SCOTUS to hear Heller!

[Ninja]

www.scotusblog.com

COURT AGREES TO RULE ON GUN CASE

After a hiatus of 68 years, the Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to rule on the meaning of the Second Amendment — the hotly contested part of the Constitution that guarantees “a right to keep and bear arms.” Not since 1939 has the Court heard a case directly testing the Amendment’s scope — and there is a debate about whether it actually decided anything in that earlier ruling. In a sense, the Court may well be writing on a clean slate if it, in the end, decides the ultimate question: does the Second Amendment guarantee an individual right to have a gun for private use, or does it only guarantee a collective right to have guns in an organized military force such as a state National Guard unit?

The city of Washington’s appeal (District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290) is expected to be heard in March — slightly more than a year after the D.C. Circuit Court ruled that the right is a personal one, at least to have a gun for self-defense in one’s own home.

The Justices chose to write out for themselves the question(s) they will undertake to answer. Both sides had urged the Court to hear the city’s case, but they had disagreed over how to frame the Second Amendment issue.

Why the Court granted cert:

“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: 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 first listed section bars registration of pistols if not registered before Sept. 24, 1976; the second bars carrying an unlicensed pistol, and the third requires that any gun kept at home must be unloaded and disassembled or bound by a lock, such as one that prevents the trigger from operating.

 

[Ninja]

Looks like the Nazis are getting a little antsy

Just minutes ago, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to take what could be the most significant Second Amendment case in our country's history.

Thanks to your support, your Brady legal team had already begun preparing for this announcement, but now our lawyers have swung into high gear to prepare our "friend of the court" brief.

We have a tidal wave of work to do in the weeks ahead and we need your help now.

This fight is so critical that we need to raise $50,000 by November 30. And since your gift will be going to our Brady Gun Law Defense Fund, it will be fully tax deductible!

We need your help today to build a strong Brady Gun Law Defense Fund to protect America’s gun laws. Please give today.

Earlier this year, a U.S. Court of Appeals struck down a gun law as violating the Second Amendment for the first time in American history. We believe this decision was judicial activism at its worst and was clearly wrong.

This legal case at its very core is the most important battle we have ever waged. The U.S. Supreme Court has the chance to reverse a terribly erroneous decision and make it clear that the American people can adopt restrictions on firearms in their communities.

If the Supreme Court does not reverse the federal appeals court decision, gun laws everywhere could be at risk…

…from the long-standing machine gun ban…to the 1968 Gun Control Act…to the Brady background check law.

…to your local and state laws…like the ones in California and New Jersey banning military-style Assault Weapons… and many more.

If that happens, then your Brady Center will defend these laws in the courts as we have done so many times in the past against the attacks of the gun lobby. But now we must focus on the immediate challenge at hand as we prepare for the fight in the U.S. Supreme Court. Please give generously.

Sincerely,
Sarah Brady, Chair

 

[M14 Shooter]

“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: 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 first listed section bars registration of pistols if not registered before Sept. 24, 1976; the second bars carrying an unlicensed pistol, and the third requires that any gun kept at home must be unloaded and disassembled or bound by a lock, such as one that prevents the trigger from operating.

This means there will almost certainly be a ruling regarding the individual v collective right. Give the current composition of the court, its hard to see how there wont be 5 votes for the individual right view.

And while one could argue the 2nd section, its hard to see how the 1st and 3rd section do not constitute a violation of the 2nd, as they effectively ban ALL functioning firearms.

See:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8717

"The District does not … construe this provision [regarding rifles and shotguns] to prevent the use of a lawful firearm in self-defense." That assurance might be heartening were it not disingenuous. Once a rifle or shotgun is loaded, it is no longer a "lawful firearm." Accordingly, D.C.'s pledge, limited to lawful weapons, is an empty one. A gun must be operative before it can be used in self-defense

Its no wonder the anti-gun loons are scared.

