Individual's Right to Bear Arms at Issue

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court gets to write on a blank slate when it takes up the meaning of the Second Amendment "right to keep and bear arms" and the District of Columbia's ban on handguns. The nine justices have said almost nothing about gun rights, and their predecessors have likewise given no definitive answer to whether the Constitution protects an individual's right to own guns or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

The case that will be argued Tuesday is among the most closely watched of the term, drawing 68 briefs from outside groups. Most of those support an individual's right to own a gun.

"This may be one of the only cases in our lifetime when the Supreme Court is going to interpret an important provision of our Constitution unencumbered by precedent," said Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett.

Even if they determine there is an individual right, the justices still will have to decide whether the capital's 32-year-old handgun ban can stand and how to evaluate other gun control laws. This issue has caused division within the Bush administration, with Vice President Dick Cheney taking a harder line than the administration's official position at the court.

The local Washington government argues that its law should be allowed to remain in force whether or not the amendment applies to individuals, although it reads the amendment as intended to allow states to have armed forces.

The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because "handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia."

Dick Anthony Heller, 65, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home—about a mile from the court—for protection. His lawyers say the amendment plainly protects an individual's right.

The 27 words and three enigmatic commas of the Second Amendment have been analyzed again and again by legal scholars, but hardly at all by the Supreme Court.

The amendment reads: "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 last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights.

Chief Justice John Roberts said at his confirmation hearing that the correct reading of the Second Amendment was "still very much an open issue."

Heller lost his suit in U.S. District Court in Washington. By a 2-1 vote, a panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck down the handgun ban. Notably, it was the first appeals court to strike down a gun control law on the basis of an individual's Second Amendment rights.

In 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft reversed long-standing Justice Department policy when he asserted that the Second Amendment protects individuals' rights. The administration's brief in this case holds to that view.

But Solicitor General Paul Clement told the court that reasonable restrictions should be allowed and warns that federal laws restricting sales of machine guns and barring felons from owning guns, among others, could be threatened under the appeals court ruling. Clement wants the court to send the case back to lower courts without deciding whether the handgun ban is reasonable.

Clement's brief was harshly criticized by supporters of gun rights. Cheney joined majorities in both the House and Senate in signing a brief that says a handgun ban is clearly unreasonable. Experts on the court could recall no other case in which a vice president took a public position disagreeing with the administration he serves.

Barnett is among those on both sides of the issue who believe the practical effect of the court's ruling will be limited.

Forty-four state constitutions contain some form of gun rights, which are not affected by the court's consideration of Washington's restrictions.

"There is almost no other enacted gun law that would be threatened by this case," Barnett said.

Sure hope the Supremes hear this argument. From an article I posted earlier....

“The Bill of Rights, then, as any history book will confirm, came into being to satisfy the single most suspicious, vociferous, and relentless foes of the new federal government.
That is the all-important context in which the Bill of Rights was created. The Anti-Federalists, men filled to varying degrees with fear, mistrust, and loathing of the new federal government, insisted on a bill of rights as additional shackles imposed on that new government. Knowing this alone, knowing that the famous Bill exists only to please those most apprehensive of the new government, definitively ends any confusion or debate surrounding the meaning of the Second Amendment.
There is simply no way on Earth the Anti-Federalists would have surrendered to the new and mistrusted government the right to own any gun they wanted at any time they wanted in any number they wanted.
To believe differently, to believe that the Second Amendment actually gives the federal government the authority to regulate firearms, one must believe the absolutely unbelievable. One must believe that the Anti-Federalists, fearing and loathing federal power, compelled Madison to compose this laundry list of rights, this list of things over which the government was to have no authority, and very near the very top of the list, these people in fear of the federal government desired a clause that reads, “Despite the fact that Article I, Section 8 prohibits you federal government people from infringing on our firearms rights, we hereby correct that mistake and surrender to you a right which we previously held, but wish now to give away.”
We must further believe that James Madison was such a monumentally incompetent and abysmal writer that, when trying to give the federal government this new authority to regulate the private ownership of firearms, the last fourteen words of the amendment read, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
We must also believe that revolutionary American history conceals some hitherto unknown and utterly undocumented groundswell of public desire for gun control.
Picture in your mind for a moment the rough-and-tumble individualist who gave birth to this nation, a man who had tamed a wilderness, fought Indian wars on and off for 180 years, and successfully faced down the world’s mightiest empire. Hold a picture of that man in your head for a moment and then try to imagine him being told that this new federal government would have the power to regulate his ownership of firearms in any manner it saw fit, including imprisoning him for possession of any firearm for any reason at any time.
No honest or serious man could ever claim to believe that any part of the American electorate desired federal gun control, let alone the Anti-Federalists who forced the creation of the Bill of Rights.”

From the posted article:

Forty-four state constitutions contain some form of gun rights, which are not affected by the court's consideration of Washington's restrictions.

Oh, really?

From my own state's constitution (WI): "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose."

Our POS goobernor, a.k.a. Diamond Jim, has vetoed concealed carry legislation and even tried to limit ammo sales.

We need the SCOTUS to rule on the side of freedom.

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.