| Author | Message | ||
     Ferris_von_bueller |
D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court Justices' Decision May Set Precedent In Interpreting the 2nd Amendment By Robert Barnes Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, March 16, 2008; A01 Despite mountains of scholarly research, enough books to fill a library shelf and decades of political battles about gun control, the Supreme Court will have an opportunity this week that is almost unique for a modern court when it examines whether the District's handgun ban violates the Second Amendment. The nine justices, none of whom has ever ruled directly on the amendment's meaning, will consider a part of the Bill of Rights that has existed without a definitive interpretation for more than 200 years. "This may be one of the only cases in our lifetime when the Supreme Court is going to be interpreting the meaning of an important provision of the Constitution unencumbered by precedent,'' said Randy E. Barnett, a constitutional scholar at the Georgetown University Law Center. "And that's why there's so much discussion on the original meaning of the Second Amendment.'' The outcome could roil the 2008 political campaigns, send a national message about what kinds of gun control are constitutional and finally settle the question of whether the 27-word amendment, with its odd structure and antiquated punctuation, provides an individual right to gun ownership or simply pertains to militia service. "The case has been structured so that they have to confront the threshold question," said Robert A. Levy, the wealthy libertarian lawyer who has spent five years and his own money to bring District of Columbia v. Heller to the Supreme Court. "I think they have to come to grips with that." The stakes are obviously high for the District, which passed the nation's strictest gun-control law in 1976, just after residents were granted the authority to govern themselves. It virtually bans the private possession of handguns, and requires that rifles and shotguns in the home be kept unloaded and disassembled or outfitted with a trigger lock. The law's challengers -- security guard Dick Anthony Heller is the named party in the suit -- say the measure has been an abysmal failure at cutting crime or stanching the city's homicide rate, and a success only in depriving the law-abiding of a ready weapon for protection. The District contends that banning handguns is a logical decision in an urban setting, where more guns would result in more killings. The city's lawyers argue that the Second Amendment does not provide an individual right and that, even if it does, the amendment is not implicated by legislation that concerns only the District of Columbia. The case could be a revealing test of the court headed by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Roberts came to the bench saying justices should decide cases as narrowly as possible, but last year he was part of a slim majority that made bold breaks with the court's jurisprudence in cases both recent and old, on issues such as school integration and abortion. Clues to the justices' interpretations of the Second Amendment are scant and cryptic, and Roberts said during his 2005 confirmation hearings that the last time the court considered the issue -- in 1939 -- it "sidestepped" the fundamental questions. That is part of the reason that the outcome -- not expected until near the end of the court's term in late June -- will be so intriguing, said Suzanna Sherry, a law professor at Vanderbilt University. "It is very rare that the justices write on a clean slate," she said. "In some ways, it gives them great freedom." Levy and lawyers Alan Gura and Clark Neily were able to persuade the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit last year to do what no other federal appeals court had ever done: strike down a local gun-control ordinance on Second Amendment grounds. The amendment says that "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,'' and all but one of the circuits that had considered the issue previously had interpreted it as providing a gun-ownership right related only to military service. But Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman, a conservative icon, wrote for a 2 to 1 panel that the amendment provides an individual right just as other provisions of the Bill of Rights do. And because handguns fall under the definition of "arms," he wrote, the District may not ban them. The Supreme Court's endorsement of an individual right would be a monumental change in federal jurisprudence, but perhaps not surprising. Even a small but growing group of liberal constitutional scholars -- "against my political instincts," in the words of Harvard law professor Laurence H. Tribe -- have endorsed the individual-right view. But even fundamental rights are subject to government restrictions, and whether the justices are ready to decide on the reasonableness of the District's ban could be the crucial question of the case. The city received an unlikely lifeline from the Bush administration, which told the court that the amendment provides an individual right but that the appeals court erred in deciding that the District's ban was automatically unconstitutional. "If adopted by this court," Solicitor General Paul D. Clement wrote in the government's brief, "such an analysis could cast doubt on the constitutionality of existing federal legislation prohibiting the possession of certain firearms, including machineguns." Clement said that the District's law may well be unconstitutional, but that the case should be