Gun-Rights Showdown

The Wall Street Journal ^ | March 18, 2008 | Randy E. Barnett

[Puzzleman]

Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Heller v. District of Columbia, a suit brought by several D.C. citizens contending that the ban on the possession of operable firearms inside one's home violates the Second Amendment. The Circuit Court of Appeals for D.C. agreed and held the ban to be unconstitutional. However it is decided, Heller is already historic. For the first time in recent memory, the Supreme Court will consider the original meaning of a significant passage of the Constitution unencumbered by its own prior decisions. The majority and dissenting opinions in this case will be taught in law schools for years to come. Here's a layman's guide to the significance of the case:

-- snip --

[Puzzleman]

Good summary of what's at stake here.

[Vaquero]

I was hoping for at least 1 more strict constructionist justice before this went to the SCOTUS.

[DuncanWaring]

Ping.

[Jack of all Trades]

Any idea what the time line for this case is? Arguments are today and that’s it? When can a decision be expected?

[july4thfreedomfoundation]

I heard a decision is expected in June of this year.

[Jack of all Trades]

Thanks

[ctdonath2]

Oral arguments are today at 10AM for 75 minutes. This is where the judges ask probing questions to clear up any concerns/issues with the written arguments (or just want to watch someone squirm). This is NOT like a regular court case where the full case is presented; here, all arguments have already been submitted in writing, this just kinda rounds things out, and the judges probably have already made their decisions.

The final verdict will likely come in June. Takes a while to write several dozen pages of perfected legalise on a controversial subject - especially if they try to justify the unjustifiable.

Yes, that’s it. A bit of theater today - much sound and fury signifying nothing - followed by a few months of silence, then the final verdict. The long-awaited Supreme Court decision on RKBA is most likely done already, we just have to wait for a few formalities.

[USS Alaska]

Kubuka dance.

[Jack of all Trades]

I’ll be looking forward to your reading of the tea leaves. Thanks for the explaination.

[Ender Wiggin]

June would be good. It would be good to get a decision before July 4, 2008.

[Condor51]

Finally, Heller involves a complete ban on operable firearms in the home. No state has a comparable law.

While technicaly correct - the 'City' Chicago has.

It's well known that Chicago is "handgun Free" (hahaha), but the poor denizens forced to live in Chicago Public Housing (CHA) cannot and I mean CANNOT have ANY firearms - period, end - stop. No rifles, no shotguns and certainly no 'assault weapons'.

This abomination was challenged in Federal Court and it was found that in effect they are 'Wards of The City', as such the City can determine what's allowed in their City owned apartments.

This all came about after some assh*le gang banger 'sniper' shot a little girl walking to a store from a public housing complex. Mayor Daley (jr) said that's it - no guns at all.

[Joe Brower]

"Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Heller v. District of Columbia"

Here we go, folks; into the breach.

This case is going to serve as a canary in a coalmine, indicating how far gone our Constitutional Republic is.

[oneolcop]

Apparently, these are people who are quite content to trade their right to self defense for a free place to live. That they are doing so is indicative of the existance of a permanent "underclass" of Americans. On the other hand, I'll bet there are lots of guns in the 'hood since in the underclass, "the man's" rules are irrelevant.

[Pharmboy]

Thanks for your explanation, counselor.

I wanted to make sure all of you folks read the last paragraph of Professor Barnett's piece:

But although the implications of striking down the D.C. gun ban are limited, a decision upholding an unqualified individual right in Heller would still be a significant victory for individual rights and constitutionalism. To shrink from enforcing a clear mandate of the Constitution -- as, sadly, the Supreme Court has often done in the past -- would create a new precedent that would be far more dangerous to liberty than any weapon in the hands of a citizen.

Emphasis added.

[Gilbo_3]

Can you post transcripts ???

it wont mean much as you say, its already a done deal waiting for the legalise...

LFOD...

[deuteronlmy232]

- The Second Amendment protects an individual right. In the 1960s, gun control advocates dismissed the Second Amendment as protecting the so-called "collective right" of states to preserve their militias -- notwithstanding that, everywhere else in the Constitution, a "right" of "the people" refers to an individual right of persons, and the 10th Amendment expressly distinguishes between "the people" and "the states." Now even the District asserts the new theory that, while this right is individual, it is "conditioned" on a citizen being an active participant in an organized militia. Therefore, whoever wins, Heller won't be based on a "collective" right of the states.

Still, a ruling upholding an unconditioned individual right to arms and invalidating the ban is unlikely to have much effect on current gun laws. Here's why:

- Heller is a federal case. Because the District of Columbia is a federal entity, Heller provides a clean application of the Second Amendment which, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, originally applied only to the federal government. Before a state or municipal gun law can be challenged, the Supreme Court will have to decide that the right to keep and bear arms is also protected by the 14th Amendment, which limits state powers.

I didn't know that. They have to rule on the 14^th, before the 2^nd can effect state gun laws?

[TLI]

The long-awaited Supreme Court decision on RKBA is most likely done already, we just have to wait for a few formalities.

Three more months to (potentially) finish getting things "ready." If the ruling goes sour I wonder how long it will take the gun grabbers to start their crusade?

[ctdonath2]

Video, audio, and transcripts will be available sometime today. I’m sure there will be many threads to that effect. http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=DC_v._Heller may be a good place to watch.

[MrB]

The 14th was supposed to be EXCLUSIVELY to prevent states from excluding the recently freed blacks from the rights of that every citizen had,

especially the right to self defense.

The “incorporation doctrine” was made up out of whole cloth by the USSC in order to solidify more power to the federal government and away from the states.

[ctdonath2]

Yes. Once the 2nd is clarified (shouldn’t need to, but that’s how this game is playing out), THEN another case will be needed to use the 14th to apply the 2nd to anything other than the feds.