monday the supreme court will help or hurt us
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21039929/
D.C. gun law challenged
Washington, D.C., has urged that the justices uphold the city's ban on handguns - one of the strictest gun laws in the nation. City officials said the restriction is essential to fighting crime.
"What we ban is a weapon that is uniquely dangerous, that is easily concealed and that is disproportionately used in crime," said Linda Singer, Attorney General for the District of Columbia.
In a surprising ruling, a federal appeals court earlier this year declared the ban a violation of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The law was challenged by a Washington, D.C., resident who claimed the Constitution gives him a right to own a handgun for self-defense.
"I had a house broken into once, and things happen," said Rich Heller, the man who filed the lawsuit. "You want to protect yourself if you need to."
Though the Supreme Court discussed the Second Amendment in a 1939 gun case, the court has never definitively ruled on if the amendment protects an individual's right to own a gun or if it only protects a right of state militias to resist being disarmed by the national government.
D.C. gun law challenged
Washington, D.C., has urged that the justices uphold the city's ban on handguns - one of the strictest gun laws in the nation. City officials said the restriction is essential to fighting crime.
"What we ban is a weapon that is uniquely dangerous, that is easily concealed and that is disproportionately used in crime," said Linda Singer, Attorney General for the District of Columbia.
In a surprising ruling, a federal appeals court earlier this year declared the ban a violation of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The law was challenged by a Washington, D.C., resident who claimed the Constitution gives him a right to own a handgun for self-defense.
"I had a house broken into once, and things happen," said Rich Heller, the man who filed the lawsuit. "You want to protect yourself if you need to."
Though the Supreme Court discussed the Second Amendment in a 1939 gun case, the court has never definitively ruled on if the amendment protects an individual's right to own a gun or if it only protects a right of state militias to resist being disarmed by the national government.
0
-
About time! 0 -
Any reasonable reading of the Constitution marks it as an individual right. We will prevail.[:)] 0 -
Considering the present makeup of the court, compared to the last few decades, and what it might be if the Dems get in power at the next election. This is the best chance we have had/will have in quite a while.
That being said, lets see if they weasel their way out of a definitive ruling.0 -
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
Considering the present makeup of the court, compared to the last few decades, and what it might be if the Dems get in power at the next election. This is the best chance we have had/will have in quite a while.
That being said, lets see if they weasel their way out of a definitive ruling.
Pickenup, I cannot rightly see how they can. It is a yes or no question of the District (Government) restricting the right of a resident (citizen) to own a handgun. I suppose they could have taken the case to rule against the apellate court, but to what end? A civil war? With the way the court is packed right now, they must rule it an individual right if a strict interpertation of the Constitution is followed.0 -
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
Considering the present makeup of the court, compared to the last few decades, and what it might be if the Dems get in power at the next election. This is the best chance we have had/will have in quite a while.
That being said, lets see if they weasel their way out of a definitive ruling.
Amen. Scalia is firmly within our camp I think, as is Thomas and Alito. I have confidence in Roberts. The others are all a toss up, believe it or don't. Ginsburg may be the most worrisome, but she's joined with Scalia on some decisions in the past that surprised me.0 -
i think if the court rules in our favor and broadens the scope a little you could see MASSIVE changes in americas gun laws. 0 -
a point to consider.....the court could rule in one stroke and make more changes than the NRA can with billions of dollars and millions of members. it just goes to show how important the supreme court is. 0 -
How long do you guys think they will spend on making a decision on this? 0 -
My wife checked the schedule and the DC case doesn't appear to be on the 1st month's calendar. Could be a while before oral arguments are heard. I make no assumptions when it comes to the Court except one" former ACLU lawyer Ginsburg will never in a million years see the 2nd as an individual right. She's the most Socialist and anti-gun Justice I've ever seen. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
9 comments