returned to lower courts for "application of a proper standard of review" and to permit "Second Amendment doctrine to develop in an incremental and prudent fashion." Gun rights supporters were furious about the government's position, and Vice President Cheney went so far as to join a friend-of-the-court brief that specifically rejects the administration's view. Levy said returning the case to lower courts would be a "death knell," and his team has urged the court to apply "strict scrutiny" to any government action that would restrict gun ownership. Said Gura: "What we want to do is take prohibition off the table." The case is complicated by the District's secondary argument that the Second Amendment is not implicated by legislation that applies only to the District of Columbia. The challengers have received a broad array of political support, signs of the strength of the gun rights movement: More than 31 states and a majority of the House and Senate have signed friend-of-the-court briefs. Among the presidential candidates, Republican Sen. John McCain signed on, while Democratic Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton did not. Both Democrats have looked for a middle ground, saying they believe the Second Amendment preserves an individual right, but one that is subject to government restrictions. That position would seem popular. A Washington Post poll shows that 72 percent of the public believes the Constitution provides an individual right, but respondents were evenly split on whether it is more important to protect the rights of Americans to own guns or to control gun ownership. Nearly 60 percent said they would support the kind of law in question. But nationally, it is hard to find many laws as restrictive as the one in the District, partly because of the gun rights lobby's vigilance. More than 40 state constitutions have gun ownership guarantees. Maryland's is one of the few that does not. As a result, it is difficult to know what gun-control legislation across the country would be at risk even if the Supreme Court upheld the D.C. Circuit's decision. Levy said the next targets will be handgun laws in Chicago and New York City, although the court has never held that the Second Amendment is applicable to states. And one legal theory is that the provision is a restriction only against the federal government. Both sides agree that the court's decision could send a powerful message beyond the District. Tribe, whose support of the individual right is often cited by gun rights supporters, wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal recently that said the District's law could still be upheld and urged the court to decide the case narrowly. But he acknowledged in an interview that the justices might "jump at the opportunity" to write broadly when they finally have a chance to put their mark "on a part of the Constitution that isn't already paved over with layer upon layer of judicial precedent." Polling director Jon Cohen and researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report. | ||
| Teeps |
This could be good... or | ||
| Crusty |
Big Brother is closing in... | ||
| Igneroid |
We have major gun control up here in Canuckistan. There are less accidental shootings because of it but the crooks arnt worried about gun control......they are gonna get them no matter what the lawmakers say. And if Im not mistaken, your constitutional right to bear arms was meant to keep governments inline more than for protection....or am I confused??? (Message edited by Igneroid on March 16, 2008) | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Hell I already cant pack and carry into bars, banks, post offices, court houses, near flammable liquids (wtf?) school zones or work. If you think there isnt already another layer of laws against the constitution, look no further than your ability to strap a holster & weapon on your thigh and ride in your jurisdiction. | ||
| Kyrocket |
Anyone worried about gun control just needs to stop by and visit Court Day. It's a yearly festival we have here the third Monday in October and the weekend before. Over 100 thousand people over the three days and there is major gun trading going on. It's nothing to see men (and women) walking down the street with a shotgun over their shoulder wanting to sell or trade. It's fun to watch the first time out-of-towners freak out about all the guns, not to mention more funnel cakes, elephant ears, and junk food than you can shake a stick at. Let D.C. do what they want, it'll be a cold day before they can get all these redneck's guns. http://www.mtsterling.com/courtday.htm | ||
| M1combat |
Since the early 1900's the court system has typically ruled in favor of the 2nd amendment NOT being an individual right. An interesting tidbit though... When a person is called to serve the militia they are supposed to bring their own weapons. Those weapons should be of the type currently used for war. From the looks of it to my eye it seems that assault weapons (and current sniper weapons etc...) are under less pressure of being banned than hunting rifles and handguns. There is a lot of good (or bad?) information in here... Pay particular attention when they're talking about the history of rulings on the 2nd... http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents /07-0290bs.pdf "John Adams explicitly clarified that militia forces served their purpose regardless of whether they were organized pursuant to law. In the First Continental Congress, Adams proposed a resolution that it be recommended to all the Colonies, to establish by Provincial Laws, where it can be done, a regular well furnished, and disciplined Militia, and where it cannot be done by Law, by voluntary Associations, and private Agreements." | ||
