mooreshawnm
New member
I agree with EVERY word you wrote Steel. Every word.
Shawn
Shawn
D.C. vs. Heller (Supreme Court and the 2A) - Mega Thread
- Thread starter Mike40-11
- Start date
- Status
Steelcore
Can i use your great phrase " 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."
Can i use your great phrase " 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."
Fred Thompson has already posted a well-crafted statement on this case on his web site. Pretty quick work for someone so "lazy".
Second Amendment: A Citizen’s Right
Second Amendment: A Citizen’s Right
Since I posted last, I've had a chance to read, review and reflect upon a whole lot of stuff that's been written in the last 10 or so hours.
One of the best analysis that I've read, comes from Buckeye Firearms Association, this article says a lot. But more, the post by their attorney, Ken Hanson, I think is the closest to what I now think will happen.
For even more fun, you might want to read this chain of posts from the Volokh Conspiracy blog.
One of the best analysis that I've read, comes from Buckeye Firearms Association, this article says a lot. But more, the post by their attorney, Ken Hanson, I think is the closest to what I now think will happen.
For even more fun, you might want to read this chain of posts from the Volokh Conspiracy blog.
"the Dc Gun Case Pocket Guide"
A Layperson’s Guide to the “DC Gun Case”
(You have permission to re-print as a pocket reference)
1.) Is the NRA winning?
DC v. Heller is actually not an “NRA gun case” - They tried to help the Parker case by launching a similar case in hopes they would be merged, with them leading prosecution. Both cases were tossed but Parker got heard on appeal. The NRA was shut out, leaving Parker to win their case without the NRA’s well-intentioned intervention. Fortunately, the NRA continues to rightfully protect and promote their various markets - which traditionally exclude urban policy, the constitution, and sometimes cold dead hands.
2.) What is Regulated?
The term “…well regulated…” actually means “…well disciplined…”. This is mistakenly refered to as the commonly used term meaning - tightly constrained by helpful laws enacted to protect citizens from themselves.
3.) Who's Right?
Always remember: It’s not “…the right to keep and bear arms…” but rather “…, the right of the people to keep and bear arms…” This helps to avoid those embarassing but rare situations where the meaning of the second amendment appears particularly coherent even through two opposing interpretations.
4.) The Founding Fathers Had a Secret Hidden Meaning for the 2nd Amendment?
The most successfully gaurded secret from the founding of our nation is actually the Framers’ stern belief in a collective right to arms. They wisely concluded that arms controlled exclusively by a government situates the citizenry in the best possible arrangment for protecting democracy. Although this sounds like something from the movie "National Treasure", they amazingly hid their collectivist's beliefs behind voluminous writings espousing individual rights, penned in all their correspondence and publications on the matter. Thankfully, policy makers uncovered the truth behind the second amendment for us laypersons and citizens have never been more secure with the abundence of resulting legislation protecting them.
5.) Mr. Miller Went to Washington?
The oft cited and much revered “U.S v. Miller” has served dutifully as a thorough test of the Second Amendment right, being a landmark decision and becoming the touchstone precedent for almost 70 years. A very trival side-note: Miller was inconveniently deceased at the time of trial, prompting counsel for the defense to employ a very bold strategy of not presenting evidence or arguments. This was swiftly countered by an equally deft strategy by the prosecution, comprised chiefly of appearing before the court on the assigned date. Though these two approaches have very subtle legal distinctions not apparent to laypersons, the justices execised extreme discernment and ruled in favor of the prosecution. Americans have basked in the resulting benefits to public safety ever since.
A Layperson’s Guide to the “DC Gun Case”
(You have permission to re-print as a pocket reference)
1.) Is the NRA winning?
DC v. Heller is actually not an “NRA gun case” - They tried to help the Parker case by launching a similar case in hopes they would be merged, with them leading prosecution. Both cases were tossed but Parker got heard on appeal. The NRA was shut out, leaving Parker to win their case without the NRA’s well-intentioned intervention. Fortunately, the NRA continues to rightfully protect and promote their various markets - which traditionally exclude urban policy, the constitution, and sometimes cold dead hands.
2.) What is Regulated?
The term “…well regulated…” actually means “…well disciplined…”. This is mistakenly refered to as the commonly used term meaning - tightly constrained by helpful laws enacted to protect citizens from themselves.
