DC Asks Supreme Court To Back Gun Ban (Ignore That Dastardly 2nd Amendment Alert)

Washington Post ^ | 09/05/2007 | Robert Barnes And David Nakamura

[goldstategop]

The District today asked the Supreme Court to uphold the city's ban on private ownership of handguns, saying the appeals court decision that overturned the law "drastically departs from the mainstream of American jurisprudence."

Most legal experts believe the court will accept the case, which could lead to a historic decision next year on whether the ambiguously worded Second Amendment to the Constitution protects private gun ownership or only imparts a civic right related to maintaining state militias.

The District argues in its petition for review that its law--one of the toughest handgun bans in the nation--should be upheld regardless of whether the court sides with the so-called "individualist" or "collective" legal theories.

"It is eminently reasonable to permit private ownership of other types of weapons, including shotguns and rifles, but ban the easily concealed and uniquely dangerous modern handgun," states the petition, filed by District Attorney General Linda Singer. It adds: "Whatever right the Second Amendment guarantees, it does not require the District to stand by while its citizens die."

"We're going to fight to uphold a law that . . . has public support," Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) said at a news conference outside D.C. police headquarters. "The only possible outcome of more handguns in the home is more violence. Our appeal will help the District of Columbia be able to continue to reduce gun violence."

[goldstategop]

Basically what DC has said to the U.S Supreme Court is to ignore the Second Amendment. For the common good, of course.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[VR-21]

It’s almost hard to believe there was a time when we could be confident that the Supreme Court was going to uphold the Constitution. Everyone thought that was their job.

[Prokopton]

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good" HRC

This includes Constitutional Rights.

[longtermmemmory]

Good lawyers know the law, Great lawyers know the judge.

This case is going to be based on the PERSONAL beliefs of the Judges as to what outcome SHOULD happen.

[goldstategop]

What I find hilarious is their concession in their brief its OK to own shotguns and rifles but not handguns. One is as dangerous as the other. So why allow one but not the other? Hunting is OK but self-defense isn't. Liberals are all screwed up on the history of the Second Amendment and on the legal facts. I can't wait til DC brings up that line of reasoning before the SCOTUS. Our side will be waiting with a powerful counter-reply.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[SeaHawkFan]

Court will decline the case. No reason to take it since I believe a majority of the justices believe the Circuit Opinion is correct. Declining the case will send a signal to the other Circuits that the DC Circuit got it right. If another Circuit does not follow the DC opinion, then the USSC would take that case.

[goldstategop]

There is the Ninth Circuit which follows a collectivist interpretation and the Fifth Circuit which follows an individual one. No - the Supreme Court will need to settle exactly what the Second Amendment means once and for all.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Rick_Michael]

This is not one my biggest issues, but things like this make me weary of a democrat as president. That part of the constitution can’t be messed with.

[papasmurf]

II
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.

"the ambiguously worded Second Amendment"

Where is the ambiguity?

[Candor7]

"ambiguously worded Second Amendment"

You got that right, there is nothing ambiguous about it, which is a real problem for lefty judges.

The plain meaning there is obvious, and little can be done with it, which I believe is the reason why so few cases have been taken by SCOTUS on it.

[mkjessup]

D.C. is apparently ignorant of the high probability that Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and (probably) Kennedy are going to hand them a minimum 5 to 4 smackdown, and THEN where are they going to appeal?

The United Nations?

BWHAHHAAA!!!!

I’m not worried about the SCOTUS taking up this issue at all.

OK, mildly concerned but not about to panic, ok?

[pawdoggie]

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. "the ambiguously worded Second Amendment" Where is the ambiguity?

It's "ambiguous" to a Lefty who ignorance of English common law, and English grammar, leads him/her to conclude that the dependent clause, "a well -regulated...free state", somehow modifies or actually negates the independent clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".

[A Navy Vet]

"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."

The problem has always been the lack of the word, "and" between "state&the", which was the norm of writing in the period.

This is what the gun-grabbers use to show that the the entire sentence means "militia". However, anyone who spent one hour reading the correspondence between the Founding Fathers, especially Jefferson, can see it also meant self-defense. The quotes are numerous regarding same. There is NO ambiguity.

It meant two things from the era:
1. A right to maintain a militia (to oppose tyranny);
2. A basic right of self-defense, including at the time, home invasion and other crimes against a person's livelihood.

[nathanbedford]

Thou hath said it.

(And so has Scalia)

This is what our jurisprudence has debauched itself to.

[FourthBranch]

“ambiguously worded” ???? What part of “shall not be infringed” Don’t they understand. oops we’re talking about lawyers.... never mind. They thrive/slime on creating ambiguity where none exists.

[flowerplough]

And more ambiguity to come? Is the DC gonna try to get the court to define the “easily concealed and uniquely dangerous modern handgun”? If it’s big enough to hinder concealment, then it won’t be banned in Washington?

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

A hot oven, being necessary to the creation of an excellent pizza, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Means exactly the same as “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.”

Let them take the case and hand down a ruling.
Either way, the nation will be better for it.

[OldArmy52]

But any knowledgable Liberal can tell you that the Amendments (free speech, assembly, religion, arms, etc) applies only to States, not to individuals.

There are no individual rights in the Constitution. It is just a document guaranteeing rights to various governments.

Obvious to any Liberal or insane person.

[R. Scott]

"Whatever right the Second Amendment guarantees, it does not require the District to stand by while its citizens die."

The rest of the sentence should read “in a criminal safe zone.”

[NY.SS-Bar9]

A well read electorate, being necessary to the security of a free state; the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.