Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court to Take Up DC Ban Case
MSNBC ^ | 11/20/2007 | n/a

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: banglist; dc; docket; heller; parker; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-170 next last
Breaking now!
1 posted on 11/20/2007 10:12:36 AM PST by Pyro7480
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

I have a good feeling about this


2 posted on 11/20/2007 10:13:34 AM PST by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
Just broke over DRUDGE REPORT as well.

Breitbart Link:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8T1I6H80&show_article=1

3 posted on 11/20/2007 10:13:46 AM PST by LoneStarGI
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480; Joe Brower; DaveLoneRanger
PING!

BANG!

4 posted on 11/20/2007 10:14:02 AM PST by DCBryan1 (Arm Pilots&Teachers. Build the Wall. Export Illegals. Profile Muslims.Kill all child molesters RFN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
The U.S Supreme Court is finally going to have to look at the long-ignored Second Amendment and decide what the right to bear arms finally means.

"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

5 posted on 11/20/2007 10:14:18 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

Just wow!


6 posted on 11/20/2007 10:14:27 AM PST by Halls (I hate illegals, I hate socialism, I hate liberals! What else can I say?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
From http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jZOi0QxIZk7wY8br0MHhsEz-wL-wD8T1I5LG0

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.

7 posted on 11/20/2007 10:15:14 AM PST by Pyro7480 ("Jesu, Jesu, Jesu, esto mihi Jesus" -St. Ralph Sherwin's last words at Tyburn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kidd

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.


8 posted on 11/20/2007 10:15:17 AM PST by Petronski (God I just love that woman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

Crossing fingers. (Shower later.)


9 posted on 11/20/2007 10:15:20 AM PST by coloradan (Failing to protect the liberties of your enemies establishes precedents that will reach to yourself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

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.


10 posted on 11/20/2007 10:15:22 AM PST by coydog (Keep Canada green - paint a Liberal!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DCBryan1
Best case: the second amendment means what it says;

Worst case: Jefferson was right, and its time to water the tree.

11 posted on 11/20/2007 10:15:42 AM PST by DCBryan1 (Arm Pilots&Teachers. Build the Wall. Export Illegals. Profile Muslims.Kill all child molesters RFN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

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.


12 posted on 11/20/2007 10:15:50 AM PST by Parley Baer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kidd
I hope your good feeling is correct. This case scares me to death...imagine the possibilities. The court strikes down the 2nd ammendment as an individual right and then the evil one is elected President....how long will our rights continue to exist. Fear the government that fears your guns!

regards - red

13 posted on 11/20/2007 10:17:22 AM PST by rednek (if it isn't large caliber, it isn't worth carrying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

IBrp.


14 posted on 11/20/2007 10:17:48 AM PST by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DCBryan1

I feel very uneasy about this. I’m getting my watering can ready.


15 posted on 11/20/2007 10:17:51 AM PST by this is my name not yours (Free speech is the escape valve that keeps some people from picking up a rifle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
I have a bad feeling about this

Worst case: Jefferson was right, and its time to water the tree.

Paging Henry Bowman.....paging Henry Bowman.

16 posted on 11/20/2007 10:18:34 AM PST by DCBryan1 (Arm Pilots&Teachers. Build the Wall. Export Illegals. Profile Muslims.Kill all child molesters RFN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: this is my name not yours

Time to go and buy more ammo.


17 posted on 11/20/2007 10:18:50 AM PST by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

I guess the question is: What is Anthony Kennedy going to do?


18 posted on 11/20/2007 10:19:56 AM PST by rightinthemiddle (Without the Media, the Left and Islamofacists are Nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

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 city’s 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.


19 posted on 11/20/2007 10:20:02 AM PST by oldfart (The most dangerous man is the one who has nothing left to lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: woollyone

Ping.


20 posted on 11/20/2007 10:21:38 AM PST by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: this is my name not yours
Breaking on FNC just got the memorandum from the USSC.

Actually mentioned the Miller case.

21 posted on 11/20/2007 10:22:02 AM PST by DCBryan1 (Arm Pilots&Teachers. Build the Wall. Export Illegals. Profile Muslims.Kill all child molesters RFN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

...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).


22 posted on 11/20/2007 10:22:23 AM PST by CRBDeuce (an armed society is a polite society)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

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.


23 posted on 11/20/2007 10:22:35 AM PST by cvq3842
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
Great news.

I honestly didn't think this would happen in my lifetime.

