SCotUS takes up DC gun ban case!

[M14 Shooter]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21039929/

Perhaps there will now be a definitive ruling on the 2nd.

The anti-gun crowd will not like this, I think.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21039929/

Perhaps there will now be a definitive ruling on the 2nd.

The anti-gun crowd will not like this, I think.

Actually us gun rights activists may not like the ruling.

DC is a special case all together. The Constitution specifically states that Congress has sole authority over its government. It would not be unreasonable for a ruling to occur that was not specific about the 2nd amendment at all.

Even assuming that doesn't effect the case, the Court side stepped the issue in 1939 and can easily side step it again in numerous legal ways.

What SHOULD have happened was when the Assault Weapon ban was passed it should have been taken to court, it was in direct contradiction to what the Court DID rule in 1939.

Specifically that a weapon MUST have a military use or be a weapon the military used to be covered by the 2nd Amendment. The assault ban specifically banned weapons FOR being military useful.

White versus Texas in 1939 I believe is the case.

 

[Shogun]

thats going to get interesting. I hope they make a ruling rather than pawn it off as some state prerogative or something.

I can't see how the current SCOTUS would rule against owning guns. The second amendment is pretty clear on the right have arms, I think. Parsing the second leaves room to do the same with the rest of them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually us gun rights activists may not like the ruling.

DC is a special case all together. The Constitution specifically states that Congress has sole authority over its government. It would not be unreasonable for a ruling to occur that was not specific about the 2nd amendment at all.

Except that:
-The Appeals court ruled specifially on the individual right 2nd, whcih formed the basis for its decision
-The appeal deals directly with that basis for the ruling.

Even assuming that doesn't effect the case, the Court side stepped the issue in 1939 and can easily side step it again in numerous legal ways.

Maybe. If they thought that the current precedents handles the situation, they would not have taken the case. The DC case, combined w/ Emerson shows a fracture in the curcuit courts, and the fracture must be addressed.

What SHOULD have happened was when the Assault Weapon ban was passed it should have been taken to court, it was in direct contradiction to what the Court DID rule in 1939.

Agreed. And it doesnt matter if you hold the individual or collective view - the AWB violates the 2nd.

US v Miller

 

[RetiredGySgt]

thats going to get interesting. I hope they make a ruling rather than pawn it off as some state prerogative or something.

I can't see how the current SCOTUS would rule against owning guns. The second amendment is pretty clear on the right have arms, I think. Parsing the second leaves room to do the same with the rest of them.

This Court and all the ones before it routinely pawn off tough issues. BUT that aside there are several reasons the ruling could have no application on a broad front and could have no significance at all as to the standing or non standing of the 2nd Amendment.

The most glaring is the fact that DC is under control of the Federal Government AND the Federal Government can and does restrict gun possession ( not ownership) on all Government property. In one form or another. The Legislature could end the debate on DC with a simple act of Congress. They have sole authority of that District. And it would be Constitutional.

The point being that DC does not actually ban ownership. They just make it VERY restrictive on getting and storing weapons. Again that is consistant with ALL Government run entities.

 

[Paulie]

thats going to get interesting. I hope they make a ruling rather than pawn it off as some state prerogative or something.

Unless RGS is right about Congress having authority over DC, this SHOULD be a state perogative. State's rights?

I can't see how the current SCOTUS would rule against owning guns. The second amendment is pretty clear on the right have arms, I think. Parsing the second leaves room to do the same with the rest of them.

I agree.

Basically, leave the fucking Bill of Rights alone. They're inalienable rights, and altering or erasing them will set precedence for further intrusion on them.

 

[mattskramer]

thats going to get interesting. I hope they make a ruling rather than pawn it off as some state prerogative or something.

I can't see how the current SCOTUS would rule against owning guns. The second amendment is pretty clear on the right have arms, I think. Parsing the second leaves room to do the same with the rest of them.

What constitutes an arm – a bazooka, a tank, landmines? Should anyone be allowed to own as many unmarked fully automatic machine guns as he likes – and without a background check? With regard to the other amendments, does the right to exercise my religion allow me to not pay taxes if some of my taxes go to creating arms and my religion, as I understand it, prohibits me from supporting guns? So much of this is relative. There is little, if anything, black-and-white.

Yes. I think that gun regulations should be loosened a little bit more.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What constitutes an arm – a bazooka, a tank, landmines? Should anyone be allowed to own as many unmarked fully automatic machine guns as he likes – and without a background check? With regard to the other amendments, does the right to exercise my religion allow me to not pay taxes if some of my taxes go to creating arms and my religion, as I understand it, prohibits me from supporting guns? So much of this is relative. There is little, if anything, black-and-white.

Yes. I think that gun regulations should be loosened a little bit more.

In 1939 the court answered the question.

 

[mattskramer]

In 1939 the court answered the question.

In many states, people are allowed to carry concealed guns. You dodged the question. If you were the ultimate judge, where would you draw the line?

 

[Gunny]

Except that:
-The Appeals court ruled specifially on the individual right 2nd, whcih formed the basis for its decision
-The appeal deals directly with that basis for the ruling.


Maybe. If they thought that the current precedents handles the situation, they would not have taken the case. The DC case, combined w/ Emerson shows a fracture in the curcuit courts, and the fracture must be addressed.


Agreed. And it doesnt matter if you hold the individual or collective view - the AWB violates the 2nd.

US v Miller

I have a question about your signature ...

Can I have one?

 

[Shogun]

What constitutes an arm – a bazooka, a tank, landmines? Should anyone be allowed to own as many unmarked fully automatic machine guns as he likes – and without a background check? With regard to the other amendments, does the right to exercise my religion allow me to not pay taxes if some of my taxes go to creating arms and my religion, as I understand it, prohibits me from supporting guns? So much of this is relative. There is little, if anything, black-and-white.