| Ryker77 |
The city's lawyers argue that the Second Amendment does not provide an individual right and that, even if it does, the amendment is not implicated by legislation that concerns only the District of Columbia. And to think that the very same city was created by citizens and their firearms. If the british had more effective gun control we would not exist. Hell I already cant pack and carry into bars, banks, post offices, court houses, near flammable liquids (wtf?) school zones or work. If you think there isnt already another layer of laws against the constitution, look no further than your ability to strap a holster & weapon on your thigh and ride in your jurisdiction. Even with a firearms permit in GA you can't carry in most places. In KY you have to wait 60 days, take an $$$ class, and then wait to get a carry permit. Sure hope the criminals wait 60days to rob/kill me. we are the problem. we do not vote. when we do vote we become sheep to the media - example McCain. We had the option to elect Ron Paul or even huckabee. we are the problem. | ||
| Teddagreek |
Sucks not to be a state... We have the "Stand Your Ground Law in Florida" Enacted in 2005 in Florida, 15 states have followed with similar laws... Florida The state of Florida in the United States became the first to enact such a law on October 1, 2005. The Florida statute allows the use of deadly force when a person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent the commission of a "forcible felony." Under the statute, forcible felonies include "treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual." [1] The Florida law legalizes the use of defensive force by anyone "who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be." Furthermore, under the law, such a person "has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." The statute also grants civil and criminal immunity to anyone found to have had such a reasonable belief.[1] | ||
| Old_man |
Laws forbidding carrying firearms disarms the, honest, law-abiding citizen - not the criminal (who, by definition, doesn't give a damn about the law) | ||
| Hdbobwithabuell |
I spent several hours working for better and tighter gun control today. I do feel that I got somewhere after about 400 rounds as my rapid fire groups were somewhat improved.  | ||
| Littlebuggles |
I sometimes hesitate to join in this sort of political discussion, but I have to get in on this. If the D.C. law is ruled unconstitutional, I'm concerned that there would be an increase of deaths caused by firearms in the home or carried by individuals until either: A. All the criminals in DC have been shot (this would cause a fairly heavy burden on the country due to the number of politicians in DC, even if many don't actually reside there). B. The criminals wise up and change their ways. C. The criminals wise up and move to another region with unreasonably strict gun laws, such as CA or NY. Okay, seriously I think that Florida law is awesome, it spells out the way it should be. These states who say you have to run away before using deadly force in self defense... insane! A man, or woman should not need to have the government tell them they have to BE a victim before they defend themselves. Better to deal with it before you have become a victim, if you can see it's about to happen - I'm pretty sure that's what they mean when they use the term "reasonable" with regards to the belief that a felony is about to be committed. It would sure be neat if they could replace the no guns allowed in DC to a stand your ground and castle doctrine type law, but that's not very likely. I've worked in a jail for five years now, there are too many criminals out there that don't get caught, and the law cannot respond quickly enough to catch these dudes in the act. People need to have not only the right and ability to defend themselves, but the willingness to do it. In my opinion if someone thinks they can go into your house or impose themselves on you on the street, they need to be removed from the gene pool. It's us or them folks, and if they win the world will be a much more unpleasant place. Everyone needs to be able to defend themselves, if criminals have guns the rest of the population needs the same to defend themselves from them. Plus, I think it helps keep the government in line. Okay, rant done. | ||
| Chainsaw |
I'll be watching this decision closely, I'm a bit of a Constitutional Law buff. I've always wanted to see a CCW or Handgun Ban law test Constitutional muster against the 14th Amendment (...equal protection under the law). In my opinion, is is wrong to be able to hire Armed Private Security to protect your keester, but it is essentially illegal to do it yourself, thereby depriving people of lesser means armed protection. Many moons ago, I sent a lengthier version of this very argument to the vocally anti-CCW mayor of Denver. One week later he announced on TV that he would no longer stand in the way of the City issuing CCW permits. I like to think my point had been well made and swayed his opinion.  | ||
| Darthane |
-=shrugs=- I've never shot a firearm (though I'd like to learn) and can't see myself ever purchasing one (handgun or otherwise), but I've never seen a reason to disallow people who've passed reasonable muster from doing so. The biggest argument against strict gun-control in my opinion has always been the simplest...criminals don't give a damn if the gun they're carrying is illegal in the first place, so what's the point of more beauracracy? | ||