3.) Who's Right?
Always remember: It’s not “…the right to keep and bear arms…” but rather “…, the right of the people to keep and bear arms…” This helps to avoid those embarassing but rare situations where the meaning of the second amendment appears particularly coherent even through two opposing interpretations.
4.) The Founding Fathers Had a Secret Hidden Meaning for the 2nd Amendment?
The most successfully gaurded secret from the founding of our nation is actually the Framers’ stern belief in a collective right to arms. They wisely concluded that arms controlled exclusively by a government situates the citizenry in the best possible arrangment for protecting democracy. Although this sounds like something from the movie "National Treasure", they amazingly hid their collectivist's beliefs behind voluminous writings espousing individual rights, penned in all their correspondence and publications on the matter. Thankfully, policy makers uncovered the truth behind the second amendment for us laypersons and citizens have never been more secure with the abundence of resulting legislation protecting them.
5.) Mr. Miller Went to Washington?
The oft cited and much revered “U.S v. Miller” has served dutifully as a thorough test of the Second Amendment right, being a landmark decision and becoming the touchstone precedent for almost 70 years. A very trival side-note: Miller was inconveniently deceased at the time of trial, prompting counsel for the defense to employ a very bold strategy of not presenting evidence or arguments. This was swiftly countered by an equally deft strategy by the prosecution, comprised chiefly of appearing before the court on the assigned date. Though these two approaches have very subtle legal distinctions not apparent to laypersons, the justices execised extreme discernment and ruled in favor of the prosecution. Americans have basked in the resulting benefits to public safety ever since.
Last edited:
This is it guys. After all these years we will FINALLY get a definitive decision regarding the most basic right we all feel the 2nd Amendment provides.
The question is worded well and I honestly feel the Brady type of anti-gunners are in DEEP, DEEP trouble.
My prediction is no less than 6-3 in favor of Heller.
We need this victory, so desperately, before the Democrats take control of the White House and Congress that it cannot be over emphasized IMHO.
It's about time SCOTUS answered this question once and for all.
My guess, with the make-up of SCOTUS, we'll win easily. Ginsburg and Stevens are the only justices I see going for the stupid collective right theory. And their reasons will not be based on historical fact but on political, liberal, anti-gun philosophies.
Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Souter, Kennedy, and probably Bryer, will go for the individual right theory. Not so sure about Bryer but he's surprised me sometimes.
Ginsburg probably doesn't know what end of a firearm the projectile exits from and Stevens is an extreme liberal who believes in the "collective right" theory on any subject you can think of IMHO. As far as Ginsburg, IMHO, she favors a communist sort of society rather than a democratic sort of society. Stevens not so bad IMHO but close. We don't have a chance with those two IMHO.
At worst, I see it at 6-3 in our favor and maybe 7-2.
Wouldn't that be something!?
I mean, come on, do any of you feel that the majority of SCOTUS justices will rule the individual does not have the right to own a firearm and keep it in his/her home for self-defense purposes? I don't, not for one minute. I'm about ready to break-open the champagne bottle for Godsakes!
Guys, I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict the ruling will be a slam-dunk for our side. (And that "limb" I'm going out on is a very thick, strong limb!!
)
It's over, the way the question is worded, WE WIN easily IMHO!! FINALLY, after all these darn years. All my adult life for Godsakes.
The question is worded well and I honestly feel the Brady type of anti-gunners are in DEEP, DEEP trouble.
My prediction is no less than 6-3 in favor of Heller.
We need this victory, so desperately, before the Democrats take control of the White House and Congress that it cannot be over emphasized IMHO.
It's about time SCOTUS answered this question once and for all.
My guess, with the make-up of SCOTUS, we'll win easily. Ginsburg and Stevens are the only justices I see going for the stupid collective right theory. And their reasons will not be based on historical fact but on political, liberal, anti-gun philosophies.
Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Souter, Kennedy, and probably Bryer, will go for the individual right theory. Not so sure about Bryer but he's surprised me sometimes.
Ginsburg probably doesn't know what end of a firearm the projectile exits from and Stevens is an extreme liberal who believes in the "collective right" theory on any subject you can think of IMHO. As far as Ginsburg, IMHO, she favors a communist sort of society rather than a democratic sort of society. Stevens not so bad IMHO but close. We don't have a chance with those two IMHO.
