Posted on 03/17/2008 9:37:37 AM PDT by Abathar
WASHINGTON - Robert Levy has never owned a handgun and has no burning desire to own one now. He hasn't been a Washington resident since he was a teen in the 1950s.
But for six years, the wealthy attorney has carefully plotted a legal challenge to Washington's strict ban on handgun ownership, a case now before the Supreme Court. The Florida resident helped hand-pick the plaintiffs involved and is paying the legal fees himself.
Why all the effort? Levy says he is driven to defend constitutional rights he believes are being trampled by the District of Columbia's strict ban on private ownership of handguns.
"I believe in the written Constitution and that the text ought to be interpreted the way it was meant to be," Levy said.
Levy, 66, didn't exactly try to keep his role secret as he and a small group of other lawyers crafted the case and shepherded it through the federal courts. He writes frequently about gun rights, stating a few years ago that Americans "deserve a foursquare pronouncement from the nation's highest court about the meaning of the Second Amendment." The high court hasn't directly ruled on gun rights in roughly 70 years.
And Levy freely admits the case is manufactured, not one that bubbled up by chance from the district's steady flow of criminal cases involving guns. He wanted presentable plaintiffs to make a case for gun rights, not criminals.
"We didn't want crack heads and bank robbers to be poster boys for the Second Amendment," he said.
A former businessman who made millions in money management before going to law school at age 50, Levy is an attorney with the libertarian think tank Cato Institute, though he says the handgun case is independent of his work there. He grew up in Washington and later lived in Maryland, but has since moved to Naples, Fla.
Washington's law was passed in 1976 in response to a spike in gun violence. But the city's murder rate was persistently high during much of the ban's existence, peaking at 479 in 1991 at the height of the crack epidemic. The rate has since plummeted but remains one of the highest in the nation.
Gun rights groups have long fought against the law, and Congress has tried several times to undercut it. But the case that made it to the high court has a more libertarian bent.
In fact, the National Rifle Association tried to block the case, fearing that the makeup of the Supreme Court at the time could lead to more restrictions on guns, not fewer, if the court ruled on the case, Levy said. But the high court has since shifted to the right with appointments by President Bush, and Levy said he and the NRA have made peace.
City officials say the law is based on the idea that the Second Amendment protects the collective right of states to organize militias, not the right of individuals to own guns. Most courts and legal scholars long agreed with that view.
But a few years ago, several developments convinced Levy he could successfully challenge the law.
First, liberal legal scholars like Harvard's Laurence Tribe began to argue that the Second Amendment did protect individual rights. In 2001, a federal appellate court made the same conclusion, but still upheld the Texas law on transportation of firearms. Levy was also encouraged when the Justice Department under then-Attorney General John Ashcroft supported individual rights in the same case.
Along with two other lawyers, including Alan Gura, who will argue the case in front of the Supreme Court, Levy tried to find plaintiffs. Through word of mouth, the group of lawyers sought out a diverse group. One was a gay man, another a black woman who felt threatened by drug dealers, another a white security guard.
Only one plaintiff remains: Dick Heller, a security guard who applied for a handgun license and was rejected under the district's handgun ban. The lower federal courts, while striking down the law, concluded only Heller was harmed by the city's law.
Levy won't say how much he is spending on the case, only that it is expensive.
Here is a guy with money that chose to do what he felt was the right thing, kudos to him for this.
But he is arguing the case of the century.
“Only one plaintiff remains: Dick Heller, a security guard who applied for a handgun license and was rejected under the district’s handgun ban. The lower federal courts, while striking down the law, concluded only Heller was harmed by the city’s law.”
Seems this may be the way out for the SC so they don’t have to make a definitive ruling. They’ll just say the guard wasn’t actually harmed.
IBRPSUTT.
>p>
Heller bump!
But he is arguing the case of the century.
And he makes it into the history books. Either as a demon to liberals if he wins, or someone on the par of Dred Scott if his case loses. And maybe as nation shaking as Marbury or Madison.
Going to be interesting to see if the court takes the easy way out or not, I think they won’t myself. What we can hope for is one of the older judges finally decides to step down, that would be very good right now.
It might not be easy for them to do that. I'm assuming that was a question of fact decided by the District Court, and the Supreme Court won't review questions of fact, just of law.
“I’m assuming that was a question of fact decided by the District Court, and the Supreme Court won’t review questions of fact, just of law.”
I’m not a lawyer so you’re probably right. I am skeptical though that the SC will do anything earth shattering like actually interpreting the Constitution the way the founders intended. We know it will be a 5-4 ruling one way or the other. I’m betting it will be for the status quo.
Win or lose he should never have to buy himself another steak for the rest of his life. Every gun owner in America should pony up.
So?
Not owning guns and fighting for gun rights doesn't make a hypocrite. Fight to take everyone elses guns while owning them yourself does.
No charges for reckless endangerment, or even for discharging a firearm within the city limits.
The ultimate in hyprocacy on the Left.
The bottom line, in my opinion, is that D.C. v. Heller was decided in Heller's favor when the 14th A. was ratified.
More specifically, John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th A., included the 2nd A. when he read the first eight amendments as examples of constitutional statutes containing privileges and immunities that the 14th A. applied to the states. So there is no doubt in my mind that the 2nd and 14th Amendments protect the personal right to keep and bear arms from both federal and state governments as much as any other constitutional privilege and immunity protects other personal rights.
See the 2nd A. in the middle column of the following page from the Congressional Globe, a precursor to the Congressional Record. The page is a part of one of Bingham's discussions about the 14th Amendment.
http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4nNote that the referenced page is dated for more than two years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment. So Bingham was evidently reassuring his colleagues about the scope and purpose of the ratified 14th Amendment.
No, Heller is not a state power issue so the 14th A. has no application to Heller.
But what you are ignoring is that Bingham's discussion of the 14th A. clearly indicates that the 39th Congress had clarified and accepted the 2nd A. as a privilege and immunity. This aspect of Bingham's discussion about the 14th A. decides D.C. v. Heller in favor of Heller.
Unfortunately, SCOTUS has to explicitly agree to the incorporation. Stupid, wrong, etc. but that’s how things are working.
I’m sure we’ll hear a lot more about that come the _Chicago_ case.
There is no basis for the USSC's idea of selective incorporation of the BoR into the 14th Amendment. Given that you read Bingham's discussion of the 14th A. in the Congressional Globe, you should have at least suspected that the USSC's idea of selective incorporation doesn't hold water. After all, Bingham essentially pre-incorporated all the Constitution's privileges and immunities into the 14th A., particularly those defined in the first eight amendments.
"Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, fourteenth amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as contradistinguished from citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4nNote that the page from which the extract is taken is dated for more than two years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment. So Bingham was evidently reassuring his colleagues about the scope and purpose of the ratified 14th Amendment.
What I want to know is are D.C. judges permitted to carry guns into courtrooms?
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.