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."
I'm not a lawyer either, so my opinion is worth what you are paying for it.
My understanding is that there are three levels of protection of citizen's rights. The least protective is "rational basis" which only requires that legislation is unambiguous so that it can be clearly applied and that some reason for the legislation has been proposed. It doesn't matter at all if the rationality is flawed or wrong. The legislature is allowed to be in error and still have its laws take effect.
The highest level of review is "strict scrutiny" which applies when a fundamental right is effected by a law. Such laws must meet the standard that the law accomplishes a compelling public interest, that the law is narrowly tailored, and the law is the least intrusive way to accomplish the compelling interest.
"Strict scrutiny" is the only standard that makes sense when protecting a right of the people which is enumerated second in the Bill of Rights.
A third, intermediate scrutiny, can be applied I believe where there is a real distinction which the law might recognize despite equal protection considerations. I think such issues may typically be sex-based; for example, does a municipal building have to have the same number of toilets for men and women? There are real reasons why "equal treatment" will not result in equal opportunity.
I don't think it can be that bad.
That would be equivalent to saying, "As long as you don't completely eliminate the right, anything short of that is acceptable".
Poll taxes and poll tests were outlawed years ago because it was obviously being used as a mechanism to exclude people and not to accomplish any other compelling interest.
I would not expect a decision which treats the Second Amendment like a poor step-child of the Bill of Rights. Whatever interest DC has in regulating arms, such regulation must ACCOMPLISH a compelling interest, not just promise one; it must be narrowly tailored to accomplish that interest; and it must touch as lightly as possible on the protected right.
That means no fees. "Safety" classes must be effective and readily available. Timeliness of regulatory decisions must be as quickly as possible and must give the people the benefit of any doubt.
Denying felons guns is NOT a sufficient reason to register arms, nor to charge for background checks, nor to make law-abiding people wait to purchase arms, nor to deny arms because they may be suitable for criminal use. None of these measures can be shown to have had any beneficial effect despite decades of government abuse.
A lot of government mischief would be completely eliminated if the Supreme Court ever ruled that the requirement for serial numbers on arms is unConstitutional. We certainly don't require such a thing on books for very good reason.
It will be interesting to see if DC attempts to deny the Supreme Court's authority in this matter. That could end up with the Court itself fashioning the gun laws, if any. Since it is already illegal for felons to own guns, why register the law-abiding? Where is the presumption that the law-abiding will not abet a felony?
Not likely, IMHO, unless they reverse in whole or in part the Appeals court's ruling, declaring one or more of the the three provisions of the DC code to be a "reasonable" restriction.
Maybe even that sawed off shotgun. They just ruled that the lower court, and themselves could not rule, absent any evidence, that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length was such a "militia" weapon.
El Gato wrote: “On this particular issue, yes there is. She’s (Ruth Bader Ginsberg) already expressed opinions indicating that the second amendment protects individual rights.”
I read some of the SCOTUS decisions but haven’t encountered any from her concerning the 2nd Amendment. You appear to have some better information, and I’m pleasantly surprised to hear it. Perhaps this decision isn’t quite the tossup I thought it would be. Thanks very much for the info.
I hate to to say this but I have to share your opinion, even some of the so-called originalists could disappoint us on this issue if they want to leave it to the states to decide. We know how states like NJ, NY, MA, IL, etc, have already decided.
Thanks for setting me straight on the whys. I am still worried.
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.