At worst, I see it at 6-3 in our favor and maybe 7-2.
Wouldn't that be something!?
I mean, come on, do any of you feel that the majority of SCOTUS justices will rule the individual does not have the right to own a firearm and keep it in his/her home for self-defense purposes? I don't, not for one minute. I'm about ready to break-open the champagne bottle for Godsakes!
Guys, I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict the ruling will be a slam-dunk for our side. (And that "limb" I'm going out on is a very thick, strong limb!!
)It's over, the way the question is worded, WE WIN easily IMHO!! FINALLY, after all these darn years. All my adult life for Godsakes.
I think the analysis on the top of this page is spot-on.
Look at how they worded it; they are going into this with the assumption that the second is an individual right.
The question is does the ban violate it.
I'm not one for premature celebration, but I'm very, very confident about this one.
Look at how they worded it; they are going into this with the assumption that the second is an individual right.
The question is does the ban violate it.
I'm not one for premature celebration, but I'm very, very confident about this one.
I'm not so sure about that GoSlash, (i.e., relative to SCOTUS conceding the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, for all of us, "right off the bat")?
To me, the question indicates SCOTUS concedes the 2nd Amendment gives individual militia members the right to own firearms.
Now, SCOTUS wants to answer that question relative to individual non-militia members owning firearms in their homes IMHO.
In answering this question, I believe SCOTUS will have to make some historical discussion of militias. I could be wrong but the question seems to indicate militia members are assumed to have the right to own firearms and keep them in their homes. That's the only concession I see "right off the bat".
Not as clear cut as the attorney Ken Hanson seems to opine IMHO.
To me, the question indicates SCOTUS concedes the 2nd Amendment gives individual militia members the right to own firearms.
Now, SCOTUS wants to answer that question relative to individual non-militia members owning firearms in their homes IMHO.
In answering this question, I believe SCOTUS will have to make some historical discussion of militias. I could be wrong but the question seems to indicate militia members are assumed to have the right to own firearms and keep them in their homes. That's the only concession I see "right off the bat".
Not as clear cut as the attorney Ken Hanson seems to opine IMHO.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
I'm still somewhat afraid that they will punt it based on D.C. not being a state, and therefore not subject to incorporation of fundamental rights. I'm also quite cynical in general about the likely outcome. The SCOTUS in the last 40-50 years has a shameful history of ignoring precedent and weaseling their way to any outcome they want. It just comes down to, is there 5 or is there 4 who believe that the precedent means what it said? That being, U.S. v. Miller, which if read carefully, gives us the rule that: "If a firearm (arm) is proven *useful* to a military or para-military group, then keeping and bearing of said arm is protected as to the *individual*."
applesanity
New member
See you've fallen into the trap of the anti-gun people. They're just changing language as they see fit. At the time of the writing, and at current, the Militia IS the People. Okay, every able-bodied man. But essentially, the People.
If that first clause wasn't there, then Brady/Boxer/Feinstein would just change language again... something like, "hey, when the Founders said "arms," they actually meant limbs. The 2nd Amendment means that People have the right not to be forcefully amputated.... If the Founders wanted to say "guns," why couldn't they just say so?"
I always thought the Virginia version of the 2nd was kinda cool:
George Mason said:
Our legs are not safe.
I had mentioned over on THR that the re-wording of the question by the court looked like, to me, that they had already decided the 2nd was an individual right.
It's certainly nice to see that at least one attorney, Ken Hanson, sees the same thing that I did when I first read it. It's at least a little more assuring that the decision will go in the direction most of us hope it will.
J.C.
It's certainly nice to see that at least one attorney, Ken Hanson, sees the same thing that I did when I first read it. It's at least a little more assuring that the decision will go in the direction most of us hope it will.
J.C.
Certiorari No Certainty
Certiorari No Certainty
The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed that it is high time we have a definitive decision regarding the meaning of the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. In granting a Writ of Certiorari to the District of Columbia's appeal of a U.S. Court of Appeals decision that found the District's handgun laws unconstitutional, the high court set the table for what could be a watershed decision in the American legal system. It may as well have finally created an undeniable litmus test for any political candidate running for office, but that's a fortunate by-product more than an intent.
