Supreme Court to address gun rights??

OutTrolling (ot) · 11-21-2007, 03:42 PM

Posted on Thu. Nov. 15, 2007 - 09:51 am EDT

EDITORIAL

Court has chance to firmly establish right to bear arms
But given the current makeup, it's anybody's guess what will happen.

The U.S. Supreme Court has a chance this term to settle a question it has been ducking for nearly 70 years: Is the right to bear arms in the 2nd Amendment an individual right or a collective right of a state to have a militia? If it is the former, every gun-control measure in the country will be up for grabs. If it is the latter, look for even stronger gun-control proposals.

On Tuesday, the court passed up its first opportunity to say it will review Parker vs. District of Columbia, a challenge to the most restrictive gun ban in the country. But it will have a couple of more chances to grant review later this month. We have mixed feelings about whether justices should grant review.

The right call is easy: The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect individual rights, and there is no reason to suppose the Framers meant otherwise for the 2nd Amendment.

But there is no guarantee that the court will get it right. There is likely a four-four split on the question - with the �liberals� arguing for a collective right and the �conservatives� holding to the individual-right view. That means it could be up to the swing voter, Anthony Kennedy. He leans toward the conservative group more often than not, but who knows how he would vote on this case? Do we want to leave the future of the 2nd Amendment up to one man's whims?

If the court doesn't grant review, that means the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals will stand - and that ruling overturned D.C.'s gun ban. We would at least be no worse off than we are now, and other jurisdictions considering similar bans would be given pause.

The 2nd Amendment is not an absolute; we may argue over which restrictions are reasonable and which are not. But the D.C. ban goes far beyond reasonable, banning all handguns in all homes. This goes against even what passes for Supreme Court precedent. In a 1939 case, the court said protected weapons must be �in common use� and bear �some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.� A handgun would seem to fit that definition.

It is unfortunate that the Framers chose such awkward wording for the 2nd Amendment. But the right to bear arms is deeply ingrained in American culture, and that's the kind of precedent the court ought to respect. <End of article.> From the FT Wayne Sentinel.

Now can we as the citizens of this nation influence the Court in any way as you would in contacting a congressman or are they considered to be "the Untouchables". I have never thought of the Amendments as applying to any other than individuals. I don't understand some of that legal mumbo jumbo but have always felt if you can't understand it, watch out. If there is something that can be done, it would be a 'shame on us' for not having done it and we don't get to whine about it if we could have done something and didn't. If anyone knows, let us know how and where.

Beamerfish · 11-21-2007, 03:50 PM

:lurk:

Rank Amateur · 11-21-2007, 03:55 PM

I saw on the news that the court is taking this case, so that article was a little misleading. I think the supreme court is pretty much untouchable, well at least by us comon people.

Cross your fingers.

Bait Bucket · 11-21-2007, 04:05 PM

I believe this decision will be more about if the Second Amendment applies to the District of Columbia which is not a state. The Supreme Court usually only addresses specific issues and the issue here seems to be guns in D.C. Their dicision, however, can have far reaching national consequences. This is going to be interesting.

Rank Amateur · 11-21-2007, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bait Bucket

I believe this decision will be more about if the Second Amendment applies to the District of Columbia which is not a state. The Supreme Court usually only addresses specific issues and the issue here seems to be guns in D.C.

Maybe, but I believe the argument was that the 2nd is an individual right and that may very well be the what the case hinges on.

The one judge made the case that constitutional protects don't apply in D.C., I think most legal scholars got a chuckle out that one.

Tar Heel · 11-21-2007, 05:12 PM

They will dodge the bullet if they are true to form, but I would be all for the imposition of mandatory gun safety training for mbrs of the exec. branch.

Hawk · 11-21-2007, 06:11 PM

We are debating this on another forum and the consensus seems to be that, since the Court rephrased the question to ask if the DC laws "violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia", we might be in good shape. It seems they are starting from the premise that individuals have Second Amendment rights. The only question is do DC's laws violate those rights.

Also, from the other forum, the question of whether gun ownership is a "collective right" or an "individual right" has already been answered. The US Attorney General's position since August 24, 2004 has been that the 2nd is an INDIVIDUAL right. You can read the full Opinion at www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf. The first full sentence of the Opinion reads as follows: "The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias."

So the Court could conceivably over rule the USAG, which would really mess us all up BIG TIME!!

BrianMaguire · 11-21-2007, 07:18 PM

This is a big one. The laws in many states hinge on this. It will be interesting to say the least.

"Amendment II
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."

IMO, this is clear, but for many the national guard is what they envision, not a bunch of farmers, shop owners with guns who would join together to defend the country.

With how many of our civil rights that seem to have gone by the wayside, the Bush haters, who tend to be anti gun, are often in a quandry. I tell them that those of us who have guns have them for what you are fearing right now - an dictator suspending civil liberties. This usually gets them in a real mental fight I don't think they can ever recover from, LOL.

adobe wall · 11-21-2007, 07:25 PM

Not a lot of suspense to this. The court will rule in favor of individual rights. I don't think it will be a split vote, either.

It may well be the only positive thing to come from the current administration. I'll take it.

(not sure if I've danced on the AUP with that statement, if so, go ahead and delete the post)

regards, aw

BrianMaguire · 11-21-2007, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rank Amateur

I saw on the news that the court is taking this case, so that article was a little misleading. I think the supreme court is pretty much untouchable, well at least by us comon people.
.

As it should ALWAYS be!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rank HAWK

The US Attorney General's position since August 24, 2004 has been that the 2nd is an INDIVIDUAL right.

