Opening Shots - The striking down of the D.C. gun ban may be the beginning of a larger battle.

National Review Online ^ | March 29, 2007 | Jennifer Rubin

[neverdem]

Here's Parker v. District of Columbia via HTML, courtesy of zeugma.

[neverdem]

BANG!

[mvpel]

Attorneys for the parties, as well as other legal experts, rank the likelihood that the Supreme Court will hear this case as high, given that the case would entail invalidation of a statute, a conflict between federal circuit courts, and a constitutional issue of wide ranging importance — all weighty considerations when it comes to granting certiorari.

The same three conditions, and others, prevailed in the Nordyke v. King petition for writ of certiorari, and it was still refused by the US Supreme Court.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

“I believe the decision by United States Court of Appeals is correct. I understand the challenges that big cities face from gun violence. But banning people from having handguns in their own homes for self defense is excessive and unconstitutional. It is not a reasonable restriction. It clearly undercuts the Second Amendment, which protects the rights of law abiding individuals to keep and bear arms.” Do my eyes deceive me? Did Rudy just flip-flop/pander?

On March 22 on the Sean Hannity radio show, he again reiterated his agreement with Parker. He stated that it “very well described” his view that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to own a gun, that “unreasonable restrictions” should be invalidated, and that gun regulations should be decided on “a state by state” basis.

Okay then.

This:

He stated that it “very well described” his view that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to own a gun, that “unreasonable restrictions” should be invalidated

Is contradicted by THIS:

and that gun regulations should be decided on “a state by state” basis.

How utterly transparent.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

Ugh. Let me fix that.

“I believe the decision by United States Court of Appeals is correct. I understand the challenges that big cities face from gun violence. But banning people from having handguns in their own homes for self defense is excessive and unconstitutional. It is not a reasonable restriction. It clearly undercuts the Second Amendment, which protects the rights of law abiding individuals to keep and bear arms.”

Do my eyes deceive me? Did Rudy just flip-flop/pander?

On March 22 on the Sean Hannity radio show, he again reiterated his agreement with Parker. He stated that it “very well described” his view that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to own a gun, that “unreasonable restrictions” should be invalidated, and that gun regulations should be decided on “a state by state” basis.

Okay then.

This:

He stated that it “very well described” his view that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to own a gun, that “unreasonable restrictions” should be invalidated

Is contradicted by THIS:

and that gun regulations should be decided on “a state by state” basis.

How utterly transparent.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

Has Mr. Hunter issued a statement on this ruling yet?

[chaos_5]

"If none of the Republicans are perfect poster boys for the NRA, what about the Democrats?

They forget to mention that Hunter has a 100% rating from the NRA. But, no one in the media wants to give him any acknowledgment. Its a shame.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

As Stuart Taylor explained in National Journal, since the Supreme Court last ruled on the Second Amendment in 1939, most courts and legal scholars have held: “The amendment’s first clause means that its sole purpose was to guarantee each state a collective right to have self-armed private citizens available as a military force-in-waiting (militia) to fight off federal encroachments; therefore, the second clause protects no individual right; state militias long ago became defunct; so the Second Amendment is an inoperative historical anachronism.”

First of all, in the 1939 Miller case, the defendant's lawyer didn't even show up. The Feds won by default.

Secondly, the vast majority of Law Reviews on the Second Amendment hold it to be an individual right, sometimes very reluctantly. The only ones that don't were funded by anti-gun benefactors. (If any global warming study funded by "Big Oil" is automatically invalid, than any 2nd Amendment study by "Big Disarmament" should likewise be deemed automatically invalid).

Comprehensive Bibliography Of The Second Amendment In Law Reviews

Thirdly, even Alan Dershowitz reluctantly admits the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals.

Analyzing The 2nd Amendment

[Teacher317]

The striking down of the D.C. gun ban may be the beginning of a larger battle.

LOL, Lefties are always late to the war...

In 1986, there were only 9 states that had "shall issue" laws for concealed-carry permits, and 15 states utterly forbade the practice... the NRA has been putting up a good fight since the 1980's.
In 2006, there were 39 states that were "shall issue" or unrestricted, and only 2 that do not issue concealed carry permits under any circumstances.

(EXPLANATION: "May Issue" laws said that if you apply for a permit, the local authority MIGHT allow you to get the permit... but he was not required to give you one. He also would not have to give any valid reason for the refusal. "Shall issue" laws mean that, unless you have a previous violent felony or a current psychological disorder, the locals MUST issue you the permit. "Unrestricted" means that you can carry concealed without a permit.)