A Supreme Court ruling upholding the Appeals Court decision has the potential to lay waste to vague interpretation of the Second Amendment that has allowed anti-firearms judges to rationalize - and push - an anti-gun agenda.
A decision the other way could hasten what many of the people I've spoken with today call the "inevitable disarmament" of all of us.
Ordinarily, I'd call that a bit overwrought. But with the stroke of a pen, the Supreme Court has routinely changed the course of this nation. From segregation to abortion, the Supreme Court has been the single greatest deciding force either in national change.
Even the granting of the "Cert" is significant.
Approximately 2,000 requests are filed in each term (October to June); the Court normally grants an average around 80. Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to function as a trial court, but it does so in only the most major of instances. Today, the principal function of the court is to exercise appellate jurisdiction over lower court rulings on "constitutional and ordinary law" issues.
Rendering a uniform interpretation of the Second Amendment based on this particular case, is, actually custom-made for the Supreme Court.
But there's still no reason to be dancing in the streets. The stage is now set, however, for high legal drama as formal hearings, oral arguments progress to that final decision.
Today, in political terms, the grassroots base - for and against guns - is "energized".
Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, says 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." In other words, Helmke hopes for one of the "living document" interpretations of the law. That "living document" interpretation is one most commonly used by activist judges to apply a "culturally relevant" interpretation of law.
Simply stated, "living document" interpretations say the "old meaning" should give way to a more relevant interpretation adapted to current situations.
In my thinking, it's the equivalent of ruling day to be nighttime, but it's been used to advance any number of causes over the years.
The last "significant" ruling on the Second Amendment came in 1939 when the court ruled a sawed-off shotgun was not a weapon that would be used in the militia.
That decision, incidentally, is one reason Chief Justice John Roberts says the correct reading of the Second Amendment is "still very much an open issue."
In 1976, one of the District of Columbia's first actions after being given self-rule was to ban handguns.
The City council said it was a move designed to reduce violent crime in the nation's capital because, "handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia."
Apparently, only legal handguns have no place in the District. Crime - including handgun crime - has continued to make Washington, D.C. one of the nation's deadliest locales. Although down from all-time highs in the 1990s, 169 residents were murdered there in 2006.
Some were law-abiding citizens with no means of defending themselves.
Regardless, the District argues in favor of the restriction, claiming, among other things, the Second Amendment is applicable only to militia service. There's also a second argument that the ban isn't on all firearms, just handguns.
That argument ignores the fact that a "legal" firearm in the District is either kept under lock and key or disassembled, neither conducive to self-defense. No criminal I've ever had the displeasure to meet has ever set an appointment, or allowed me time to reassemble and arm a weapon.
Pro-gun arguments are not quite so convoluted.
In fact, they hinge on a single statement: "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".
For years, a series of rulings have read the amendment to mean a "collective" rather than an "individual" right. The U.S. Court of Appeals disagreed, ruling the D.C. gun control law illegal based on individual rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment.
This case was essentially created when lawyers assembled six D.C. residents to challenge the District ban. Instead of a group of people appealing criminal convictions, the courts were faced with law-abiding citizens who wanted the weapons for self-defense.
An initial federal court ruled against them, but the Appeals Court agreed on their right to individual firearm ownership.
At that point, anti-handgun groups were torn over whether or not to appeal.
Without appeal, the decision was a setback limited to the District of Columbia. Other cases would continue to be heard individually - and in courts where the "living document" interpretations were common.
Filing a Supreme Court appeal and losing, however, could mean that all firearms bans could be called into question - and judged under a single legal interpretation.
In fact, the appeal argues the lower court ruling "drastically departs from the mainstream of American jurisprudence."
In other words, it upsets the legal status quo.
The appeal also says the Appeals Court erred by recognizing an individual rather than a collective right; by interpreting the Second Amendment as anything other than a restriction on federal interference with state-regulated militias and state-regulated gun rights, and failing to recognize the District's rights to protect its citizens by banning a certain type of gun.
Personally, I'd think the case could be made - and won - that the District has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the ban has done nothing to protect citizens, but plenty to protect criminals.
Yesterday, the NSSF cited leading historians, legal scholars and constitutional experts already on record as having concluded the Second Amendment provides an individual right.
