Skip to comments.MILLER: Gun carry in the Obama era
Posted on 10/03/2012 1:38:47 PM PDT by marktwain
The ability of Americans to bear arms is on the line in this presidential election. The Supreme Court, which started a new term on Monday, will have little choice but to take up the issue of carry rights within the next few years. All it takes is the appointment of one new justice to shift the balance on this constitutional question.
Oral arguments were heard in Washington Monday in one of the cases that could make its way to the high court. A federal judge will first decide whether the District can outright ban any form of open or concealed carry. In 2008, attorney Alan Gura convinced the Supreme Court to force city officials to recognize the right to keep arms through the Heller v. District of Columbia case.
Now he wants Palmer v. District of Columbia to do likewise with carry rights. As Heller demonstrated, there are some cases that can and should be resolved simply by interpreting the Constitution, said Mr. Gura in his opening argument.
Andrew J. Saindon, a D.C. assistant attorney general, argued the Second Amendment doesnt apply to the right to carry. Mr. Saindon claims the carry ban prevents crime and increases public safety. Echoing a favorite argument of local politicians, Mr. Saindon asserted, The District is a unique place. Its the seat of federal government, home to hundreds of politicians and a proven target of terrorists attack.
Mr. Gura did not address those issues in court, but in an interview afterward he called the argument ridiculous. There are government officials all over the country, and the life of regular citizens is important too, said Mr. Gura. President Obama and Vice President Biden went to Virginia to have hamburgers those are places where people can carry guns and they have Secret Service
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
The problem for libs is that we conservatives can actually read the second Ammendment.
It no longer matters what quota-justices decide from now on.
The issue of our God-given right to our own lives and the defense thereof will be decided in... other venues.
Not our choice. Theirs. As are the consequences.
This is absurd. There should be a limit on the number of times the SCOTUS can/will rule on any given subject.
We have been down this road umpteen times and the SCOTUS has usually ruled in favor of the Second Amendment. Gun-grabbers can (and have!) try to interpret the meaning of the Second Amendment in any of 1,000 different ways but the Founder's meaning is quite clear.
Unless the gun-grabbers speak a language other than American English, there is nothing for them to challenge in the Court.
When the SCOTUS relies on political leanings to determine the outcome of any given issue (as they have been doing for several decades!), then America is lost!! The Justices on the Supreme Court are supposed to be apolitical and render judements solely on a law's compliance with the Constitution.
We must restore the Court to an apolitical body that complies with the original words, vision and plans the Founders had for America! THAT'S their job!!
“A federal judge will first decide whether the District can outright ban any form of open or concealed carry. In 2008, attorney Alan Gura convinced the Supreme Court to force city officials to recognize the right to keep arms through the Heller v. District of Columbia case.”
The “District” is not a state, it belongs to the government or Congress. I don’t see how they can say a decision concerning DC has anything to do with the rest of us.
Through the 14th Amendment and the McDonald decision which incorporated the 2nd Amendment.
The Congress has the right and the duty to legislate for the District of Columbia “in all cases whatsoever”, a phrase which had a very specific meaning in 1789.
The so-called “government” of DC is nothing of the sort, and it has no legislative powers which any US citizen is bound to respect.