D.C. vs. Heller (Supreme Court and the 2A) - Mega Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
In order to rule that it's not an individual right, they'd have to ignore decades of dicta and basically every last one of the 838 pages of David E. Young's "Origin of the Second Amendment."

The Ninth Circuit is the only one on the "collective right" side of the issue, and they're the most-overturned circuit in the nation, and their decision in that case has some really choice quotes in its dissent.

And once they settle the "individual right" question, it shouldn't be much more work to settle the meaning of the phrase "shall not be infringed," so I'm not too worried about the "private use in their homes" verbiage.
 
"Do individuals not affiliated with any state-regulated milita have a constitutional right," then I would have been much more worried.
Click to expand...

Count me in as worried, because the phrasing seems to make the right contingent on affiliation with a militia.
 
That's obviously a concession to DC's position that you have to be a member of a state-organized and -governed militia or the National Guard in order to have any right to arms under the Second Amendment.

This wording means that they are planning to settle that dispute once and for all.
 
In order to rule that it's not an individual right, they'd have to ignore decades of dicta and basically every last one of the 838 pages of David E. Young's "Origin of the Second Amendment."
Click to expand...

They can ignore dicta at their leisure or pleasure. That's why it's dicta; it has no precedential value unless a majority decides it does. As for focusing on the book, I'm sure there are one or two out there that hold the First Amendment is an inalienable right which cannot be abrogated, and one need not worry about the commerical/private speech dichotomy or whether using funds for political campaigns constitutes speech. The Supremes went against the common wisdom there to.

The Supremes have contradicted themselves in decisions within only a few years of each other in cases dealing with political hot potatos. Why should they be worried when the last decision they made on the issue was in the last century and didn't come out as a resounding affirmation of the RKBA?
 
Supreme Court to Hear DC Gun Ban Case

It was just announced. The case will be heard early next year.

This will be the biggest test of our second amendment in decades.

Lets all pray that the judges will side with law abiding citizens and their rights. Its time for these liberal infested areas of our country like DC, Chicago, NY, and San Fransisco to take note.
 
NYTimes - surprisingly rational. It ends with a statement about self-defense being legit - when is that a tenet of the NY Times. :eek:

Justices to Hear Gun Control Case


By DAVID STOUT
Published: November 20, 2007
WASHINGTON, Nov. 20 — The Supreme Court agreed today to consider an issue that has divided politicians, constitutional scholars and ordinary citizens for decades: whether the Second Amendment to the Constitution protects an individual right to “keep and bear arms.”

Case Touches a 2nd Amendment Nerve (November 13, 2007) The justices agreed to hear an appeal from the District of Columbia, whose gun-control law — one of the strictest in the nation — was struck down by the lower federal courts earlier this year. The case will probably be argued in the spring.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down sections of the Washington gun law that make it exceedingly difficult to legally own a handgun, that prohibit carrying guns without a license even from one room to another, and that require lawfully owned firearms to be kept unloaded.

The Second Amendment, surely one of the most disputed passages in the United States Constitution, states this, in its entirety: “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 Supreme Court has never directly addressed the basic meaning of that passage. When it last considered a Second Amendment case, in 1939, it addressed a somewhat peripheral question, holding that a sawed-off shotgun was not one of the “arms” that the Founding Fathers had in mind.

Today’s announcement that the justices would take the District of Columbia case was no surprise, given that the District of Columbia Circuit’s interpretation of the Second Amendment conflicts with the interpretation of nine other federal appeals courts, and differences between the circuits often steer issues to the high court.

But the argument, and the outcome, will be among the most eagerly awaited in years, with the stakes potentially very high for lawmakers and gun enthusiasts alike. Whichever way the justices rule, gun control is likely to remain a hot political issue, in the 2008 campaigns and beyond.

The mayor of Washington, Adrian M. Fenty, whose city was sometimes called the “murder capital” of the country at the height of the crack epidemic and the accompanying bloodshed, vowed earlier this year to seek reinstatement of the city’s gun law. “We have made the determination that this law can and should be defended, and we are willing to take our case to the highest court in the land,” he said.

The willingness, indeed eagerness, to have the case heard by the Supreme Court is one thing the opponents of the District of Columbia’s gun law agree with. “The Bill of Rights does not end at the District of Columbia’s borders, and it includes the right to keep and bear arms,” said Alan Gura, lead counsel for those challenging the law.