"The government has powers, not rights," says NSSF general counsel and senior vice president Lawrence G. Keane, "The contention that the Second Amendment is a collective right of the government is completely without merit."
"The firearms industry looks forward to the Supreme Court putting to rest the specious argument that the Second Amendment is not an individual right," says Keane. "This intellectually bankrupt and feeble argument has been used by gun control advocates to justify laws and regulations that deny Americans their civil right to own and lawfully use firearms for protection, hunting, sports shooting and other lawful purposes.
"The firearms and ammunition industry is unique in that our products are the means through which the Second Amendment right is realized," continued Keane. "If there were no firearms and ammunition manufacturers, than the Second Amendment becomes an illusory right."
As the legal observers prepare, politicians are squirming at the thoughts of having to answer the "gun question" should the Supreme Court uphold the Appeals Court. There will be little - if any - room for equivocation on firearms and gun owners' rights.
Politicians prefer less absolute interpretations. After all, a privilege can be revoked, denied or modified - at the pleasure of the current political majority.
It's a long way until November, and there's no predicting the Supreme Court's course of action with any confidence.
Historically, it's been impossible to predict a decision with any certainty.
By this time next year, however, we should be a definitive interpretation of what has been a moving target.
As the side of the firearms argument that relies on facts and not emotion, we should be looking forward to the decision.
We'll keep you posted.
--Jim Shepherd
Certiorari No Certainty
The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed that it is high time we have a definitive decision regarding the meaning of the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. In granting a Writ of Certiorari to the District of Columbia's appeal of a U.S. Court of Appeals decision that found the District's handgun laws unconstitutional, the high court set the table for what could be a watershed decision in the American legal system. It may as well have finally created an undeniable litmus test for any political candidate running for office, but that's a fortunate by-product more than an intent.
A Supreme Court ruling upholding the Appeals Court decision has the potential to lay waste to vague interpretation of the Second Amendment that has allowed anti-firearms judges to rationalize - and push - an anti-gun agenda.
A decision the other way could hasten what many of the people I've spoken with today call the "inevitable disarmament" of all of us.
Ordinarily, I'd call that a bit overwrought. But with the stroke of a pen, the Supreme Court has routinely changed the course of this nation. From segregation to abortion, the Supreme Court has been the single greatest deciding force either in national change.
Even the granting of the "Cert" is significant.
Approximately 2,000 requests are filed in each term (October to June); the Court normally grants an average around 80. Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to function as a trial court, but it does so in only the most major of instances. Today, the principal function of the court is to exercise appellate jurisdiction over lower court rulings on "constitutional and ordinary law" issues.
Rendering a uniform interpretation of the Second Amendment based on this particular case, is, actually custom-made for the Supreme Court.
But there's still no reason to be dancing in the streets. The stage is now set, however, for high legal drama as formal hearings, oral arguments progress to that final decision.
Today, in political terms, the grassroots base - for and against guns - is "energized".
Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, says 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." In other words, Helmke hopes for one of the "living document" interpretations of the law. That "living document" interpretation is one most commonly used by activist judges to apply a "culturally relevant" interpretation of law.
Simply stated, "living document" interpretations say the "old meaning" should give way to a more relevant interpretation adapted to current situations.
In my thinking, it's the equivalent of ruling day to be nighttime, but it's been used to advance any number of causes over the years.
The last "significant" ruling on the Second Amendment came in 1939 when the court ruled a sawed-off shotgun was not a weapon that would be used in the militia.
That decision, incidentally, is one reason Chief Justice John Roberts says the correct reading of the Second Amendment is "still very much an open issue."
In 1976, one of the District of Columbia's first actions after being given self-rule was to ban handguns.
The City council said it was a move designed to reduce violent crime in the nation's capital because, "handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia."
Apparently, only legal handguns have no place in the District. Crime - including handgun crime - has continued to make Washington, D.C. one of the nation's deadliest locales. Although down from all-time highs in the 1990s, 169 residents were murdered there in 2006.
Some were law-abiding citizens with no means of defending themselves.
Regardless, the District argues in favor of the restriction, claiming, among other things, the Second Amendment is applicable only to militia service. There's also a second argument that the ban isn't on all firearms, just handguns.
That argument ignores the fact that a "legal" firearm in the District is either kept under lock and key or disassembled, neither conducive to self-defense. No criminal I've ever had the displeasure to meet has ever set an appointment, or allowed me time to reassemble and arm a weapon.
