Supreme Court Study Finds New Gun Facts

gunlawupdates@gunlaws.com | 17 August, 2003 | Alan Korwin

[marktwain]

Phoenix, Ariz. The results of a six-year study of Supreme Court gun cases will be released in September and has uncovered scores of forgotten decisions that affect the highly contested Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Co-written by an attorney who has won three cases before the High Court, along with the research director of a prominent think tank, and a nationally recognized gun-law expert, the researchers conclude from the evidence that the Supreme Court has recognized an individual right to arms for most of the past two centuries.

Among the key findings in "Supreme Court Gun Cases," being released next month by Phoenix-based Bloomfield Press:

- The Court has not been quiet on this subject as previously thought, using some form of the word "gun" in its decisions 2,910 times (gun, rifle, pistol, shotgun, firearm, etc., even Winchester five times) in 92 cases. Three dozen of the cases quote or mention the Second Amendment directly.

- Armed self defense with personally owned firearms is recognized and supported in more than a dozen cases, is a distinct right of American citizens, and an ancient "duty to retreat" is not obligatory.

- The often-cited Miller case from 1939 is inconclusive, which is why gun-rights and gun-control advocates both claim it supports their position. The record shows that the Court actually remanded this case back to the lower court for retrial and a hearing on the evidence, since there was no evidence presented. Because Miller had been murdered by that time and his co-defendant had taken a plea agreement, no retrial or evidentiary hearing was ever held.

- All 92 cases are reproduced to show what the Court has actually said. More than 1,000 interesting quotations are highlighted, and each case includes a plain-English description. A special "descriptive index" reduces each case to the firearms-related question(s) it answers.

Advanced review copies of "Supreme Court Gun Cases" are available to the news media on request. Contact Bloomfield Press at 1-800-707-4020 or SCGC@gunlaws.com.

---------------------

Note: Bloomfield Press publishes "Gun Laws of America," the unabridged guide to federal gun law, and is the largest publisher of gun-law books in the country, founded in 1988. Copies of "Supreme Court Gun Cases" for media review are free on request, call 1-800-707-4020. The authors (Attorney David Kopel, Attorney Stephen Halbrook, Alan Korwin) are available for interview, call us, or email interview@gunlaws.com. Download high-resolution mini-cover art and more info from our website, click Media Services.

[Double Tap]

BTTT

[hattend]

BBTTT

[NRA2BFree]

ping

[NRA2BFree]

This is indeed good news!

[gtech]

BTW, even the Wisconsin Supremes have found that the right to self-defense exists in the State (partially due to the hard work of the NRA and its people in Wisconsin.)

As a result of the decision, issued a couple of weeks ago, Wisconsin NOW has a 'right-to-carry-concealed' WITHOUT A PERMIT situation.

No, that's not true. Only in very limited cirumstances, like in one's own home or business. It was a narrow ruling that moslty held intact the law prohibiting concealed weapons.

[King Prout]

for us Average Joes, it will provide ammunition for the ongoing grassroots debate. That's a good thing.

[ninenot]

I, too, read the decision.

You are correct: the WISupremes said that 'home/business' were the appropriate places.

BUT the nose of the camel is in the phrase: "feel threatened."

Technically, "feeling threatened" can happen in a lot more places than home/business. There may never be a test case, but it's not hard to imagine the circumstances which would create one...

[ninenot]

..and by the way, what about BETWEEN 'home/business?'

Apparently there will be a CCW bill introduced in September, and it should pass, get vetoed by our Governing Nazi slimebucket, and he will be over-ridden.

[Hat-Trick]

Thousands of innocent children have been butchered by wild-eyed gun-carrying white Christian family men...

I'm sorry, I thought you just said Thousands of innocent children have been butchered by wild-eyed gun carrying white Christian family men.... Could you repeat that because I'm sure I didn't hear you correctly.

Hat-Trick.

[patton]

hey, loook at this.

[Badray]

bttt

[ninenot]

That's the purpose of the </sarcasm tag. To help you hear the post correctly. The comment was referencing the WI Supreme Court's decision that CCW was, in fact, legitimate under certain circumstances.

You probably did not notice the news reports from Wisconsin in which "thousands.....etc." That's because THERE WERE NOT ANY SUCH REPORTS, a disappointment to the Brady Campaign.

[PhilDragoo]

Found it yesterday.

[William Terrell]

They have reversed themselves from prior rulings before, but never from so many of them at once.

[ExSoldier]

"They have reversed themselves from prior rulings before"

Of course, but usually the "holding" is concentrated on the narrowest point of law imaginable....and thus the changes tend to be incremental over a period of time. This pattern changed during the liberalism of the Warren Court in the 1960's when the Civil Rights era was in full swing...and it culminated with the 1972 decision on Roe v Wade. Since that time, the USSC has tended to return to the old "narrow holding" view and thus, slow changes. The crux of the matter this time as you point out is that there is indeed a fair body of prior case law on "point" and it may find itself caught upon the horns of dilemma in that the precedent is over 100 years old...but still binding as are all decisions (those not specifically overturned by legislation or USSC actions) from the High Court.

This is the gray area...the minefield. IF the liberal viewpoint holds sway that the Constitution is a living and therefore evolving document, the 2nd Amendment might be in jeopardy as we know it....OTOH, the strict constructionists will have the powerful voice of tradition in their corner and they will be urging care be taken not to disturb well established case law.

[Ichneumon]

- The often-cited Miller case from 1939 is inconclusive, which is why gun-rights and gun-control advocates both claim it supports their position. The record shows that the Court actually remanded this case back to the lower court for retrial and a hearing on the evidence, since there was no evidence presented. Because Miller had been murdered by that time and his co-defendant had taken a plea agreement, no retrial or evidentiary hearing was ever held.

BINGO!

I've been explaining this to anti-gun folks for years now (and even to quite a few pro-gun people who had gotten an erroneous impression about the case).

It's nice to see that the author of this new book got it right. If he untangled this issue correctly, I'm confident that he's most likely giving the straight info on all the others, too.

[William Terrell]

From what I've seen, they overturn a point in a single case, like Brown v Board is said to have overturned Plessy v Ferguson. But all these cases represent a pattern of rulings that form a judicial interpretation of the 2nd.

If they rule that the 2nd is not an acknowledgement of a personal right the bear arms, they overturn all those cases at one time. I think that if the majority are socialist leaning, they, and other socialists in other branches, will work to see that a case that would force them to rule on the constitutional question (Ashwander et al. v Tennesee Valley Authority et al., I think) would never get to them.

We may have already seen an example of that. Ashcroft just recently changed the governments "policy" to one of individual right, which kept (I forget the case, think it was an appeals court in Louisiana I think, restraining order violation) from being appealed.

[StriperSniper]

BTTT

[Blue Collar Christian]

I believe that when "ultimately" comes, it will still be up to a split decision of the robes with agendas pinned to them. They will just need enough time to figure out how to explain themselves in legalese about their decisions, whether we like the outcome or not, in order to avoid the glare of their respective supporters.

"Ultimately" we need conservative judges in there ASAP!

[ExSoldier]

Didn't Plessy v Ferguson reverse the Ruling in Dredd Scott?