“After three decades of failure trying to control firearms in the District, it’s time for law-abiding city residents to be able to defend themselves in their homes,” Mr. Gura said in a statement. “We are confident the Supreme Court will vindicate that right in Washington, D.C., and across the nation.”

The plaintiffs complain that the 31-year-old Washington, D.C., law — which virtually bans handguns and requires — that all shotguns and rifles be kept unloaded and either trigger-locked or disassembled at all times — makes no exception for legitimate self-defense considerations.
The title of the case accepted today is Heller v. District of Columbia, after Dick Heller, a District of Columbia resident who works as an armed security guard.

“I want to be able to defend myself and my wife from violent criminals, and the Constitution says I have a right to do that by keeping a gun in my home,” Mr. Heller said in a statement today. “The police can’t be everywhere, and they can’t protect everyone all the time. Responsible gun ownership is a basic right we have as American citizens.”
 
Don't know if I am scared or thankful, but I am at very least glad to stop wondering. I only have to ask why the long delay.
 
Dave Kopel in Cato on gunbans, and word from USSC

If I understood correctly what I heard on a radio newscast, USSC has agreed to hear Heller(formerly Parker) v. D.C. It sometimes strikes me that we all would have been so much better off had the founding fathers simply said in The Second Amendment or elsewhere in The Constitution that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", without mention of militia, well regulated or otherwise. They, unfortunately did not so state, leaving us where we are now. Perhaps the USSC will finally clarify the issue, in favor of individual rights, one hopes. We shall have to wait and see, though we will get "a shot" in the USSC, it seems.

Court, Capital and Handgun
by David Kopel

In the next couple of weeks, the Supreme Court is likely to announce whether it will hear the Washington, D.C., handgun ban case. Handgun bans exist in only half a dozen U.S. cities, because although gun control is sometimes popular, gun prohibition is not.

In 1976, the District of Columbia City Council banned the possession of any handguns not already possessed and registered by residents, and the use of any gun for self-defense. That same year, Massachusetts voters were asked by referendum whether to ban handguns. The left-leaning state had been the only one to vote for George McGovern in the previous presidential election.

David Kopel is an associate policy analyst at the Cato Institute.

More by David B. KopelThe "People vs. Handguns" campaign was "supported by most of the state's press," according to Time magazine. But 69 percent of the state's voters rejected it.

Gun prohibitionists tried again in California in 1982, proposing a "handgun freeze," allowing current owners to keep their handguns but banning any new acquisitions. The measure was crushed by a vote of 63 to 37 percent. The freeze's opponents brought so many additional voters to the polls that they even carried Republican George Deukmejian to a 1 percent victory over Tom Bradley in the governor's race.

The gun prohibition movement successfully lobbied the Chicago suburb of Morton Grove to ban handguns in 1981. Chicago itself followed suit in 1983, and the suburbs of Evanston, Oak Park and Wilmette also enacted handgun bans.

The Chicagoland bans got a lot of press, and the national backlash against them was powerful. State after state passed preemption laws, forbidding localities from banning handguns. Today, an astonishing 45 states have preemption laws, including Texas and California, whose law has stopped two efforts to impose handgun prohibition in San Francisco.

By the early 1990s, local handgun bans had been outlawed almost everywhere in the United States. One of the few states without a preemption law was Wisconsin, which bordered the one state where handgun bans existed. Yet even in left-leaning cities in the state, handgun prohibition was rejected: by 51 percent in Madison in 1993, then by 67 percent in Milwaukee and 73 percent in Kenosha in 1994.

The D.C. handgun ban is a very rare, extreme and unconstitutional prohibition.
The Wisconsin gun ban campaigns did have important consequences. The Legislature enacted a preemption law, and in 1998, 73 percent of voters approved the addition of a right-to-arms clause to the state constitution.

The Brady Campaign denies that it supports handgun prohibition, but the group lobbies Congress and fights in the courts to preserve the D.C. handgun ban. That ban is aberrational not only by U.S. standards but internationally.

In Europe, almost all nations allow the possession of licensed handguns. Of the exceptions — Russia, Luxembourg, England, Scotland and Ireland — all but Ireland have murder and violent crime rates much worse than that of their neighbors and other nearby countries that don't ban handguns.