Pro-gun arguments are not quite so convoluted.
In fact, they hinge on a single statement: "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".
For years, a series of rulings have read the amendment to mean a "collective" rather than an "individual" right. The U.S. Court of Appeals disagreed, ruling the D.C. gun control law illegal based on individual rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment.
This case was essentially created when lawyers assembled six D.C. residents to challenge the District ban. Instead of a group of people appealing criminal convictions, the courts were faced with law-abiding citizens who wanted the weapons for self-defense.
An initial federal court ruled against them, but the Appeals Court agreed on their right to individual firearm ownership.
At that point, anti-handgun groups were torn over whether or not to appeal.
Without appeal, the decision was a setback limited to the District of Columbia. Other cases would continue to be heard individually - and in courts where the "living document" interpretations were common.
Filing a Supreme Court appeal and losing, however, could mean that all firearms bans could be called into question - and judged under a single legal interpretation.
In fact, the appeal argues the lower court ruling "drastically departs from the mainstream of American jurisprudence."
In other words, it upsets the legal status quo.
The appeal also says the Appeals Court erred by recognizing an individual rather than a collective right; by interpreting the Second Amendment as anything other than a restriction on federal interference with state-regulated militias and state-regulated gun rights, and failing to recognize the District's rights to protect its citizens by banning a certain type of gun.
Personally, I'd think the case could be made - and won - that the District has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the ban has done nothing to protect citizens, but plenty to protect criminals.
Yesterday, the NSSF cited leading historians, legal scholars and constitutional experts already on record as having concluded the Second Amendment provides an individual right.
"The government has powers, not rights," says NSSF general counsel and senior vice president Lawrence G. Keane, "The contention that the Second Amendment is a collective right of the government is completely without merit."
"The firearms industry looks forward to the Supreme Court putting to rest the specious argument that the Second Amendment is not an individual right," says Keane. "This intellectually bankrupt and feeble argument has been used by gun control advocates to justify laws and regulations that deny Americans their civil right to own and lawfully use firearms for protection, hunting, sports shooting and other lawful purposes.
"The firearms and ammunition industry is unique in that our products are the means through which the Second Amendment right is realized," continued Keane. "If there were no firearms and ammunition manufacturers, than the Second Amendment becomes an illusory right."
As the legal observers prepare, politicians are squirming at the thoughts of having to answer the "gun question" should the Supreme Court uphold the Appeals Court. There will be little - if any - room for equivocation on firearms and gun owners' rights.
Politicians prefer less absolute interpretations. After all, a privilege can be revoked, denied or modified - at the pleasure of the current political majority.
It's a long way until November, and there's no predicting the Supreme Court's course of action with any confidence.
Historically, it's been impossible to predict a decision with any certainty.
By this time next year, however, we should be a definitive interpretation of what has been a moving target.
As the side of the firearms argument that relies on facts and not emotion, we should be looking forward to the decision.
We'll keep you posted.
--Jim Shepherd
Fred Thompson On The Second Amendment and Heller
From Fred08 (http://fredfile.fred08.com/blog/2007/second-amendment-a-citizens-right/):
Here’s another reason why it’s important that we appoint judges who use the Constitution as more than a set of suggestions. Today, the Supreme Court decided to hear the case of District of Columbia v. Heller.
Six plaintiffs from Washington, D.C. challenged the provisions of the D.C. Code that prohibited them from owning or carrying a handgun. They argued that the rules were an unconstitutional abridgment of their Second Amendment rights. The Second Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, provides, “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 District argued, as many gun-control advocates do, that these words only guarantee a collective “right” to bear arms while serving the government. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected this approach and instead adopted an “individual rights” view of the Second Amendment. The D.C. Circuit is far from alone. The Fifth Circuit and many leading legal scholars, including the self-acknowledged liberal Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, have also come to adopt such an individual rights view.
I’ve always understood the Second Amendment to mean what it says – it guarantees a citizen the right to “keep and bear” firearms, and that’s why I’ve been supportive of the National Rifle Association’s efforts to have the DC law overturned.
