Supreme Court to Take Up DC Ban Case

MSNBC ^ | 11/20/2007 | n/a

[Pyro7480]

Breaking on MSNBC... Supreme Court to take up DC gun ban case

[Travis McGee]

Radio Free America will be jammed in the FedZone.

[DownInFlames]

5-4 that this goes down as an individual right. Eitherway the Goberment and Congresscritters will be controlled by the citizens of this country.

[B4Ranch]

I hope they know that.

[azhenfud]

It would appear to me it is possible their choicely verbiage of “....violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia...” is an indication of their actual acknowledgment of the Constitutional right of gun ownership absent any state affiliation of the individual. That said, there's hope DC's infringements might not survive the SCOTUS battle.

What think ye?

[Jasper]

[RKV]

Dear Lord,

For what we are about to receive, may we be truly thankful.

Otherwise, praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.

Amen.

[Petronski]

...violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia...

"State-regulated" militia?

We're going to lose this one, I think, just based on the Court's choice of that one hyphenated term. The constitution does not refer to a "state-regulated" militia. It refers to a "well regulated" militia:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

If the court enters into this with the presumption that "regulated" means subjected to state regulations, rather than with a straight and true aim, then we've already lost significant ground: the definition of "well regulated."

This is going to end horribly, IMHO.

[2nd amendment mama]

bookmarking for later

[ctdonath2]

I wasn't asked, but...

I think the phrasing of the question means we have already won. The "not affiliated" bit excises any discussion of the right as "collective"; if it is not an individual right (or at least has an individual component), then there is simply nothing to discuss.

[ctdonath2]

Those are plainly two different terms.
Methinks the wording is to completely avoid any “collective right” discussion - which leaves the presumption of an “individual right”. We’re not going to lose - we’ve already won!

[Petronski]

Really?

I think the majority answers this question by saying:

“What 2nd amendment rights of a person not part of a state-regulated militia? There are none. Next.”

[ModelBreaker]

Also this case is unusual in that BOTH sides of the issue wanted the USSC to hear it. I’m not sure why the pro-2nd side wanted it heard, but it suggests confidence that a wider, favorable ruling could be obtained.

See my post 89. The issue to be reviewed is VERY narrow, not wide. The Court will only decide the collective/individual issue regarding guns for use in the home in Washington DC.

BTW, how do you know that both sides wanted it? I haven't been able to find any tally of votes for certiorari on this one.

[Erik Latranyi]

Both I and the NRA would have preferred to have this battle after one more conservative justice is appointed.

Right now, it could go either way.

[wastedyears]

Gadsden will be on many, many sleeves.

[azhenfud]

That’s my thinking. It appears their wording recognizes RKBA as an inalienable, individual right.Then should RKBA be ruled as "inalienable" or a right "not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated", it means that right never was, is, nor ever will be intended to be lawfully transferred from the individual to a collective organization whether it be militia or government.

[RKV]

DC lost in Federal court and on appeal, and demonstrated their desire for the Supremes to reverse in a petition for certoriari. The lower court victors in Parker vs. DC filed a “cross-petition for certoriari” which means they too wanted a ruling from our nine unelected black robed masters.

http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/heller_cert_petition.pdf

[azhenfud]

The constitution does not refer to a "state-regulated" militia. It refers to a "well regulated" militia:

IMO, the reason the SCOTUS worded it that particular way is so that when they rule in favor of the individual's RKBA, they also strike down the presumptions in legality of state regulation or state controlled infringements upon the basics of that right.

FWIW, I hope your perspective is wrong and we can all say, "Told you so..."

[Petronski]

FWIW, I hope your perspective is wrong and we can all say, "Told you so..."

Me too.

[kidd]

By both sides I meant those prosecuting it and those defending it. Not the justices - I have no idea of which justices granted a review.

[beltfed308]

It will be a while before we hear his revisions. :>)