24 posted on 11/20/2007 10:23:37 AM PST by Jotmo (I Had a Bad Experience With the CIA and Now I'm Gonna Show You My Feminine Side - Swirling Eddies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DCBryan1
Paging Henry Bowman.....paging Henry Bowman.

hopefully they don't send apaches
25 posted on 11/20/2007 10:23:48 AM PST by absolootezer0 (Only two products have come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. Coincidence? I think not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: coydog

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.


26 posted on 11/20/2007 10:24:32 AM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: harpseal; TexasCowboy; AAABEST; Travis McGee; Squantos; Shooter 2.5; wku man; SLB; ...
See post #19.

"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.

Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!

27 posted on 11/20/2007 10:25:20 AM PST by Joe Brower (Sheep have three speeds: "graze", "stampede" and "cower".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Resolute Conservative
BUY TWO, BURY ONE
28 posted on 11/20/2007 10:25:21 AM PST by this is my name not yours (Free speech is the escape valve that keeps some people from picking up a rifle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DCBryan1
Best case: the second amendment means what it says; Worst case: Jefferson was right, and its time to water the tree.

Either way, it's long past time to get it over with.

I'm glad to hear it.

29 posted on 11/20/2007 10:25:46 AM PST by Jotmo (I Had a Bad Experience With the CIA and Now I'm Gonna Show You My Feminine Side - Swirling Eddies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: oldfart

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.


30 posted on 11/20/2007 10:26:46 AM PST by CRBDeuce (an armed society is a polite society)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: this is my name not yours

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.


31 posted on 11/20/2007 10:27:16 AM PST by the gillman@blacklagoon.com (I am a proud anti-invasion racist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: this is my name not yours

I am good on .223 I need some more .357 Sig.


32 posted on 11/20/2007 10:27:28 AM PST by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: cvq3842; rednek

I think an incorrect decision here might PREVENT a Hitlery presidency. (Not that I want one for that reason.)


33 posted on 11/20/2007 10:27:58 AM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

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.


34 posted on 11/20/2007 10:28:11 AM PST by MediaMole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kidd
I have a good feeling about this

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.

35 posted on 11/20/2007 10:28:58 AM PST by pawdoggie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: oldfart
Looking at the narrow question they are asking I think they will rule it is an individual right to keep guns in one's residence, but the city has the right to make laws once the weapon is outside the home.

This way nobody's happy.

36 posted on 11/20/2007 10:29:20 AM PST by Betty Jane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: cvq3842

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.


37 posted on 11/20/2007 10:29:39 AM PST by Livfreeordi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DCBryan1

excellent


38 posted on 11/20/2007 10:30:12 AM PST by lakeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

BLOAT!


39 posted on 11/20/2007 10:30:19 AM PST by Doomonyou (Let them eat lead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

I really really thought they would duck this issue. We live in interesting times.


40 posted on 11/20/2007 10:30:44 AM PST by Durus ("Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." JFK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sidebar Moderator

Why was this removed from Breaking News? This has more comments, and was posted first.


41 posted on 11/20/2007 10:30:54 AM PST by Pyro7480 ("Jesu, Jesu, Jesu, esto mihi Jesus" -St. Ralph Sherwin's last words at Tyburn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MediaMole
Thompson appear neutral

Incorrect - Fred is VERY pro the 2nd amendment.

42 posted on 11/20/2007 10:31:04 AM PST by 2nd amendment mama ( www.2asisters.org | Self defense is a basic human right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: DCBryan1
Paging Henry Bowman.....paging Henry Bowman.

Gentlemen, break out the Solothurns.

43 posted on 11/20/2007 10:31:51 AM PST by AngryJawa ({IDPA, NRA} All Hail John Moses Browning)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

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.


44 posted on 11/20/2007 10:32:11 AM PST by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: pawdoggie
We know how four people per "side" are going to feel about this...

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.

45 posted on 11/20/2007 10:32:23 AM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: DCBryan1

Don’t I wish, that tree has been looking mighty thirsty for far too many years...


46 posted on 11/20/2007 10:33:40 AM PST by gjones77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MediaMole
How on earth do you figure Thompson is “neutral” on the 2nd amendment? Or in other words what makes Hunter stronger on the 2nd then Thompson? (actually the strongest candidate on the 2nd would be Ron Paul noting that you didn’t not specify sane cadidates)
47 posted on 11/20/2007 10:33:41 AM PST by Durus ("Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." JFK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: CRBDeuce

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.


48 posted on 11/20/2007 10:34:03 AM PST by Stat-boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: kidd
“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).”

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.

49 posted on 11/20/2007 10:36:51 AM PST by nralife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: MediaMole

“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.


50 posted on 11/20/2007 10:37:21 AM PST by Beagle8U (FreeRepublic -- One stop shopping ....... Its the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-170 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson