Tuesday Supreme Court Hears Gun Case
http://charter.net/news/news_reader.php?storyid=14181844&feedid=225
Hopefully they do US JUSTICE!!!!
High Court to Weigh Ban on Gun Ownership
2007-11-20 21:13:36
By MARK SHERMAN Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the District of Columbia can ban handguns, a case that could produce the most in-depth examination of the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" in nearly 70 years.
The justices' decision to hear the case could make the divisive debate over guns an issue in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections.
City officials said the law is designed to reduce gun violence, noting that four out of every five homicides this year was committed with a gun. Opponents of the ban pointed to the level of violence to make their case that Washington residents should be allowed to have guns to protect themselves in their homes.
"This is clearly going to be one of the biggest ... cases decided this year," said Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett. "It is one of the very few times when the Supreme Court has the opportunity to interpret a provision of the Constitution ... unencumbered by previous Supreme Court rulings."
The government of Washington, D.C., is asking the court to uphold its 31-year ban on handgun ownership in the face of a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban as incompatible with the Second Amendment. Tuesday's announcement was widely expected, especially after both the District and the man who challenged the handgun ban asked for the high court review.
The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or instead merely sets forth the collective right of states to maintain militias. The former interpretation would permit fewer restrictions on gun ownership.
Gun-control advocates say the Second Amendment was intended to ensure that states could maintain militias, a response to 18th-century fears of an all-powerful national government. Gun rights proponents contend the amendment gives individuals the right to keep guns for private uses, including self-defense.
Alan Gura, a lawyer for Washington residents who challenged the ban, said he was pleased that the justices were considering the case.
Guns be regulated but not banned, Gura said. "This isn't going to let crazy people have guns or felons have guns," he said at a news conference outside the court.
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, noted that 44 state constitutions contain some form of gun rights, which are not affected by the court's consideration of Washington's restrictions. "The American people know this is an individual right the way they know that water quenches their thirst," LaPierre said. "The Second Amendment allows no line to be drawn between individuals and their firearms."
Washington Mayor Adrian M. Fenty said city officials were grateful the Supreme Court took the handguns case and believed they would ultimately prevail. Fenty, speaking at a news conference in a District office building, called it "the most important court case the District of Columbia has been involved in and possibly the most important decision a city or state has been involved in for decades."
Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the Supreme Court should "reverse a clearly erroneous decision and make it clear that the Constitution does not prevent communities from having the gun laws they believe are needed to protect public safety."
Barnett, the Georgetown professor, said that even if the court decides there is an individual right to have guns, it still could determine that broad restrictions short of a ban are legal.
Such a decision won't "automatically determine the outcome of any challenge to any gun law," Barnett said.
Arguments probably will be in March, with a decision expected before the end of June. A ruling could energize people on both sides of the issue for the fall campaigns.
Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, who as New York mayor sued the gun industry for letting criminals get guns, said in a recent interview with The Associated Press that the case "is a very, very strong description of how important personal liberties are in this country and how we have to respect them."
Giuliani now says the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to own handguns and is not, as he previously argued, limited to the rights of states to maintain citizen militias.
The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. That decision supported the collective rights view, but it did not squarely answer the question in the view of many constitutional scholars. Chief Justice John Roberts said at his confirmation hearing that the correct reading of the Second Amendment was "still very much an open issue."
The Second 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."
Washington banned handguns in 1976, saying it was designed to reduce violent crime in the nation's capital.
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."
The District is making several arguments in defense of the restriction, including claiming that the Second Amendment involves militia service. It also said the ban is constitutional because it limits the choice of firearms but does not prohibit residents from owning any guns at all. Rifles and shotguns are legal, if kept under lock or disassembled. Businesses may have guns for protection.
Chicago has a similar handgun ban, but few other gun-control laws are as strict as the District's.
Four states - Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New York - urged the Supreme Court to take the case because broad application of the appeals court ruling would threaten "all federal and state laws restricting access to firearms."
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.
The laws in question in the case do not "merely regulate the possession of firearms," Heller said. Instead, they "amount to a complete prohibition of the possession of all functional firearms within the home."
If the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to have guns, "the laws must yield," he said.
Opponents say the ban plainly has not worked because guns still are readily available, through legal and illegal means. Although the city's homicide rate has declined dramatically since peaking in the early 1990s, Washington still ranks among the nation's highest murder cities.
According to the District's medical examiner, there were 177 homicides in 2006. Of those, 135 were firearm-related. In 1976, the medical examiner said that 135 of the District's 207 homicides were firearm-related, according to a Washington Post article from that era.
The U.S. Court Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 for Heller in March. Judge Laurence Silberman said reasonable regulations still could be permitted but that the ban went too far.
The Bush administration, which has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, has yet to weigh in on the case.
The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.
---
Associated Press writer Stephen Manning contributed to this report.
(This version CORRECTS the year of the gun ban to 1976.)
Hopefully they do US JUSTICE!!!!
High Court to Weigh Ban on Gun Ownership
2007-11-20 21:13:36
By MARK SHERMAN Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the District of Columbia can ban handguns, a case that could produce the most in-depth examination of the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" in nearly 70 years.
The justices' decision to hear the case could make the divisive debate over guns an issue in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections.
City officials said the law is designed to reduce gun violence, noting that four out of every five homicides this year was committed with a gun. Opponents of the ban pointed to the level of violence to make their case that Washington residents should be allowed to have guns to protect themselves in their homes.
"This is clearly going to be one of the biggest ... cases decided this year," said Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett. "It is one of the very few times when the Supreme Court has the opportunity to interpret a provision of the Constitution ... unencumbered by previous Supreme Court rulings."
The government of Washington, D.C., is asking the court to uphold its 31-year ban on handgun ownership in the face of a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban as incompatible with the Second Amendment. Tuesday's announcement was widely expected, especially after both the District and the man who challenged the handgun ban asked for the high court review.
The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or instead merely sets forth the collective right of states to maintain militias. The former interpretation would permit fewer restrictions on gun ownership.
Gun-control advocates say the Second Amendment was intended to ensure that states could maintain militias, a response to 18th-century fears of an all-powerful national government. Gun rights proponents contend the amendment gives individuals the right to keep guns for private uses, including self-defense.
Alan Gura, a lawyer for Washington residents who challenged the ban, said he was pleased that the justices were considering the case.
Guns be regulated but not banned, Gura said. "This isn't going to let crazy people have guns or felons have guns," he said at a news conference outside the court.
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, noted that 44 state constitutions contain some form of gun rights, which are not affected by the court's consideration of Washington's restrictions. "The American people know this is an individual right the way they know that water quenches their thirst," LaPierre said. "The Second Amendment allows no line to be drawn between individuals and their firearms."
Washington Mayor Adrian M. Fenty said city officials were grateful the Supreme Court took the handguns case and believed they would ultimately prevail. Fenty, speaking at a news conference in a District office building, called it "the most important court case the District of Columbia has been involved in and possibly the most important decision a city or state has been involved in for decades."
Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the Supreme Court should "reverse a clearly erroneous decision and make it clear that the Constitution does not prevent communities from having the gun laws they believe are needed to protect public safety."
Barnett, the Georgetown professor, said that even if the court decides there is an individual right to have guns, it still could determine that broad restrictions short of a ban are legal.
Such a decision won't "automatically determine the outcome of any challenge to any gun law," Barnett said.
Arguments probably will be in March, with a decision expected before the end of June. A ruling could energize people on both sides of the issue for the fall campaigns.
Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, who as New York mayor sued the gun industry for letting criminals get guns, said in a recent interview with The Associated Press that the case "is a very, very strong description of how important personal liberties are in this country and how we have to respect them."
Giuliani now says the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to own handguns and is not, as he previously argued, limited to the rights of states to maintain citizen militias.
The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. That decision supported the collective rights view, but it did not squarely answer the question in the view of many constitutional scholars. Chief Justice John Roberts said at his confirmation hearing that the correct reading of the Second Amendment was "still very much an open issue."
The Second 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."
Washington banned handguns in 1976, saying it was designed to reduce violent crime in the nation's capital.
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."
The District is making several arguments in defense of the restriction, including claiming that the Second Amendment involves militia service. It also said the ban is constitutional because it limits the choice of firearms but does not prohibit residents from owning any guns at all. Rifles and shotguns are legal, if kept under lock or disassembled. Businesses may have guns for protection.
Chicago has a similar handgun ban, but few other gun-control laws are as strict as the District's.
Four states - Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New York - urged the Supreme Court to take the case because broad application of the appeals court ruling would threaten "all federal and state laws restricting access to firearms."
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.
The laws in question in the case do not "merely regulate the possession of firearms," Heller said. Instead, they "amount to a complete prohibition of the possession of all functional firearms within the home."
If the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to have guns, "the laws must yield," he said.
Opponents say the ban plainly has not worked because guns still are readily available, through legal and illegal means. Although the city's homicide rate has declined dramatically since peaking in the early 1990s, Washington still ranks among the nation's highest murder cities.
According to the District's medical examiner, there were 177 homicides in 2006. Of those, 135 were firearm-related. In 1976, the medical examiner said that 135 of the District's 207 homicides were firearm-related, according to a Washington Post article from that era.
The U.S. Court Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 for Heller in March. Judge Laurence Silberman said reasonable regulations still could be permitted but that the ban went too far.
The Bush administration, which has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, has yet to weigh in on the case.
The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.
---
Associated Press writer Stephen Manning contributed to this report.
(This version CORRECTS the year of the gun ban to 1976.)
0
-
I'm suprised these lunatics haven't interpreted "arms" as a non gun weapon. Swords,knives ect. 0 -
If historic writings are examined, there can be no ruling but that it is an individual right. 0 -
I heard on the radio this morning they are leaning towards saying the DC gun ban is constitutional. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by brier-49
I heard on the radio this morning they are leaning towards saying the DC gun ban is constitutional.
Sounds like you are listening to biased radio!
There has been no indication of how they are leaning, they only say they will hear the case!
From what I know about the court (which I admit is not alot) it would take an insider risking loseing thier job to leak info like you say you heard!0 -
GRD, local Hartford station, no more info given than that. It is a limited news cast at 4:30 AM while my faher and I are listening to Coast to Coast. I'm hopig for the best for us. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by brier-49
GRD, local Hartford station, no more info given than that. It is a limited news cast at 4:30 AM while my faher and I are listening to Coast to Coast. I'm hopig for the best for us.
I was not doubting that you heard that. I only think that it had to have been a biased news cast (which most are) because from what I understand about the court just because the have agreed to hear the case in no way is an indication that they are leaning in any direction.
And to be honest in my feelings. If a justice is allready leaning in a direction without hearing a case first (other than having an opinion on what the bill of rights states) then they should not be in the position they are in because they are letting thier personal feelings be the ruleing factor. (I hope that came out right so ya'll know the point I am trying to get across)0 -
Good luck from up north! 0 -
We would not have won the American revolution, the War of 1812, or any of our early wars, had the citizens not had the right to keep and bear arms. As a matter of fact, early settlers could not have survived or inhabited the wilds had they not been armed to the teeth. It was during these times that citizens banded together with arms and ammunition supplies, to include, the use of other personal property to protect themselves, their property, and their land. Ask yourself how could this nation have ever been formed if the common people of the day did not have the right right to keep and bear arms, plus form militias at will to defend their state(s).
More often than not, our governments had little or no money to finance the efforts of the people who made up the militias that fought in most all of the early wars and battles, and even our early Armies were made up of militia men and their personal property when they fought under the likes of George Washington or Andrew Jackson. In my mind, these facts constitute the very reasons why our right to keep and bear arms is worded in this manner:
"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."0 -
quote:Originally posted by brier-49
I heard on the radio this morning they are leaning towards saying the DC gun ban is constitutional.
Quit listening to MSM and NPR.0 -
Liberal media outlets many times believe if they say something enough times it becomes fact! The BS factor!
I will be surprised if the Supreme Court ignores all the historical data about the second amendment and votes against gun rights! But then they are responding to social trends too and may put some compromise klinkers into their ruling to allow regulation of firearms by private business and maybe even cities.
It would be too much to hope for that they would issue a blank ruling saying, "There can be no restrictions on the private ownership of firearms!" Nice dream but it won't happen that way.0 -
I would not want to be in the shoes of any supreme court justice who sees themself as an anti-gun martyr, because they might well become one post haste, just my opinion. 0 -
I think it would be difficult for the court to "split the baby in half" The way the appellate's decision was written, I think the SCOTUS will have to answer with an all or nothing ruling.
The closest I think the SCOTUS can not give us a complete ruling, is if they chose to avoid the issue of what is the constitutional limit for the mass es to own. Specifically, do we the people have a constitutional write to own an AR, full automatic, or where exactly is the limit. I think they can avoid this issue, but beyond that I don't see how they can make a ruling that leaves doors open for further questions.
Having said that, I think we, my biased opinion is there is o way the SCOTUS can say the Second Amendment is a collective or federal right and not an individual right. Sure, some of the justices might want to think it to be so and wish they could find a way to say it is so through the "living and breathing" bull crap, but in the end, I don't think a majority of justices can publicly say the Second Amendment does not apply to the citizens of America while the rest of the Bill of Rights are rights gaurenteed to every citizen.
This case is meat and potatoes basic Constitutional Rights. It is the beginning. This case opens the doors to several other cases. Cook County and California are next if this is successful. If the case loses, it will be the beginning of the shedding of the Constitution. Limits of other rights, including free speech will follow. I think we, the people will win. It is better to have these discussions. Take these risks, than to not take the chance and let our fundamental rights be slowly taken away.
Bring it on!0 -
BTW, why did Parker get changed to Heller?
Did the NRA payoff Parker?0 -
Sorry, I had to get that slam in there. 0 -
"the court said it would limit its ruling to one question: whether D.C. laws "violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes."
Note it says not affiliated with STATE militias. If you know your history, before the constitution was passed, a man named Shay gathered a militia, and started "Shay's Rebellion" to end forclosures and debtors prisons (or something like that).
Militias at the time of the constitution's passage, could clearly be composed of ordinanry citizens not affiliated with a state militia.
I think its a good sign they chose the wording this way.
I can't find the link to the question as worded by the DC authorities, or Heller's side, but I think the court framed it well enough that its a good sign for us.
A decision in our favor on if we can "keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes", would seem to imply californias assault weapon ban, would be unconstitutional, ie, they are other firearms.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
15 comments