Despite hysterical fundraising campaigns by anti-gun lobbyists, a Supreme Court decision against the D.C. handgun ban would not invalidate the vast number of laws regulating but not banning these weapons in the U.S. Indeed, overturning even the Chicago bans would require a definitive future ruling on whether the Second Amendment is enforceable against state and local governments, or only against the federal government and federal enclaves such as D.C.

Millions of Americans own firearms and use them responsibly, and that right is guaranteed under the Second Amendment. The D.C. handgun ban is a very rare, extreme and unconstitutional prohibition. If the Supreme Court were to affirm the lower court's decision against the handgun ban, it would end the shame of our nation's capital city depriving its residents of a right that legislatures and courts have protected almost everywhere else in the United States.


This article appeared in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.
 
Good place to look at all the paperwork (and a lot of comments) about the case
http://dcguncase.com/blog/

and

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

Cert granted:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/1120-orders.pdf

Here is the way the Court phrased the granted issue:

“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — 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?”
 
The blog has been added to substantially. Whether the write has better insights than those on this forum ... I have no idea. But more interesting, seemingly unbiased stuff.

scotus blog

In terms of the question discussed above ... this blog writer agreed with me, so I'm posting that part of it. :D

Some observers who read the Court’s order closely may suggest that the Court is already inclined toward an “individual rights” interpretation of the Second Amendment. That is because the order asks whether the three provisions of the D.C. gun control law violate “the Second Amendment rights of individuals.” But that phrasing may reveal very little about whether the Amendment embraces an individual right to have a gun for private use. Only individuals, of course, would be serving in the militia, and there is no doubt that the Second Amendment provides those individuals a right to have a gun for that type of service. The question the Court will be deciding is, if there are individuals who want to keep pistols for use at home, does the Second Amendment guarantee them that right. Just because the Second Amendment protects some individual right does not settle the nature of that right.
Click to expand...
 
Quite honestly I wish everyone who is on our side would drop the use of the H word and use sidearm, pistol, or carry gun instead. The H word has become politicized and is used as a pejorative in the rhetoric of the antis, particularly in the news. I see no good in it.
 
I find the wording of that VERY favorable. It leaves extremely little room for any possible rational interpretation in the negative--it is impossible to argue to the contrary :)
 
Some Anti posts on this:

gunguys.com drivel and a neat reference to LASERS!!!

Lost in the legal arguments, as GunGuys has pointed out on numerous occasions, is the reality that even a ban on handguns does not restrict the right of a person to own other firearms. A resident in D.C. can own shotguns and rifles, for instance.

The NRA has been successful in equating the regulation of specific types of weapons and the commerce in those weapons as relating to a mythic all-embracing fantasy about the Second Amendment.

Clearly, if laser guns that could kill someone from a thousand yards away were to come on the market (and they will), it would not be in the interest of protecting our law enforcement officials and citizens to allow such firearms to be sold to civilians
Click to expand...

Brady Campaign Optimism

The U.S. Supreme Court has announced it will consider D.C v. Heller this term. By agreeing to hear the appeal by the District of Columbia in the Parker/Heller case, the U.S. Supreme Court has the chance to 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.

The D.C. Court of Appeals' decision in the Parker (now Heller) case was an example of judicial activism at its worst. The Court of Appeals ignored longstanding Supreme Court precedent and substituted its policy preferences for those of the District's elected representatives.

If the Supreme Court does not reverse the Court of Appeals's decision, sensible gun laws could be at risk...from the long-standing machine gun ban...to the Brady criminal background check law...to local and state gun laws like the ones in California and New Jersey banning military-style assault weapons.
Click to expand...

VPC Drivel

It's amazed me that the VPC can only support the ban with their "evidence" that it affects the suicide rate. Are they the VIOLENCE policy center, or the SUICIDE policy center?

The earlier split decision by the Court of Appeals to overturn the District of Columbia’s handgun ban was not only contrary to the overwhelming weight of legal authority, but would certainly increase gun death and injury among District residents while also increasing the risks faced by the law enforcement personnel who protect all residents and workers in Washington, DC.

"Washington, DC's ban on handguns in the home has long protected DC's residents as measured by the District of Columbia's firearm suicide and overall suicide rate. The District’s handgun ban provides compelling evidence of how strict gun laws save lives by keeping handguns out of homes. The District of Columbia ranks 51st (last) in the country for firearms suicide for 2004, the most recent year for which statistics are available. The District also ranks last for overall suicide. Maintaining the ban will ensure the health and safety of DC residents. [See http://www.vpc.org/dcsuicide.htm for data on DC suicide rates compared to the 10 states with the highest suicide, gun suicide, and gun ownership rates, as well as a full ranking of all 50 states by their firearm suicide rates and overall suicide rates for the year 2004.]
Click to expand...
 
