Supreme Court Will Hear D.C. Guns Case

AP via SFGate ^ | 11/20/7 | MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer

[SmithL]

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.

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."

[do the dhue]

You cant starve us out and you cant make us run, because one of them ol' boys will bring his own shotgun!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4s0nzsU1Wg Country Boy Can Survive

[Repeal 16-17]

If it goes the wrong way then the Executive branch should ignore the ruling and refuse to prosecute.

That won't happen if the Executive is a Democrat, especially if the Executive is Queen Hillary. In that case and if the Congress is controlled by Democrats, full on gun confiscation will commence. They'll be doing it for the children. Every one of us should be at Yellow Alert.

[SmithL]

Uh-oh! I found this in DUmmieland:

30. This issue must be settled once and for all

it has cost the Democratic party too many elections. It is time for it to be removed as a plank of this party's platform and for the party to abandon gun control as a national issue. Leave this issue to the states and bring rural and blue collar Dems back into the party.

Supreme Court to Hear D.C. Gun Ban Case: Will raise political issue in time for '08 election

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

You cant starve us out and you cant make us run, because one of them ol’ boys will bring his own shotgun!
~~~

Fo’Sho !!,,,TANKS a Bunch Dhue ,,,Saved to my faves,,,

The Enemies Of The Constitution Ain’t Got A SnowBall’s

Chance In Hell !!! .

[do the dhue]

My pleasure. It is a great song.

[Keith Brown]

He should have held an M 14.

[DesScorp]

Good, its time to have this out once and for all. Just pray to God to watch over us and our rights...

[lmsii]

Unfortunately, the way the SC phrased the issue it will only address whether one can keep handguns and other firearms for private use “in their homes.”

The SC will not address the issue of the right to carry firearms, openly or concealed, in public. Thus leaving for another day, the issue of how far the 2d Amendment goes.

It is unfortunate that the SC will not settle the whole issue all at one time.

[DesScorp]

“I read that just the opposite. My translation of the way they are posing the question is: Do ordinary individuals who are not part of the army or national guard have the individual right to bear arms? Which, imo, is the right question. It removes any proficeincy test that “well-regulated” might impose.”

That’s exactly how I read it.

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

My pleasure. It is a great song.
~~~

It sure it,,,

JMHO : It won’t be so much a “Gun Grab” as it will be an

“Ammo Squeeze”,,,Time to stock up,,,

[bIlluminati]

Spacetrucker:

You are incorrect. Both Rehnquist and O’Connor were on the USSC at the time, and both ruled in favor of Kelo, and against the omnipotent State. Kennedy betrayed the free Republic on that one, along with the usual suspects.

Also, both joined Thomas in dissenting on medical marijuana, with Kennedy and Scalia joining the anti-life four. I am certain Alito will rule correctly in Parker. I have no idea how Roberts will rule. Kennedy will concur with Roberts, but write a separate opinion joined by no one, if Roberts writes the opinion for five on this one. However, I expect that Alito will write the opinion, with second choice Thomas, and third choice (unlikely, unless the decision is narrow) Kennedy.

The reason Ginsburg and Breyer voted against medical marijuana is that it would imply that states have powers and individuals have rights. And that’s not in their playbook.

[Nachoman]

Keep

your

powder

dry.

[Gilbo_3]

You would take up arms against your country if the Supremes didn't rule the way you favor?

Youre kidding right?

they have already taken up arms against the obvious protections in the Bill of Rights for years.

its up to the supremes to decide if THEY want to officially declare war...

If that happens then theres a bunch a millions of people thatll be without a country, that will start shopping/voting for a new one...

[omega4179]

Maybe they got tired of the NRA’s lack of support in their state, or endless compromises or endless mail and boring magazines.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

["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 who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes."]

Looks like they've taken the whole enchilada.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

If 250 million Americans possessed 1 Billion guns and 50 Billion rounds of ammunition, this could have a small influence on the SCOTUS decision.

[KTM rider]

If the Supreme Lawyers can turn Roe V Wade into the right to keep and bear abortions, then they can concievably do anything, no matter how random or ridiculous.

this could get ugly, not so much by its immediate implications , but by the precedent it will set

[madison46]

“A Well Educated Society, being necessary for a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed”

Simple english. Well educated society isn’t the only ones to keep and read books. The people get to keep and read books so as to have a well educated society.

Only liberals would rape the Constitution to contort the 2nd to mean state milita has ‘the right’. And states don’t have rights, they have ‘powers’ or ‘authority’. ONly people have rights.

The above should be all the argument a true Constitution judge needs.

However, given the McCain-Fiengold ruling and Kelo, I we fear this case.

[Eastbound]

There! Got muh gun strapped on and ready to read the thread!

[Ancesthntr]

Can you imagine the fight to get another Bush nominee through with that decision pending? It was hard enough when the republicans (RINOs?) controlled the judiciary committee. Can you say litmus test?

I imagine that the nominee would, if even deemed to be slightly receptive to listening to the word "gun" without the presence of an airsick bag, have his nomination dragged out until the oral arguments were heard and he couldn't vote on the case.