50"
    those would be the more likely headlines. God help those poor mother fuckers if they ever push just a little to far.
     
  20. PanzerAce

    PanzerAce Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    14,502
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    N37°18'37" W120°29'50"
    In the central valley of CA, if the military tried to take away gun, they would have alot of blown up equipment, and alot of vehicles with nice round holes through their BP glass.

    Hell, I know of a guy that bought a Barret .416, a 6000 dollar scope (range finder, ballistic computer, the works), and a CASE of ammo.
     
  21. TL1000RSquid

    TL1000RSquid ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    14,257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NY
    I don't think it would work out ordering either to do it, now if they asked for volunteers to do it then they could probably get enough douchbags together to do it. If Hitlery or her kind were to win the election maybe they'd ask the UN for help :dunno: But I see that leading to much bloodshed.
     
  22. PanzerAce

    PanzerAce Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    14,502
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    N37°18'37" W120°29'50"
    Blue shows up well against the red chevron of an ACOG.
     
  23. TwistedMind

    TwistedMind New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,608
    Likes Received:
    0

    if they brought the UN or any other forign military body onto american soil for something like this all bets are off. I would view it as a invasion and act accordingly, I won't hesitate to spill non-american blood.
     
  24. 01_Cruiser

    01_Cruiser An American Classic OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Messages:
    45,895
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NC
    :werd:
     
  25. VladTemplar

    VladTemplar New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,489
    Likes Received:
    0
    This would be an uprising, pure and simple. I think some of the people who are ambivalent on the issue of gun control would suddenly start taking up arms.

    Don't kid yourself, Yakamoto's description of America still holds true if you push too hard. We're a sleeping dragon till we get pissed off, when America as a whole gets completely and truly angry we will unleash a fury of a kind this world could only begin to imagine.

    You know people who own rifles and handguns legally, if a revolution or uprising came about they'd ignore the laws on explosive devices and weapons and start arming themselves with everything they could fashion. I'd be willing to bet there are a lot of grandpa's out there who've got a few Thompson's or M14s they managed to take away from the military just in store in case shit really hit the fan.
     

Share This Page