Skip to comments.Firearms Industry Applauds Supreme Court Decision to Hear Second Amendment Case
Posted on 11/21/2007 6:16:30 AM PST by epow
Firearms Industry Applauds Supreme Court Decision to Hear Second Amendment Case
NEWTOWN, Conn. -- The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) -- the trade association of the firearms industry -- applauded the decision by the United States Supreme Court to determine authoritatively whether the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides an individual right to keep and bear arms.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted a review of a decision from March by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Parker, et al., v. District of Columbia (Circuit docket 04-7041) -- a case that upheld the striking down of the District's ban on private ownership of handguns while asserting that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to keep and bear arms. The case is now known as District of Columbia v. Heller. The mayor of Washington, D.C., Adrian M. Fenty, filed the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, setting the stage for the high court to rule. According to FBI statistics, Washington D.C., with its gun ban, ranks as one of the most dangerous cities in the United States and maintains one of the highest per-capita murder rates in the country.
"The firearms industry looks forward to the Supreme Court putting to rest the specious argument that the Second Amendment is not an individual right," said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel. "This intellectually bankrupt and feeble argument has been used by gun control advocates to justify laws and regulations that deny Americans their civil right to own and lawfully use firearms for protection, hunting, sports shooting and other lawful purposes.
"The firearms and ammunition industry is unique in that our products are the means through which the Second Amendment right is realized," continued Keane. "If there were no firearms and ammunition manufacturers, then the Second Amendment becomes an illusory right."
While the Heller case will be the first time since 1939 that the Supreme Court has addressed the Second Amendment (U.S. v. Miller), the nation's leading historians, legal scholars and constitutional experts are on record as having concluded that the Second Amendment provides an individual right. Such renowned scholars as Lawrence Tribe of Harvard, Akhil Reed Amar of Yale, William Van Alstyne of Duke and Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas have been vocal in their assertion that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and bear arms.
"The government has powers, not rights," added Keane. "The contention that the Second Amendment is a collective right of the government is completely without merit."
BACKGROUND: In March, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in striking down the District's gun ban, held in Parker, et al., v. District of Columbia that "The phrase 'the right of the people' . . . leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual." This was the second time in recent history that a federal circuit court upheld the longstanding belief that the Second Amendment was an individual right. In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in the case of U.S. v. Emerson that "All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans."
It makes me awfully nervous.
I almost think this is a setup.
I just don’t see them saying anything other than that it is an individual right. Not the Roberts/Alito court.
There was a little-noticed decision 12-14 years ago on reversion of railroad rights-of-way that was a classic, also, as far as how the Supremes can diverge from "original intent"---
“For better or for worse, the 2nd Amendment will finally get a hearing before the USSC.”
I think its good. Far better now with the current court then after a Demorat has replaced 2 or 3 of the current justices.
“Because if it doesn’t open season will be declared on our RKBA the next time that a Democrat controlled Congress is accompanied by a Democrat administration, and that could easily be as soon as January of 2009.”
They wont wait that long. The local govts will begin to immediately impose greater restrictions.
Conspiracy theories will abound IMO. The current hype of the North American Union is sure to generate conjecture of a plan to ban firearms before the consolidation of the northern hemisphere.
If they vote to restrict it would seem almost certainly to tie in with a plan to further bypass the Constitutional rights of Americans.
This is for all the marbles.
I think the faith some have in Alito and Roberts is unjustified. They may be fine judges but we really haven’t seen anything to justify it as of yet.
After all, they’re on the court for good no matter what they decide.
If SCOTUS says it is a “collective” right, and states start to pass laws like DC has, how many here are going to comply?
cripplecreek: “It makes me awfully nervous.”
Me, too. I see another 5-4 decision, and I’m not sure which way the 5th vote is going to fall. I think four of the justices will uphold the clear meaning of the 2nd amendment, but the four leftists will ignore it. They’ll parse the wording and/or misinterpret past precedent to create a right to ban guns (is there any doubt about Ruth Bader?). On the other hand, I don’t get a feel for that 5th vote.
Your head in the sand? This Robert’s court is conservative except for the RINO and Dem judges......Ther is more to the world than Hunter.
“I almost think this is a setup.”
So do I.
Questioning this Amendment is just so outrageous, so spun, so twisted etc.
I mean, no other Amendment applies to “groups, like a militia” instead of to individuals so why would our brilliant, LOGICAL Founding Fathers have intended the 2nd Amendment to apply to “groups like a militia” instead of to individuals????
I hate the left - praying for their destruction.
On the one hand, I am glad the issue is seen to be ripe for hearing; on the other hand, I would rest easier if John Paul Stevens - age 87 - would depart this life for a better one. That said, even the liberals on the Court should understand that citizens have rights and government has certain enumerated powers, none of which provide for the deprivation of an individual’s rights, except for very specific cause.
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
What the hell does Hunter have to do with anything? I’m just being realistic about the way the supreme court behaves.
More and more gun legislation does seem to be the trend in cities and states. Some states still have “may issue” gun carry laws which need to be swept aside. We’ll put a stop to this, hopefully, sometime next June when the High Court’s ruling is released.