Posted on 06/19/2008 1:33:42 PM PDT by neverdem
In its first comprehensive look at the Second Amendment right to bear arms, the Supreme Court is expected to rule next week on the constitutionality of Washington, D.C.'s ban on handguns.
The District of Columbia's ban is considered the nation's strictest gun-control law. A ruling by the court to strike it down could threaten other gun-control measures across the country, including laws that ban machine guns or assault weapons.
Although the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, the court has never definitively said what it means to have the right to keep and bear arms. The current dispute over gun rights raises several important questions.
How have courts previously ruled on questions about the Second Amendment?
The Second Amendment to the Constitution states: "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." For most of the last century, the courts have interpreted the amendment to mean that the right to bear arms is a collective right associated with military service, not a personal right.
The last time the Supreme Court ruled on the right to bear arms was in 1939. The justices upheld a federal ban on sawed-off shotguns and implied that the Founding Fathers adopted the Second Amendment to ensure that the then-new federal government could not disarm state militias.
But don't others see gun ownership as an individual right?
Yes. For many, the Second Amendment right to bear arms means the individual right to own and use a gun, if necessary, as a weapon against invaders, or even an oppressive government.
What clues did the justices give about how they might rule when they heard oral arguments in March?
A majority of the justices indicated they believed the right to bear arms is an individual right, like the right of free speech or the right to be free from unreasonable searches. Former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger defended the District's ban. He argued that the amendment was adopted in 1791 to reassure the states that the new federal government could not disarm state militias. But a majority of the justices appeared skeptical.
"If it is limited to state militias, why would they say the right of the people?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked.
Justice Anthony Kennedy added, "In effect, the amendment says we reaffirm the right to have a militia, we've established it, but in addition, there is a right to bear arms."
What's behind the case challenging Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban?
The lawsuit was initially brought by six individuals, including Shelly Parker, a computer software designer who received death threats from a local drug dealer after she organized homeowners to report drug activity in her neighborhood. One night, a drug dealer tried to break into her house and threatened to kill her. Parker chased him away by setting off the burglar alarm. A police officer suggested she get a gun, even though handguns are illegal in the District of Columbia. She joined a lawsuit organized by two local lawyers to challenge the ban.
What do Washington, D.C., officials say about the ban?
The District defends its law, which was passed in 1976, arguing that handguns are responsible for more than 80 percent of the city's murders and most of the city's armed assaults. The city also cites the danger handguns pose to children and to police called into domestic violence situations. The District contends that its residents are allowed to have other firearms at home for self-protection as long as the weapons have trigger locks or are unassembled.
How did the case arrive at the Supreme Court?
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled against the city's gun ban in 2007, becoming the first federal court in modern times to invalidate a gun regulation as an unconstitutional restriction on the right to keep and bear arms. The District appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court.
How do gun-control advocates expect the court to rule?
Officials at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said recently that they expect Washington's 32-year-old handgun ban to fall. But they believe that background checks, limits on large-volume gun sales and prohibitions on certain categories of weapons can survive.
From staff reports and the Associated Press.
It’s odd how people who take the broadest possible interpretation of the First Ammendment take the narrowest possible interpretation of the Second. So the First Ammendment means that a Rabbi can’t say a blessing at a high school graduation while the Second means that only the National Guard can have firearms. Such breathtaking hypocrisy.
“For most of the last century, the courts have interpreted the amendment to mean that the right to bear arms is a collective right associated with military service, not a personal right.”
LIES!!!!! Typical NPR garbage....
Can't wait to see/hear the definition of a large-volume sale.
It’s a reset button on the government.
Didn’t JimRob say not to put anything up that came out of the AP. Even though this is NPR, it mentions AP.
more than one
This is only the beginning. After the Supreme Court strikes down the D.C. gun ban as unconstitutional as it should, pretty soon (fingers crossed) all federal gun control laws beginning with the 1968 gun control act will be struck down as unconstitutional. Another example of why it DOES MATTER who appoints Supreme Court Justices.
I regret to inform you that almost all of the Federal District and Circuit Courts ruled that it was only a collective right in the last 100 years. The 5th Circuit's Emerson decision said it was an individual right, but only in dicta. Parker et al. blew everything up. Heller is son of Parker. Heller was the only one in Parker et al. found to have standing. The rest are still in legal limbo.
Judging from Justice Kenndey’s reply in the article, I’d say he’s probably on our side in this one.
Who knows what he'll say after Ruth whispers a few sweet nothings in his ear.
NPR writes, “...implied that the Founding Fathers adopted the Second Amendment to ensure that the then-new federal government could not disarm state militias. “
Interesting. In describing the 1939 comments of the court (there was no defendent and so no definitive court decision or ruling), NPR chooses not to simply describe the 1939 comments but to suggest the court “implied” something. Here is where we see the biased opinion of NPR begin to grind forth. Because I recall no state militias of any note existing in 1939, why, pray tell, would the court want to ensure such non-existent entities not be disarmed of their non-extant firerms? Of course, if the state militias consisted of the able state population, then I can understand the point. An individual right is thus necessary, and honestly implied.
Note, also, that NPR doesn’t seek the opinions of self-defense freedom organizations, only of gun control organizations, when providing outside opinions.
Two. Or one, with a box of ammunition.
