GUN RIGHTS PUT TO SUPREME TEST

NY Post ^ | December 2, 2007 | KEN MORAN

[neverdem]

GUN owners and the firearms industry are most interested in the decision by the Supreme Court to hear arguments on whether the Second Amendment provides an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court granted a review of a decision from March by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in a case that upheld the striking down of the district's ban on private ownership of handguns while asserting the Second Amendment provides an individual right to keep and bear arms. The case is now known as District of Columbia v. Heller.

DC mayor Adrian M. Fenty filed the appeal to the Supreme Court, setting the stage for the high court to rule. According to FBI statistics, DC, with its gun ban, ranks as one of the most dangerous cities and maintains one of the highest per-capita murder rates in the country.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation is also applauding the decision.

"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 VP and general counsel...

[neverdem]

Parker v. Washington D.C. in HTML courtesy of zeugma.

We also note that at least three current members (and one former member) of the Supreme Court have read “bear Arms” in the Second Amendment to have meaning beyond mere soldiering: “Surely a most familiar meaning [of ‘carries a firearm’] is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment (’keepand bear Arms’) and Black’s Law Dictionary . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.” Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting, joined by Rehnquist, C.J., Scalia, J.,and Souter, J.) (emphasis in original). Based on the foregoing, we think the operative clause includes a private meaning for”bear Arms.”

More women pack heat

[Paisan]

Someone help me out here. I understand that the USSC is an appellate court, that is, they review the findings of a lower court to determine if the decision was ‘correct’. Can anyone clarify what the ‘issue’ was with the lower court’s decision that the USSC will rule on?

In any case, I pray that if the ruling has to do with the individual’s right to be armed, independent of any organized militia, the correct decision be made.

As someone has pointed out in another article, the idea that the government would need to codify your right to carry a weapon while under government service and authority is absurd. They may also have included that you have the right to wear a uniform as well.
On this basis alone, any 2nd grade civics student would realize that the 2nd Amendment secures an individual right to be armed. Period

[dread78645]

Someone help me out here. I understand that the USSC is an appellate court, that is, they review the findings of a lower court to determine if the decision was ‘correct’. Can anyone clarify what the ‘issue’ was with the lower court’s decision that the USSC will rule on?

The appeal is from the Mayor of D.C. The District of Columbia's petition stated that the question presented was:

"Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning private possession of handguns while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns."

The USSC after reading the petition from respondent Heller framed it as:

"Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 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?" ...

In any case, I pray that if the ruling has to do with the individual’s right to be armed, independent of any organized militia, the correct decision be made.

Looks like it so far.

As someone has pointed out in another article, the idea that the government would need to codify your right to carry a weapon while under government service and authority is absurd. They may also have included that you have the right to wear a uniform as well.
On this basis alone, any 2nd grade civics student would realize that the 2nd Amendment secures an individual right to be armed. Period

Preach to the choir much?

LOL

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

Ideas for signs, posters, billboards, taglines:

Keep Guns Out Of Criminal Hands! Support Capital Punishment!

Execute Criminals = No Guns In Criminal Hands

Swift Sure Capital Punishment = No Criminals Have Guns

[Just A Nobody]

Good suggestions!

Sorry, I'm not in creative mode at the moment. ;*)

[Atlas Sneezed]

Bad link. It’s :
http://www.zprc.org/legal/parkervdc.html

[robertpaulsen]

"the idea that the government would need to codify your right to carry a weapon while under government service and authority is absurd."

The "idea" was that the second amendment was to prevent the federal government from infringing the individual right of members of a state Militia to keep and bear arms. This was to preserve the ability of states to form a well regulated Militia.

[Stonewall Jackson]

My friend, I believe that you are expounding religious doctrine to the temple chorus. ;-)

[neverdem]

http://www.zprc.org/legal/parkervdc.html
http://www.zprc.org/legal/parkervdc.html";> A convenient save with the text about Muscarello was somehow corrupted with the semicolon.

Thanks for the catch.