Posted on 09/02/2009 5:05:52 AM PDT by marktwain
The Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller, declared that Washington’s 32-year ban on all functional firearms violated the Second Amendment. Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion, however, applied only to possession of guns in the home. The court did not address, and was not asked to address, firearms carried outside the home. That’s the issue posed in a new lawsuit against the District by Tom Palmer (disclosure: my colleague at the Cato Institute) and four other plaintiffs — represented by Alan Gura, the lawyer who successfully argued Heller before the court.
After Heller, the District relaxed its ban on residents seeking “to register a pistol for use in self-defense within that person’s home.” But D.C. law still states that “[n]o person shall carry within the District of Columbia either openly or concealed on or about their person, a pistol, without a license.” Currently, the city affords no process by which to issue such a license. A first violation of the carry ban is punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 and imprisonment for up to five years.
Does the Constitution mandate that the nation’s capital allow firearms to be carried outside the home? The right to bear arms, the court said in Heller, is an “individual right unconnected to militia service.” To “bear” means to “carry.” More specifically, when used with “arms,” the opinion said, “bear” means “carrying for a particular purpose — confrontation.” Nothing in that formulation implies a right that can be exercised only within one’s home.
(Excerpt) Read more at voices.washingtonpost.com ...
The swine seem to be in taxi position at the end of the tarmac.
I saw this the other day in an email. I’m not sure I trust Gura on this. He threw Class III under the bus in Heller. If it does get to the SC, I hope they’re able to make the argument that laws on the books about CCW permits are meaningless if the states refuse to issue the permits. New Jersey is a good example of this. Technically, you can have a carry permit there, but you’ll never get one.
I’m not sure I trust Gura on this. He threw Class III under the bus in Heller.
One brick at a time...
And could make it an equal protection issue also. Who is most affected by the lack of permits? The majority black population of the District of Columbia. But shall not be infringed is the much better language to cite.
Exactly. They were taken incrementally, they will be restored incrementally. One specific criteria case at a time.
I guess what gets me the most about this is that it took 32 years to give them a smack on the tooshy, and a time out in the corner...
And still, you cannot have a “functioning” firearm in your home in D.C.
Indeed. Any right that you have to go, hat in hand, to the laird to ask permission to exercise is no right. It is a privilege granted to those serfs that the laird trusts. Not the ones who need it most.
Whadayamean? the “safe storage” requirement was struck down as well IIRC.
Not sure, all I really understand is that there is One guy in all of D.C. that has been given permission to ask to keep a gun in his home in the district...Other than that, everyone else who would like to is still screwed...
No one else I have heard of has even asked the authorities to do so...
But then again, I feel I may be embelishing somewhat...I’m just glad I don’t live there...
Every single gun group from the NRA to the Second Amendment Sisters asked the Supreme Court for a broad view so we wouldn’t have to have 20,000 lawsuits to defeat 20,000 gun laws EXCEPT ONE.
Guess the gun group.
An illuminating, and hilarious point. I wonder if the Buffalo Soldiers have a D.C. chapter. The notion that the long legged mac-daddy might have to defend a bigotry case in D.C., based on years of precedent and ample historic facts, is too delicious to contemplate. :)
I understand it very well. Dicta has a nasty way of emanating from the penumbra.
We are always one USSC case away from loosing everything. Better to keep the 2nd amendment cases local.
If the Second Amendment is in trouble anywhere, then it is in trouble everywhere, IMHO.
But when you loose at the Supreme Court level, you loose every where and everything.
It is an all or nothing gamble with a body that thinks it is king.
But the question posted to the SCOTUS was designed to NOT allow a broad opinion to be returned...
I was not very happy with the technicalities of the question or process anyway...So when it all got processed, I was not surprised by the outcome...
Oh, the way the question was presented, might very well have gone against us easier than some would have thought...
Roberts was not a lock in our favor at the time, which obviously would have been a disaster for the correct interpretation of the issue...Remember who it was that wrote the majority opinion???
We got lucky with this one, yet nothing really has happened has it???
I figured we’d be lucky to get a “individual right” opinion from them, yet, nothing tangible would be implemented to make the kinds of changes everyone thought would occur if it all went in our favor...
But you do realize, that at the end of the day you still have your guns, right???
Everyone needs to understand this reality...
I’m not saying it is not disturbing that challenges are made against our moral and unalienable right to keep and bear arms is under attack...
Physical reality (our continued possesion) trumps someone elses desires, and words on a piece of paper anyday...
Just my opinion...
Another recent thread observes that 550 DC residents have done so.
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.