In general, lawful gun ownership is a pretty simple matter. The Founders established gun-owner rights so that citizens would possess and be able to exercise the universal right of self-defense. Guns enable their owners to protect themselves from robbery and assault more successfully and more safely than they otherwise would be able to. The danger of laws like the D.C. handgun ban is that they limit the availability of legal guns to people who want to use them for legitimate reasons, such as self-defense (let alone hunting, sport shooting, collecting), while doing nothing to prevent criminals from acquiring guns.
The D.C. handgun ban, like all handgun bans is necessarily ineffectual. It takes the guns that would be used for self protection out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, while doing practically nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining guns to use to commit crimes. Even the federal judges in the D.C. case knew about the flourishing black market for guns in our nation’s capital that leaves the criminals armed and the law-abiding defenseless. This is unacceptable.
The Second Amendment does more than guarantee to all Americans an unalienable right to defend one’s self. William Blackstone, the 18th century English legal commentator whose works were well-read and relied on by the Framers of our Constitution, observed that the right to keep and bear firearms arises from “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation.” This view, reflected in the Second Amendment, promotes both self-defense and liberty. It is not surprising then that the generation that had thrown off the yoke of British tyranny less than a decade earlier included the Second Amendment in the Constitution and meant for it to enable the people to protect themselves and their liberties.
You can’t always predict what the Supreme Court will do, but in the case of Heller and Washington, DC’s gun ban, officials in the District of Columbia would have been better off expending their efforts and resources in pursuit of those who commit crimes against innocent people rather than in seeking to keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens who would use them only to protect themselves and their families. And that is why appointing judges who apply the text of the Constitution and not their own policy preferences is so important.
From Fred08 (http://fredfile.fred08.com/blog/2007/second-amendment-a-citizens-right/):
Here’s another reason why it’s important that we appoint judges who use the Constitution as more than a set of suggestions. Today, the Supreme Court decided to hear the case of District of Columbia v. Heller.
Six plaintiffs from Washington, D.C. challenged the provisions of the D.C. Code that prohibited them from owning or carrying a handgun. They argued that the rules were an unconstitutional abridgment of their Second Amendment rights. The Second Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, provides, “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 District argued, as many gun-control advocates do, that these words only guarantee a collective “right” to bear arms while serving the government. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected this approach and instead adopted an “individual rights” view of the Second Amendment. The D.C. Circuit is far from alone. The Fifth Circuit and many leading legal scholars, including the self-acknowledged liberal Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, have also come to adopt such an individual rights view.
I’ve always understood the Second Amendment to mean what it says – it guarantees a citizen the right to “keep and bear” firearms, and that’s why I’ve been supportive of the National Rifle Association’s efforts to have the DC law overturned.
In general, lawful gun ownership is a pretty simple matter. The Founders established gun-owner rights so that citizens would possess and be able to exercise the universal right of self-defense. Guns enable their owners to protect themselves from robbery and assault more successfully and more safely than they otherwise would be able to. The danger of laws like the D.C. handgun ban is that they limit the availability of legal guns to people who want to use them for legitimate reasons, such as self-defense (let alone hunting, sport shooting, collecting), while doing nothing to prevent criminals from acquiring guns.
The D.C. handgun ban, like all handgun bans is necessarily ineffectual. It takes the guns that would be used for self protection out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, while doing practically nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining guns to use to commit crimes. Even the federal judges in the D.C. case knew about the flourishing black market for guns in our nation’s capital that leaves the criminals armed and the law-abiding defenseless. This is unacceptable.
The Second Amendment does more than guarantee to all Americans an unalienable right to defend one’s self. William Blackstone, the 18th century English legal commentator whose works were well-read and relied on by the Framers of our Constitution, observed that the right to keep and bear firearms arises from “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation.” This view, reflected in the Second Amendment, promotes both self-defense and liberty. It is not surprising then that the generation that had thrown off the yoke of British tyranny less than a decade earlier included the Second Amendment in the Constitution and meant for it to enable the people to protect themselves and their liberties.
You can’t always predict what the Supreme Court will do, but in the case of Heller and Washington, DC’s gun ban, officials in the District of Columbia would have been better off expending their efforts and resources in pursuit of those who commit crimes against innocent people rather than in seeking to keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens who would use them only to protect themselves and their families. And that is why appointing judges who apply the text of the Constitution and not their own policy preferences is so important.
- Status