No offense but an attorney generals opinon does not hold much water vs. the courts. A court can and recently has often held an administration's opinion is not the word. The attorney general, being part of the executive branch has no right to make law.

Hawk · 11-21-2007, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianMaguire

No offense but an attorney generals opinon does not hold much water vs. the courts. A court can and recently has often held an administration's opinion is not the word. The attorney general, being part of the executive branch has no right to make law.

But the AG's interpretation carries the weight of law until it is challenged in the courts. I think that's where we've been. I'm hoping we can win on this and put to rest the Fiasco in Medford.

OutTrolling (ot) · 11-22-2007, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hawk

But the AG's interpretation carries the weight of law until it is challenged in the courts. I think that's where we've been. I'm hoping we can win on this and put to rest the Fiasco in Medford.

Hawk: what is the fiasco in Medford. Apparently I've missed that.

HntnFsh · 11-22-2007, 08:35 AM

I think hes refering to the teacher that wants to carry her pistol to school for protection?

PIR8 Hook · 11-22-2007, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OutTrolling (ot)

Hawk: what is the fiasco in Medford. Apparently I've missed that.

NOT TO HIJACK THE THREAD:
The fiasco is a female teacher with a consealed handgun permit that wanted to carry @ school because of a potenially dangerous ex- husband. The school district has a zero tollerance policy but state law allows CWP holders to carry in most public buildings.

The judge ruled just yesterday that district policy overrules state law. I hope that there is an apeal!

DANG! I teach and hold a CWP. I was really hoping this would go the other way. IMHO "gun free zones" just are an invitation to wackos to do great amounts of harm to innocents. A policy does not stop criminals. If it did there would not be any "potentially dangerous schools" due to weapon expulsions under "No Child Left Behind".

I know that if I were able to carry and placed in a situation like Columbine or VA Tech....My students would be safe and they'd be placing the nutcase in a body bag.

I'm sorry that I lost my politically correctness there.

Smoked Salmon · 11-22-2007, 10:04 AM

I was a little surprised they agreed to take the case. After all, it is a election year. Any word on when they would actually listen to the case, or make a decision? Likely to be after November 2008.

adobe wall · 11-22-2007, 10:12 AM

The election is irrelevant (mho)- we have an outgoing administration and the both parties saw what happened after the AWB was passed. I think both the Republicans and Dems see this as a way off the hook- let the supreme court deal with it, they aren't elected officials.

There are a few politicians who are lathered up over it, of course, but for the most part the timing and court makeup are as good as it's gonna get.

jmho, aw

Gun Rod Bow · 11-22-2007, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adobe wall

There are a few politicians who are lathered up over it, of course, but for the most part the timing and court makeup are as good as it's gonna get.

jmho, aw

I sure hope not. It could get a lot worse with a few more Ruth Bader/Ginsbergs in there. The next election is very important for gun rights.

adobe wall · 11-22-2007, 10:53 AM

No doubt I think it could be better, but there's the reality of getting someone confirmed.

Considering the way the next election will likely go, I don't think the makeup of the court will improve any time soon.

regards, aw

Hawk · 11-22-2007, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OutTrolling (ot)

Hawk: what is the fiasco in Medford. Apparently I've missed that.

Yes, I meant the teacher in Medford who apparently had to surrender her rights as a citizen to become an employee of the school district.

Smoked Salmon · 11-22-2007, 11:51 AM

There is a long standing tradition of surrendering your weapon before entering certain publicly owned buildings, without respect to individual concerns. Courthouses, post offices, and now schools. But that's not really the point, is it?

I wonder if the SC will judge on the technicality of DC not being a state, or if they will decide that DC is a state in all but name, and rule in favor of the pistol owners.

BrianMaguire · 11-22-2007, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smoked Salmon

There is a long standing tradition of surrendering your weapon before entering certain publicly owned buildings, without respect to individual concerns. Courthouses, post offices, and now schools. But that's not really the point, is it?

I wonder if the SC will judge on the technicality of DC not being a state, or if they will decide that DC is a state in all but name, and rule in favor of the pistol owners.

The constitution applies to citizens, if they argue it does not apply to DC, therefore other territories as well, you can construe that to also mean foreign military bases. No, DC citizens have equal protection under the US constitution.

the question is not a states rights issue. A municipality, the City of Wasington DC, made a law, and that is the issue. Its is an individual case, not a state case.

Smoked Salmon · 11-22-2007, 11:37 PM

My Constitutional law is a bit poor, but I believe that Article 4 delineates the powers retained by the Feds, and the powers retained by the states. The Bill of Rights, which are amendments, include the 2nd, which declares that the freedom to bear arms is necessary to retain the security of a free state. The US Constitution says that (14th Amendment) no state shall restrict a freedom granted by the Federal government, which is why I believe the question in front of the SC does return to the issue of the rights of the District of Columbia as they apply to the rights of citizens of the USA.
It appears that the DofC is not exactly a normal place, as it currently is the same exact size and shape as the city of Washington, which used to be called Federal City and shared the DofC with the municipality of Georgetown. While ruled by a municipal government (mayoral) the Congress of the United States is, in fact, the ultimate authority in the DofC.

So who knows how it will go. And I still think it boils down to the rights retained by the municipality of DofC. Since it isn't a state, it lacks protection of the 14th amendment. But since it is federally governed, it should easily fall within the 2nd. Well, I guess this is why I'm not a lawyer. I just get tied in circles trying to figure this stuff.