[Teacher317]

Strange that the US saw a decrease in violent crime rates starting in the late 1980's. Purely a coincidence, I'm sure.

[Born to Conserve]

“The amendment’s first clause means that its sole purpose was to guarantee each state a collective right to have self-armed private citizens available as a military force-in-waiting (militia) to fight off federal encroachments"

OR

it was to guarantee each citizen the right to have arms to fight off State encroachments? It depends on how you read "free state" -- is that a state that is free, or is it a state of free people?

The C. says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", not "the right of the States to keep a well armed militia."

Clearly, we individuals are expected to bear arms, and I happily comply.

[Beagle8U]

" No less than Bill Clinton opined on The Charlie Rose Show after Al Gore’s loss that: “The NRA beat him in Arkansas. The NRA and Ralph Nader stand right behind the Supreme Court in their ability to claim that they put George Bush in the White House.... I think the NRA had enough votes in New Hampshire, in Arkansas, maybe in Tennessee and in Missouri to beat us. And they nearly whipped us in two or three other places.”"

The Rooty-Tooters better take note of what would happen to him in the Red states.

[DBrow]

My worst nightmare? The Supremes deciding on RKBA like they did in RvW.

[neverdem]

Thanks for the links.

[Petruchio]

Georgetown Law Professor Paul Rothstein suggests that that may be just the beginning, explaining: “I do not think any of them [the Supreme Court justices] would take the view that there is an absolute right to bear arms.” In the end he predicts: “The likelihood is that it will be held that there is an individual right that gives way to a strong, specific state interest expressed in a relatively narrowly tailored legislative provision, under some type of ‘intermediate scrutiny’ test.”

What the Hell does That mean?

[neverdem]

What the Hell does That mean?

Weasel words to infringe?

[NVDave]

There's a couple things wrong in this article.

First, everyone who is a RKBA supporter should understand that the NRA was, at best, a bystander in this court case, and at worst, no help and only a hinder to winning this case. This case was won because, as Don Kates was fond of telling me in 1994, the lawyers finally found the right plaintiffs -- people who were law-abiding, and had not been arrested for violation of one or more laws, one of which was a gun ban. Instead, these were people who were being denied their civil liberties.

Second, the blither-blather than somehow, the SCOTUS ruling in Miller was the "last word" on the individual vs. state's rights interpretation of the Second Amendment is false. People should go read Miller, and in so doing, they will find out that the Second Amendment was largely a tangent to the central issue of "was Mr. Miller in violation of the 1934 act when he possessed a sawed-off shotgun?" The court then digressed into whether a sawed-down shotgun was a "militia weapon" and therefore, was there an individual right to own such a weapon?

The SCOTUS has never ruled dead-square-center on the Second Amendment, and it has never been "incorporated" via the Fourteenth into state-level rights for individuals, the way the First, Fourth, etc have been.

[robertpaulsen]

"First of all, in the 1939 Miller case, the defendant's lawyer didn't even show up. The Feds won by default."

The Miller court made no ruling. The case was remanded to the lower court. No one "won" or "lost".

"Secondly, the vast majority of Law Reviews on the Second Amendment hold it to be an individual right"

Which means diddley-squat. The vast majority of lower federal courts and lower federal court decisions hold it to be a collective right. If the U.S. Supreme Court takes this case, what will they consider -- law reviews or lower federal court decisions?

"Thirdly, even Alan Dershowitz reluctantly admits the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals.

He said, "Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a safety hazard don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."

I would not conclude, from that statement, that Alan Dershowitz admits the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals. And even if he did, who is Alan Dershowitz? If he said it was a collective right would that mean anything to you?

[GovernmentShrinker]

In a written response to an inquiry for this story [Giuliani] explained: “I believe the decision by United States Court of Appeals is correct. I understand the challenges that big cities face from gun violence. But banning people from having handguns in their own homes for self defense is excessive and unconstitutional. It is not a reasonable restriction. It clearly undercuts the Second Amendment, which protects the rights of law abiding individuals to keep and bear arms.”

I KNEW it. I predicted here on FR the day this decision came out that Rudy would use it as an opportunity to recast his position on the Second Amendment, and distance himself from the city-centric views he has previously espoused on this issue.

[robertpaulsen]

"The C. says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

When that was written, who were "the people"?