Skip to comments.Supreme Court to Take Up DC Ban Case
Posted on 11/20/2007 10:12:34 AM PST by Pyro7480
Breaking on MSNBC... Supreme Court to take up DC gun ban case
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.com ...
I have a good feeling about this
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
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.
I cannot imagine the Supreme Court possibly getting this right.
I’m sure the dissent will be a thrill to read, but that’s cold comfort.
Crossing fingers. (Shower later.)
They must have finally gotten the courage to deal with it. Of course, they would have to realize that an unfavorable verdict would have a good portion of the population riled up.
Worst case: Jefferson was right, and its time to water the tree.
With Roberts leading the court we have a good chance of winning. Now if everything went by the Constitution as written and not a “living document” this would be a slam dunk.
regards - red
I feel very uneasy about this. I’m getting my watering can ready.
Worst case: Jefferson was right, and its time to water the tree.
Paging Henry Bowman.....paging Henry Bowman.
Time to go and buy more ammo.
I guess the question is: What is Anthony Kennedy going to do?
As many have suggested, the question was re-written by the Justices to cover as narrow an issue as possible.
From the SCOTUS Blog:
“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 citys case, but they had disagreed over how to frame the Second Amendment issue.
Here is the way the Court phrased the granted issue:
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?”
I think they’re trying very hard to cover their butts.
Actually mentioned the Miller case.
...the right of the individual to keep and bear arms...for our national security...shall not be infringed! On display for all to see will be which of the Supremes “...have so much hatred for Republicans that they’d take a chance with their own security and irreparably change their culture, just to win elections.”(from another thread).
I am fairly optimistic about this, but yes the idea of some of the justices turning this into a policy dispute - acting like legislators, or rather monarchs, again - sickens me.
I won’t even speculate about what could happen should there be an anti-Second Amendment decision, and Hillary in the White House. The action, and reaction, would be chilling.
I honestly didn't think this would happen in my lifetime.
ANY ruling will leave a good proportion of the popultation riled up. They just have to go in determined to uphold the obvious original intent of the Constitution.
"Covering their butts"? You betcha. It's what government types do best.
And I can hardly wait to see the rhetorical BS that we can expect to come pouring out from the political left and its media lackeys. It's going to pile up so fast, you'll need wings to stay above it.
It's going to be fun.
Either way, it's long past time to get it over with.
I'm glad to hear it.
I would have been more comfortable with putting (who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia) in parentheses, showing that it is of secondary, not primary, importance to the issue.
Buy two, save one for a friend who arrives late to the party.
If it’s time to bury something, don’t bury the guns.
You’re going to need them.
I am good on .223 I need some more .357 Sig.
I think an incorrect decision here might PREVENT a Hitlery presidency. (Not that I want one for that reason.)
No matter who wins, the next administration is going to be hostile to gun rights. Among mainstream GOP candidates, only Hunter is solid on gun rights, McCain and Thompson appear neutral and Romney and Guiliani are openly hostile.
This could give the court an opportunity to restore the original intent of the second amendment before the gun grabbers return to power. It would still only buy a few years, but that might give gun owners time to refocus on the political fight.
Be careful what you wish for. We know how four people per "side" are going to feel about this, but who knows about the swing vote? He (Kennedy) may have had a negative experience with privately held firearms. I note that he had some connection with the California National Guard (which, again, could be a good or a bad thing), but in the world of precedence, you usually only get one bite at the apple. I hope Kennedy's alleged conservative and libertarian impulses come to the fore, and that he takes the time to read and consider what the Founders said about their Amendment. Of course, whatever is decided cannot erase the fact that Mr. Madison, et al, regarded keeping and bearing arms as an inalienable right.
This way nobody's happy.
Look at it this way..
If the SCOTUS rules AGAINST... imagine the anger of gun owners out there.
It could screw Hillary’s chance of becomong President, since it would creat an issue that would mobilize her opposition BIG TIME.
If the SCOTUS rules FOR the 2nd amendment, then even if Hillary becomes President, she won’t be able to screw with the 2nd amendment.
I really really thought they would duck this issue. We live in interesting times.
Why was this removed from Breaking News? This has more comments, and was posted first.
Incorrect - Fred is VERY pro the 2nd amendment.
Gentlemen, break out the Solothurns.
Well, the case starts out ahead....the USSC would have to overturn the DC Court of Appeals to rule disfavorably.
Second, if the Miller case is revisited, it can easily be demonstrated that a short-barrel shotgun does indeed have military uses (trench clearing, for example, as was used in Vietnam).
Third, I think it will be difficult for the USSC to come to a narrow decision on this. The only plausible narrow decision is that DC is not a state. I can’t see that happening.
It all comes down to Justice Kennedy. And he’s been right-leaning lately.
Not so fast. The usually dependably statist Ginsburg has already voted for the individual RKBA, IIRC, and Scalia sometimes votes "conservative" as opposed to "Constitutional", in favor of the government over their masters.
Don’t I wish, that tree has been looking mighty thirsty for far too many years...
The question is narrowly tailored, on the one hand, but it is a very important and clear first step, on the other hand.
The Court will need to define the scope of the 2A as it relates to individual rights versus a collective right [you know, the National Guard nonsense].
That is step 1. Other steps, assuming step 1 is successful, are incorporation into state laws, defining bear [as in carry around], applying strict scrutiny for restrictions on the right to bear, and so on.
Other steps, assuming step 1 is successful, are incorporation into state laws, defining bear [as in carry around], applying strict scrutiny for restrictions on the right to bear, and so on.
The key will be whether or not they consider the “unorganized” militia in the ruling. I don’t like the tightly defined question they are going to answer.
“Among mainstream GOP candidates, only Hunter is solid on gun rights, McCain and Thompson appear neutral and Romney and Guiliani are openly hostile.”
All except Rooty, Mutt, and McCain have pretty solid records of defending the 2nd Amendment, even Paul.
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.