Yes. I think that gun regulations should be loosened a little bit more.

If uncle bob wants a frickin m1abrams to use as a farm tractor I wouldn't give the first rats ass. I'm pretty sure uncle bob is not going to take over his rural town with it.

People tend to get litigious about the first amendment too every time someone says something that someone else doesn't like. you know, like the Ferlinghetti trial. I would not oppose a tax system where, in fact, an individual cold CHOOSE what direction in govnerment their taxes go to among elective issues. And, yes, let uncle bob have automatic weapons. It's not the GUN that pulls it's own trigger. the GUN is not the criminal. it takes a human brain to point it at someone. A brain that can just as easily use a semi-auto or a single shot rifle to kill as they can automatic weapons. Hell, it's not easy to get autos NOW but that didn't stop bankrobbers hellbent on THEIR PLAN to emulate the movie Heat, eh? Just like british people still get SHOT despite a draconian gun ban?

dI don't think that allowing uncle bob to have a bazooka will prompt every criminal to start using 'zookas in robbing people.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Individual arms are covered by the 2nd amendment, one can argue that crew served weapons are not ( though one could try to argue they are) I have no problem with crew served weapons being controlled more strictly then individual weapons.

Fully automatic weapons are also already restricted and in 13 States totally illegal. I do not agree with that but can live with it.

The Court ruled in 39 that a weapon MUST be one used by or useful to the military to be covered by the 2nd amendment. A sawed off shutgun, they ruled had no useful value to the military based on the fact the military never used them.

High explosives are regulated and controlled because of the damage they can do, Thus any ammunition that used that would be more strictly controlled for safety sack, this relates to the ownership and usefulness of private ownership.

At one time cannon could be owned but over the years that changed and they are restricted if functional. I think as a society that can be useful.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

In this particular case I might rule that since DC is federal property and run ultimately by Congress the argument about their gun control laws was not a 2nd amendment issue at all.

Depending on the evidence presented that is a potentially correct ruling.

 

[Ninja]

:sniff: Pretty soon young Washington D.C. schoolchildren will be bringing collapsible buttstocks, bayonet lugs, barrel shrouds and conspicuously protruding pistol grips to class

I follow Heller quite closely, and I will be quite shocked if this ends with anything less than a resounding victory for we pro-Rights people.

I don't think SCOTUS will give a carefully-crafted decision that only applies to the plaintiffs, because various circuit courts are in disagreement over the whole collective vs. individual issue... A loss will hadly set us back at all whereas a victory will have national implications and could potentially lead to the NFA being declared unconstitutional (Yes, I'm thinking way too far into the future and I'm only an amateur lawyer). The thought of all those BATFags being kicked off of welfare makes me feel so warm and fuzzy inside

Think of Antonin Scalia tipping over James Brady's wheelchair

 

[Ninja]

Specifically that a weapon MUST have a military use or be a weapon the military used to be covered by the 2nd Amendment. The assault ban specifically banned weapons FOR being military useful.

Just to play devil's advocate... I'm not sure that works, because to my knowlege there is no branch of our military that issues semiauto-only AR-15s, AKs, FNs, etc. while the AWB dealt exclusively with semiautos.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Just to play devil's advocate... I'm not sure that works, because to my knowlege there is no branch of our military that issues semiauto-only AR-15s, AKs, FNs, etc. while the AWB dealt exclusively with semiautos.

Doesn't matter, the military uses semi automatic weapons, always has always will. Just be cause current models tend to have a switch on them to change to burts ot full auto does not change the fact a semi automatic and even a single shot weapon is used and could be useful to the military.

The AWB specifically banned weapons FOR BEING military useful, in DIRECT conflict with the 39 ruling of the Supreme Court. In fact the AWB if left intact could be used with the 39 ruling to eliminate the entire 2nd amendment, since military weapons are excluded and the court ruled only military weapons were protected.

 

[Ninja]

You're in CA aren't you? Own any OLLs? Come hang out with us: http://www.calguns.net/

 

[NATO AIR]

Thanks for the education on why this is a special case. Needless to say I am glad asinine laws like this are getting the judicial attention they deserve.

 

[Ninja]

Thanks for the education on why this is a special case. Needless to say I am glad asinine laws like this are getting the judicial attention they deserve.

Not to nit-pick or be argumentative (I mean, it's obvious we're on the same side w.r.t. this particular issue) but I wouldn't write the D.C. ban off as "asinine." I would call it "unconstitutional." There is simply no other way to desribe a law that bars law-abiding American citizens from owning ALL handguns and ALL functional longarms.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Not to nit-pick or be argumentative (I mean, it's obvious we're on the same side w.r.t. this particular issue) but I wouldn't write the D.C. ban off as "asinine." I would call it "unconstitutional." There is simply no other way to desribe a law that bars law-abiding American citizens from owning ALL handguns and ALL functional longarms.

Except they are not barred from owning them. They are very restrictively required to store them in a specific manner and to obtain permission to have handguns at all.

And that may end up being a problem. Government Installation and Government reserves are different then anywhere else. The restrictions could lose because DC is also different from other Government property, in that a city exists inside it and people are allowed to own property there.

I just think it is a bad place to set precedent from. Will a ruling against restrictive policy be applicable to other Federal property? Like Military bases, people live on them too. Families that are not IN the military. Granted most of those bases do not have as restrictive policy as DC.

Since Congress ultimately controls DC by act of the US Constitution, will an act of Congress nullify any ruling made?

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings

Article I section 8, the powers vested in the Congress.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section1