 

[Edward]

If our right to security is violated by this court in favor of an intrepretation of the 2nd amendment held by some than we must do everything within our power to defend our rights against that faction even if it is represented by 5 or more members of the Court. It's possible that those on the Court will put the rights of those who hold a certain intreptation of the 2nd amendment that infringes on our rights ahead of our rights yet we must loudly declare "our right to security is just as important as your right to bear arms and if you don't agree than you can go to hell..."What about our rights? We know that some assholes who wrote the Constitution agree with these people because the faction is the same but this faction cannot continue to violate our rights from 1789 into eternity. At some point we need to stand up for our rights even if they aren't enumerated in the Constitution and when an enumerated right violates one of our other rights it is our duty to defend our own rights. I would never give up my right to bear arms but I will not give up my right to security so that others can exercise their right to bear arms in conflict with my right to security. If they don't want to balance our rights where they have the right to bear arms along with me and my right to be secure than they can go to hell.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If our right to security is violated by this court in favor of an intrepretation of the 2nd amendment held by some than we must do everything within our power to defend our rights against that faction even if it is represented by 5 or more members of the Court. It's possible that those on the Court will put the rights of those who hold a certain intreptation of the 2nd amendment that infringes on our rights ahead of our rights yet we must loudly declare "our right to security is just as important as your right to bear arms and if you don't agree than you can go to hell..."What about our rights? We know that some assholes who wrote the Constitution agree with these people because the faction is the same but this faction cannot continue to violate our rights from 1789 into eternity. At some point we need to stand up for our rights even if they aren't enumerated in the Constitution and when an enumerated right violates one of our other rights it is our duty to defend our own rights. I would never give up my right to bear arms but I will not give up my right to security so that others can exercise their right to bear arms in conflict with my right to security. If they don't want to balance our rights where they have the right to bear arms along with me and my right to be secure than they can go to hell.

Yes , yes, take up arms you baffoon. You will quickly learn just how few people support your bizarro world.

 

[Gunny]

Seems to me the Bill of Rights is all about individual rights. Yet those who oppose individual gun ownership try to sell the Second as referring to collective rights.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Seems to me the Bill of Rights is all about individual rights. Yet those who oppose individual gun ownership try to sell the Second as referring to collective rights.

The second Amendment provides States rights and Individual rights. It provides the right of every State to maintain a Militia and it provides the right of every person to keep and bear arms.

The Bill of Rights was created from close to 200 suggested amendments. Those were whittled down, combined or dropped into the 10 we got. Each one provides more than one right or protection because of that.

But the basic overriding theme IS protected rights that can NOT be taken away by a simple act of the Federal Government. And most of them are specific to the Individual. Further EVERYWHERE else in the document the term " the people" is clearly understood to mean an INDIVIDUAL right. Yet we are to believe that in the 2nd Amendment that is not true.

 

[Edward]

Seems to me the Bill of Rights is all about individual rights. Yet those who oppose individual gun ownership try to sell the Second as referring to collective rights.

Every right is an individual right that we exercise collectively. Freedom of speech is an individual right that we exercise collectively as is freedom of religion and so is the right to bear arms. To claim the two are separate is a false dichotomy.

 

[Gunny]

The second Amendment provides States rights and Individual rights. It provides the right of every State to maintain a Militia and it provides the right of every person to keep and bear arms.

The Bill of Rights was created from close to 200 suggested amendments. Those were whittled down, combined or dropped into the 10 we got. Each one provides more than one right or protection because of that.

But the basic overriding theme IS protected rights that can NOT be taken away by a simple act of the Federal Government. And most of them are specific to the Individual. Further EVERYWHERE else in the document the term " the people" is clearly understood to mean an INDIVIDUAL right. Yet we are to believe that in the 2nd Amendment that is not true.

Okay, so you explained it better ....

 

[M14 Shooter]

Every right is an individual right that we exercise collectively. Freedom of speech is an individual right that we exercise collectively as is freedom of religion and so is the right to bear arms. To claim the two are separate is a false dichotomy.

Except that you do not need to exercise the right collectively for it to be protected by the Constitution.

ALL collective rights have an individual right as their basis, as a group of people cannot have a right that the individuals in that group do not hold on their own.