Don't underestimate the SCOTUS. My prediction on the ruling; Guns are not arms and therefore illegal in all of the United States.
Well, not quite. Since Miller was less than 100 years ago, and it certainly did not rule as the article implies. In fact, the mischaractorization in the article mirrors the subsequent court decisions you elude to. In most of those, the court claimed to cite Miller but misrepresented the decision. And still others cited those courts and their misrepresentations.
Look here:
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/gun_control_dencite.htm
All the nearly endless convoluted arguments that try to deny the existence of the basic human right of self-defense are so ridiculous.
It is all so very simple. The composers of the state lists of rights make clear self-defense is an individual right. Self-defense is a basic need. What rights would anyone have if they could not defend themselves regardless of the threat?
Here is why the 2nd Amendment is worded the way it is worded. All able-bodied men were considered responsible for, indeed essential to, defending a state that is free. The larger the defending force, the better defended the free state. The size of your army matters a lot. To ensure that defensive force is large and useful, and to avoid a potentially large and oppressive govt army, the second emendment makes clear the individual’s right to keep and bear arms.
Contrary to NPR’s words, the second amendment was always about individual freedom. It is simply obvious and a look at the Dred Scott decision, for example, makes such an assumption explicit. It is only very recently that the collective rights interpretation, a contrived argument intended to cast doubt on this basic right and confuse the citizenry, has been touted by opponents. However, such an argument is quite illogical and even silly.
Imagine the small and weak United States of 1790 limiting the rights of citizens and allowing only states without the means and often the interest, to keep arms. Imagine that being written down and accepted by the authors of our Constitution and ratified by the very independently-minded states. Imagine those wary of Federal power, having just ejected a foreign army that harassed and disarmed citizens who owned and used firearms daily for family needs and whose arms enabled the triumph of the new nation’s army, ill-equipped and unable to afford sufficient arms or to pay its own soldiers, demanding a right of states to maintain militias but not of the members of the militias to keep and bear arms. That is beyond imagination.
A state that is not free may need defending but the lack of freedom ensures force will be applied to enroll the able population in defense of such a realm. If you are not a free state, the govt doesn’t want armed citizens, of course. Our nation was grounded in the philosophy of individual freedom and independence. Because the federal govt was the subject of the Bill of Rights, it is federal powers that are explicitly discussed. However, states made clear in their own constitutions similar individual freedoms. To only discuss the 2nd amendment and suggest it allows only state control of arms igonres the freedoms explicit in each state’s constitution.
Recent decades’ decisions attacking the right to keep and bear arms describe a weakening of basic rights, and a story of the neglect of our courts of its responsibility to the Constitution and American’s rights.
All the nearly endless convoluted arguments that try to deny the existence of the basic human right of self-defense are so ridiculous.
It is all so very simple. The composers of the state lists of rights make clear self-defense is an individual right. Self-defense is a basic need. What rights would anyone have if they could not defend themselves regardless of the threat?
Here is why the 2nd Amendment is worded the way it is worded. All able-bodied men were considered responsible for, indeed essential to, defending a state that is free. The larger the defending force, the better defended the free state. The size of your army matters a lot. To ensure that defensive force is large and useful, and to avoid a potentially large and oppressive govt army, the second emendment makes clear the individual’s right to keep and bear arms.
Contrary to NPR’s words, the second amendment was always about individual freedom. It is simply obvious and a look at the Dred Scott decision, for example, makes such an assumption explicit. It is only very recently that the collective rights interpretation, a contrived argument intended to cast doubt on this basic right and confuse the citizenry, has been touted by opponents. However, such an argument is quite illogical and even silly.
Imagine the small and weak United States of 1790 limiting the rights of citizens and allowing only states without the means and often the interest, to keep arms. Imagine that being written down and accepted by the authors of our Constitution and ratified by the very independently-minded states. Imagine those wary of Federal power, having just ejected a foreign army that harassed and disarmed citizens who owned and used firearms daily for family needs and whose arms enabled the triumph of the new nation’s army, ill-equipped and unable to afford sufficient arms or to pay its own soldiers, demanding a right of states to maintain militias but not of the members of the militias to keep and bear arms. That is beyond imagination.
A state that is not free may need defending but the lack of freedom ensures force will be applied to enroll the able population in defense of such a realm. If you are not a free state, the govt doesn’t want armed citizens, of course. Our nation was grounded in the philosophy of individual freedom and independence. Because the federal govt was the subject of the Bill of Rights, it is federal powers that are explicitly discussed. However, states made clear in their own constitutions similar individual freedoms. To only discuss the 2nd amendment and suggest it allows only state control of arms igonres the freedoms explicit in each state’s constitution.
Recent decades’ decisions attacking the right to keep and bear arms describe a weakening of basic rights, and a story of the neglect of our courts of its responsibility to the Constitution and American’s rights.
So, handguns are responsible for the murders, eh? I guess baseball bats are responsible for home runs, then. And cars are responsible for auto accidents. When will these loons understand that it's the individual who is responsible for the action, whether it's murder using a gun, hitting a home run with a bat, or making a poor decision while driving and having an accident?
And what's this ridiculous business: its residents are allowed to have other firearms at home for self-protection as long as the weapons have trigger locks or are unassembled. Totally insane. Can you see yoourself trying to assemble your weapon while your home is being invaded?
Sheesh..
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.