| Blake |
Darn those anti-counter-clockwise (anti CCW) jerks.  CCW = ? | ||
| Mikej |
Carrying a Concealed Weapon permit. I still don't know why we need a permit to exercise a "right", kind of like getting permission to breath, and then getting taxed to exhale. "Sure, you can have one of those, provided you pay a possession tax, and provided you live in a state that allows possession of the item in question, which technically means it isn't really illegal to have one and therefore the laws are not in violation of the U.S.Constitution or any Amendments thereof." ps, edited to add:  (Message edited by mikej on March 17, 2008) | ||
| Oldog |
+2 on what Mike said, I was aquainted with a fellow who was a theator manager, a guy comes in wired up on something and causes a fuss, he is asked to leave, violence breaks out and the perp gets shot. manager loses job, marriage, gets record, police bumble arrest, big ugly mess if the guy had not been breaking the law he would not have been shot. The manager was sued as well, I never found out how it ended. but it did not go well for him is all that I know. We should have the right to stand our ground If we could there would be less random violence because at some point the thuggs would start to wonder if the target was armed. | ||
| Rick_a |
Close...Concealed Carry Weapon permit I hope it goes favorably for the pro gun. How many countries need to adopt these failed "gun control" policies before people worldwide figure out it doesn't work as advertised? | ||
| Kyrocket |
IMHO gun control means using both hands. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
On Sunday night, HBO's mini-series, John Adams, addressed the legality of deadly force when used in self defense. John Adams was council for the British soldiers responsible for the Boston Massacre in 1770. One of the questions at the trial was did the soldiers have a means of withdrawal from the altercation with the mob. Apparently, as it is today in some states, one could not use deadly force if you have a means of escape. | ||
| Mikej |
But at what point does one not have to retreat any further. The British soldiers at the time were not in their own homes. If one has taken refuge in their personal sanctuary then conceivably one has retreated to their furthest reasonable point of retreat. If that were not the case then one would have to keep running to the ends of the earth and never stop as long as their attacker kept pursuing them. I can not retreat further into a corner once I'm cornered, I do not have to attempt to dig a hole in the corner to escape or retreat further, nor should I have to retreat further than is reasonably necessary to enable my safety and provide a prudent level of defense that I did in fact retreat a prudent distance. In an open parking lot simply backing up three or four steps might be considered a prudent enough level of retreat if retreating further would put one into potentially greater exposure to harm. The world is shades of gray, the victim should not be further victimized as a result of a reasonable and prudent defense against an attacker. I'm rambling, am backed into a corner, and can't retreat any further, so I'm stopping here. You do what you gotta do, I'll to likewise. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
From Wikipedia...Castle Doctrine: (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal concept derived from English Common Law, which designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine.Castle Doctrines are legislated by state, and not all states in the US have a Castle Doctrine. Outside of the United States, the Castle Doctrine is sometimes pejoratively referred to as a "Make My Day" law [1] [2], a reference to Dirty Harry. | ||
| M1combat |
"How many countries need to adopt these failed "gun control" policies before people worldwide figure out it doesn't work as advertised?" People world wide have already figured out that it doesn't work. That's not the problem. The problem is that governments world wide have already figured out that it works beautifully... just not as they advertise it. | ||
| M1combat |
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argum ent_transcripts/07-290.pdf | ||
| Bad_karma |
Sorry I don't see the supreme court getting this right, I hope I'm wrong. But we can not continue on with the league of nations with a society armed to the extent of the United Socialist States general population. Plus I don't see the liberal educated and control youth in general supporting this decision. So how much is your gun worth in the Amero Dollar anyway? Joe | ||
| M1combat |
So far it looks like 4-3 of 5-2 for striking down the ban... | ||
| Mikej |
The Court re-wrote the primary question allowing a very narrowly focused decision if they choose to go that way. We won't know until we know, and that could be sometime in June. | ||
| Chainsaw |
...But we can not continue on with the league of nations with a society armed to the extent of the United Socialist States general population I'm not sure if you are referencing the comic book or the movie, but...Virtually every home in Switzerland has a machine gun and ammo provided to them by the government. Should they be kicked out of the 'league of nations' too? | ||
| Mikej |
Love it:
| ||
| Mikej |
Chainsaw, Switzerland's firearms laws are changing relative to in-home possession, or at least efforts are underway to change them. Switzerland also has, or had, a mandatory military service for it's citizens if I understand it correctly. |