 

[indago]

In USA Today, there was a query put forth concerning the revelation that the Supreme Court is going to take up the question of the Second Amendment, and the lawsuit filed in the Washington DC court system. The query put forth was: Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?

I posted the following on another WebSite:
-----------------------------------------------------
Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?

That's a loaded question. I would have to vote NO on that one. The Second Amendment does NOT give any rights to anyone. It only recognizes rights already existing. These elitists will never get it.
-----------------------------------------------------

Around 95% of the respondents voted YES. Of course, they are believing that the query meant that the Second Amendment was meant to be an individual right, but it was worded wrong. That's what happens when you have an uneducated media trying to handle such historical questions.

 

[jillian]

Okay, so you explained it better ....

The other nine amendments aren't modified by the implication of a collective act, like "a well-regulated militia". And the whole concept that the right to bear arms is somehow so folk can rise up and fight tyranny is ridiculous given that the Consititution would define rising up against one's government as treason.

I'm just sorry it's THIS court that's hearing it. Ah well.. they shouldn't have been chicken and avoided the issue for all these years.

Either way, it will be interesting.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The other nine amendments aren't modified by the implication of a collective act, like "a well-regulated militia". And the whole concept that the right to bear arms is somehow so folk can rise up and fight tyranny is ridiculous given that the Consititution would define rising up against one's government as treason.

I'm just sorry it's THIS court that's hearing it. Ah well.. they shouldn't have been chicken and avoided the issue for all these years.

Either way, it will be interesting.

The Second Amendment is not "modified" at all. Nor is it about States rights specifically to have militias, that right already exists elsewhere in the Document. It is nothing more than a statement of fact and a binding reason that this right shall not be infringed BY the Federal Government.

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms

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 portion that states "being necessary for the security of a free State is NOT establishing a collective right on the next portion at all, it is just a statement of fact.

Article 2 section 2 is one provider of States right to militia.

and of the Militia of the several States,

And Article 1 section 8 also provides the right of the States to have militias.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

That you think that every other point in the document that uses the term "the people" means an individual right but does NOT mean that in the second is just amazing.

Go ahead parse the wording of the 2nd Amendment and defend the claim that it only provides citizens rights to store weapons in armories controlled by the States.

If such were true then the clause that establishes the RIGHT of the people would not even be required.

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms

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 bolded part is not required NOR does it make sense to use the phrase at all, if in fact no personal individual right is conveyed.

The link to the Constitution...

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst.html


Further the Constitution does NOT define rising against a tyranical Government as treason. In fact the document exists because our Fore Fathers did JUST that.

The only specific Right stated in the 2nd Amendment is in fact the Individual right. The previous clause does not use the term "Right" at all. And as I pointed out the State's Right to a militia is already provided in 2 other sections of the Constitution.

 

[indago]

RetiredGySgt wrote:

Further the Constitution does NOT define rising against a tyranical Government as treason. In fact the document exists because our Fore Fathers did JUST that.

Yes, and Alexander Hamilton wrote, in the Federalist No. 28: "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government ...". "The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them."

 

[M14 Shooter]

The other nine amendments aren't modified by the implication of a collective act, like "a well-regulated militia".

Regarless, the right of the people, the same people mentioned in the other amendments, was protected.

And the whole concept that the right to bear arms is somehow so folk can rise up and fight tyranny is ridiculous...

Except for thge fact that the people that wrote the amendment (and the Constitution) clearly believed in the right to revolution, having just committed treason themsevles in exercising that right.

I'm just sorry it's THIS court that's hearing it.

Because...?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Regarless, the right of the people, the same people mentioned in the other amendments, was protected.


Except for thge fact that the people that wrote the amendment (and the Constitution) clearly believed in the right to revolution, having just committed treason themsevles in exercising that right.


Because...?

Ask her this? If treason is rising against a tyranical Government, why does the miltary take an oath to protect the Country from Foreign and DOMESTIC enemies?

 

[Shogun]

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Your point being what?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ask her this? If treason is rising against a tyranical Government, why does the miltary take an oath to protect the Country from Foreign and DOMESTIC enemies?

I think you just did

 

[indago]

JACKSON MILLER and Second Amendment