Posted on 05/02/2007 2:14:58 PM PDT by neverdem
There is a case working its way to the Supreme Court that might settle one of the biggest unanswered questions in constitutional law: Does the Second Amendment guarantee an individual right to own a gun? Whether or not you own a gun, this is a case you should care about.
I’m not just saying that because I’m the immediate past president of the National Rifle Association. (Last month I completed my two-year term as president and nine years as an officer of the NRA.) I’m also saying it as an attorney who’s been arguing cases in federal court for more than 30 years, and who understands how a clear precedent on a constitutional question can determine the outcome of a case.
There is a case moving towards the High Court that will likely give us such a precedent on your right to own a gun – a precedent that is either good or bad, depending on your point of view. That case is Parker v. District of Columbia.
I often get asked why there is such a passionate debate on whether the right to own a firearm is a civil right. Everyone agrees that the Constitution speaks about firearms. The Second Amendment speaks of, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”
The disagreement is over what those words mean. Most people believe what is called the individual rights view of the Second Amendment, meaning that all law-abiding, peaceable citizens have the individual right to own firearms. The opposing interpretation is called the collective rights view, meaning that the Second Amendment is only a right of state governments to arm their National Guard units.
Polls show that more than 70% of Americans (correctly) believe that they have a civil right under the Constitution to own a gun. But in America we don’t decide constitutional controversies by taking a poll.
Only federal courts—and ultimately the Supreme Court—have the power to interpret the Constitution in a binding way. The Supreme Court has never spoken definitively on the scope or meaning of the Second Amendment. And the Court’s silence has allowed cities and states to enact broad, sweeping laws hostile to gun ownership.
The worst of these laws is the District of Columbia gun ban. If you live in our nation’s capital, you cannot have a handgun or a readily-usable rifle or shotgun in your own home for self-defense. No ifs, ands or buts. It is a near-blanket prohibition on firearms and self-defense.
That brings us to the Parker case. The named plaintiff, Shelly Parker, lives in the high crime area of DC and has been threatened by thugs and drug dealers. She wants to be able to protect herself and she sued the city government over the gun ban. It’s shocking to realize that in one of the most violent cities in America, a woman is denied the tool that might save her life.
But it’s the law in the District, so she took the District to court.
On March 9, in a landmark ruling the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down the DC gun ban as unconstitutional in a 2-1 decision. The DC Circuit Court held that the Second Amendment protects a citizen’s civil right to own firearms, adopting the individual rights view, and invalidated the DC law.
As you would expect, the DC government is appealing the ruling. Earlier this month DC petitioned for what is called an en banc rehearing. That means that all eleven eligible judges on the DC Circuit would hear the case, instead of the usual three-judge panel. As you read this we are waiting to see if the circuit court grants or denies that petition.
Regardless of whether the full DC Circuit Court hears the case en banc, the losing party will certainly appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. And without going into all the legal rules and reasons that help determine whether the Court takes a given case, let me just say the odds are good that the Court will take this one.
This case is monumental. Already the DC Circuit Court opinion—if left untouched—will totally change gun ownership rights in the District of Columbia. And the DC Circuit is one of the most respected and well-credentialed courts in America. Its opinions and rulings have a major impact on courts and lawmakers all over the country.
But as important as the DC Circuit is, it pales in comparison to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court takes this case, it could have a huge impact all across our land.
There’s so much more to be said regarding this case. I’ll have more to write on this once the DC Circuit decides whether to rehear en banc. In the meantime, this is a case you want to be watching. There’s a lot at stake, not just for gun owners but for all who believe in upholding the Constitution and enforcing our civil rights.
Sandy Froman is the immediate past president of the National Rifle Association of America, only the second woman and the first Jewish American to hold that office in the 136-year history of the NRA.
As who stipulated? I never stipulated that. I said every state protected an individual RKBA. Minnesota protects an individual RKBA. They even protect concealed carry.
No more slander out of you. Seriously.
How many States have active “blasphemy” laws. States at one point had slavery laws on the books. You approve of those as well I assume...
That isn’t “free speech”, it’s libel. A bit like what you are doing right now...
Simple statute is not "protection". Nor does it conform to Art 6 para 2 of the US Constitution.
Their shrill predictions about “bloodbaths” with respect to liberalized gun laws have proved to be so much hogwash and I think they sense the tide moving against them.
If they were in the majority, they would not hesitate to push for a constitutional amendment that eliminates the Second Amendment.
I only wish that it did not have to be a thing decided by SCOTUS, but an axiomatic right recognized by all.
So my right to free speech may be infringed after all? The are things I cannot say?