George Mason, in the Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788 stated;
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

So, do you think they are going to give us a modern interpretation or go with the old one?
 
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
Click to expand...

I love the way people talked back in the "olden days." They were able to put so much meaning and wit in just a couple of sentences. These days, public officials seem able to speak for minutes at a time without ever saying anything.

BOT. I hope the SCOTUS gets this one right. I am a little worried that they won't and we'll end up with a bunch of "little DC's" all over the country, or worse.
 
Of course I'll be watching the case with interest, but ultimately it doesn't matter what the Supreme Court decides.

The Constitution doesn't give rights -- at least not in a practical sense. People ONLY have the rights they're willing to personally fight for and, if need be, die for. So if gun owners bow low before their Almighty Rulers and meekly follow the "law" when it tells them to turn in their guns (of whatever sort), then they don't deserve to have those weapons. An armed sheep is still a sheep.

The Founders of America were willing to sacrifice everything for their freedom, and they got it. Today's Americans aren't willing to do more than beg for their rights and donate some money to the politically-correct NRA, so they'll almost certainly lose their rights. Everyone gets the rights his courage shows that he deserves.
 
You may be right. Sort of like there is no such thing as a rifle anymore. They are all "assault" rifles.
Click to expand...

No, the ones that aren't semi-auto are "sniper" rifles.

But yes, control of language can be a very important tool in politics, and I think we've largely lost it.
 
Which is why I suggest we reclaim it. Strip away a tool of fear used by our enemies AND wrestle control away from them. I personally prefer the term sidearm because 1) It specifically conveys and normalizes the idea of it being carried on the person 2) emphasizes its role as a tool 3) conveys as it does for those who carry one professional a sense of endowment of honor, responsibility, and respectability and 4) makes it much more negative to take it away. To take someone's sidearm from them is disgraceful, like castrating them or treating them as substandard. You can't as easily rhetorically say a person should be without their sidearm, whereas the antis can horrifyingly easily question anyone owning a... h word.

Ever since getting my CCW it has been sidearm or carry piece or carry gun to me, and my soon-to-be wife, brother, friends, and anyone else has not heard the h word come out of my mouth probably long before then.
 
I can tell you already that the Supreme Court will not proclaim the true meaning of the Second Amendment, which essentially affirms the right of a people to rebel against their own government just as the Founders did (see my signature). Even if they return a "pro-gun" interpretation, it will be significantly watered down to mean something like "the right to defend yourself against burglars" at best.

All true freedom-lovers know the REAL meaning of the Second Amendment and will NOT allow a bunch of jerk lawyers to "interpret" it for them. Of course all of us are right to be interested in this SC case, but we should not let a negative ruling be our defeat.

As I've said elsewhere, the Constitution does NOT give you your rights. Rights are determined by human moral instinct (or God, if you prefer), and they are guaranteed only by FORCE. If you personally are not willing to PHYSICALLY fight and sacrifice everything for your rights, then you don't have those rights -- Constitution or no Constitution. In the real world, as opposed to the legal or philosophical world, might makes right, and only force can counter force.

Thus, I know I have the right to own whatever weapons I choose, as I've granted that right to myself. If I have to die sooner rather than later to defend that right, then so be it. But at least I won't die a sheep and a slave, subject to the whims of legal "experts."

Gun owners will retain exactly those rights that their courage (or lack thereof) merits and no more -- whether that's the right to own belt-fed machine guns or the right to own no weapons at all.

When gun-owning sheep meekly obeyed the 1994 AWB, that was because they didn't deserve to have AWs. They were too cowardly to deserve to own those weapons. And when they turned in their guns to the JBTs without a fight after Katrina, they deserved to lose them (that one little old lady whom the criminal thugs brutally tackled showed more guts than just about everyone else). But when the Founders won their freedom from the Redcoats, they deserved to win it.

Don't rely on legal wrangling to protect your rights. Laws are made by men to control other men, and whatever man has made, man can destroy. The government doesn't have to obey its own laws. And if you're a coward who will obey the "law" no matter what, then you were born to be a slave, ruled by other men.

Sorry if all this sounds preachy, but it had to be said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top