I don't care what the reason is -- you're saying that my freedom of speech may be infringed?
No ifs, ands, or buts UNLESS you happen to be a very liberal and very anti-gun Afro-American columnist named Carl Rowan and use an illegally owned revolver to shoot a boy who you think is vandalizing your pool. Then you get a pass from the D.C. jury who hears your case and the heartfelt sympathy of the DC government for the inconvenience you had to endure.
Don't give me that. Minnesota's "simple statute" provides more protection for the RKBA of its citizens than the Illinois constitution provides for theirs.
"Nor does it conform to Art 6 para 2 of the US Constitution."
How does it not conform?
I'm not sure about that one way or the other. But I am pretty sure that the yea votes of 2/3 of both Houses of Congress that are required to pass the amendment and send it to the states are not there at this time and probably won't be for quite some time to come. That's why we have to continue to press the fight for our RKBA at the legislative level at least as hard as at the judicial level.
The other side is dispirited right now. But with the prospects good for a Democrat Congress and a Democrat president after next year, the odds could very well be turning against us again at the legislative level. A favorable SCOTUS ruling on the D.C. case would obviate the need for another amendment to guarantee a right which is already guaranteed and has been for over two centuries. But if that isn't in the cards we will have a much, much tougher fight on our hands, especially if the Dems keep control of Congress and either a Democrat or a RINO gungrabber is elected to the White House next year.
Mmmmmmmm, I wonder who that RINO gungrabber could be?
I think Massachussets paid him off.
Crash! Bang! Bingo! Winner!
You understand what is going to happen here.
This case will not reach the U.S. Supreme Court, if the full District Court rules in favor of Ms. Parker (i.e., FOR the "personal rights interpretation" of the Second Amendment).
That is to say that the Left DOES NOT WANT, and WILL DO ANYTHING POSSIBLE, to prevent the Supreme Court from touching this case. Because, once the high court rules, if the decision is in favor of the individual right to own firearms, the arguments of the gun-grabbers will be ended. The Constitution will have spoken against them.
Tip: who here remembers the case of Sharon Taxman vs. the Piscataway (NJ) school board, several years back? That was the "sure-fire, absolutely guaranteed" case that would have overturned affirmative action once and for all in America. It was to be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in a matter of days. But the case never was heard by the Court, and affirmative action stands today. Why did that happen?
Because civil-rights groups _bought off_ Sharon Taxman with about $480,000 in cash. After being paid off, she agreed to drop the case, and withdrew her petition before the Court only hours before it was to be argued.
The Supreme Court does not "rule out of thin air". They have to have a case before them to make a decision. No case, no decision.
The Left knows the importance of the Parker case, and how heavily it is stacked against them (I would not dare to predict how even a modestly conservative Court as the one that sits today will rule on Parker).
They also know that if Parker DOESN'T get argued before the Supreme Court, the Court can't rule against them. The Court can't fire the gun (pun intended), unless they have the ammunition. No "ammunition" (Parker), no shot heard round the country.
For this reason, the Left will abandon their argument against individual firearms ownership within the area served by the D.C. Circuit Court, so that it may continue to be argued everywhere else.
They DO NOT WANT THIS CASE TO BE HEARD!
(As an aside, this is also the reason why a conservative Supreme Court will never get to rule decisely over Roe v. Wade - again, because the Left will prevent them from getting their hands on one.)
- John
That's a fair-enough reasoned prediction. It _could_ happen.
But if it does, what do you predict will happen AFTERwards?
- John
Well said!
Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Shall not be infringed.
No permitting process should be required. No bans on capacity or requiring CLEO sign off for purchasing a firearm. As I've stated before, the ONLY "regulation" that could be construed as Constitutional would be for those wishing to take part in active duty militia exercises. Then those individuals would need to procure the required equipment before showing up for duty.
Read Parker. Pay attention to the parts you don't like instead of just trying to justify the dissent.
Well said.
Doesn't mean you can't own a nuke. You just have to be sure not to trample on your neighbors Rights.
Still having a hard time with this I see... Not surprising. You've been caught in lies, distortions, and utter stupidity so many times that most people won't even respond to you on this topic any more...
Now where did you read that little ditty?
Jefferson. You know... one of those old dead white guys you consistently ignore...
Oh, I thought it might have have some legal standing, they way you're using it. Anyone else -- like a Supreme Court justice in a case, or is this just one man's opinion?
Then how do you explain the opinion of Founding Father and U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall in the following 1833 case:
"These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government-not against those of the local governments. In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in congress, and adopted by the states. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them."
-- BARRON v. CITY OF BALTIMORE, 32 U.S. 243
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.