I am mildly optimistic on this one; however, it would have been better if not heard as it would have reversed the DC ban of 31 years. I suspect this will be a 5 to 4 decision. Let's just hope it is in the right direction!
Jim
7 to 2 or 5 to 4 is all the same. Roe V Wade was a 7 to 2 vote. The Florida vote that ended up electing Bush was a 7 to 2 and on a lesser point a 5 to 4 vote. Hoping to get a vote out of any court that limits power of the government is a real stretch in my book. I am hoping it goes our way for once and for all. Just not holding my breath.
The fact that they took it up is a bit scary. Leaving the appeal decision alone would have been just fine. It will be interesting if they address the decision of whether the second amendmant is personal or collective. I understand that is squarely on their plates. My fingers are crossed. Jake
I'm betting the issue of guns intended for personal vs. militia will not be resolved in this.
Whether the right is collective or individual is a core issue of the lawsuit. It will get decided upon - in the context of owning a sidearm in DC. All of the chips are on the table as far as the Federal law goes. Many states already have their version of the Second Amendment, which would not be trumped by a loss in this case.
As someone who lives in a place where handguns and "assault weapons" are illegal and the city has used its licensing power to prohibit the sale of ALL GUNS AND AMMUNITION, I'm watching this closely.
The 2nd is an interestingly worded amendment. IMO and individual right to own and keep military weapons in the home. That said, the "well regulated militia" limits the scope of ownership and use to citizens not engaged in unlawful or disorderly conduct. No private militias, armies or armed mobs allowed. Perhaps regulation of artillery, explosives and such??? I'd expect full-auto to stay illegal.
Not a lawyer, but a couple of points:
1. It is common for the SCOTUS to take up cases that have had differing rulings in the lower courts. That is the case here.
2. Can the District of Columbia, not being a state, even have a "well regulated militia" ?
3. Saw a clip of the D.C. Mayor arguing that many of the homicides in the district were caused by handguns so they should continue to be banned. This argument would seem to indicate that the DC ban doesn't work anyway- a strang argument to make in favor of the ban.
Please note the following:
"The right to keep and bears arms shall not be infringed". is the primary clause in the Second Ammendent.
"A well regulated militia as being necessary to the security of a free State" Is a dependent clause and in meaningless on it's own.
Jim
The amendment was intended to be a barrier to absolute rule by any tyrannical power. Targets, hunting, nor self defense are mentioned, OR relavent. All males (not including slaves at that time) were members of the militia. It was also intended that the individual populace would be armed with the latest weapons (i.e. - assault weapons) to enhance their effectiveness.
Comparing the text of the Second Amendment with ALL THE OTHER ORIGINAL AMENDMENTS, there can be little doubt the original right was intended to be individual one.
I wish the Supremes had not reviewed it, which amounts to a pocket endorsement of the Appeals Court ruling. If the Supremes rule "OUR" way, the next thing is everyone from Nancy P. to PETA will be calling for a Constitutional Amendment to reverse the Second Amendment.
Virginian,
I could not agree with you more. Unfortunately, the Supremes can "interpret" the Constitution any way they want and they do. Oh yes, they do. I am holding my breath. Jake
Jakearoo, you previously raised an interesting point and possibility concerning the 2nd amendment as being either personal or collective. In the same context, what about the 1st amendment and free speech. All of our constitutional rights could be eroded by the courts in a similar manor - one by one. Remember several Presidents comments re: 'a new world order' - interesting.
"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."
George, The personal or collective thing is THE key. The Court ruled in United States v. Miller in 1939 (That involved shotguns with barrels less than 18 inches used by a gangster.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller) that the right to "keep and bear arms" was related to the use of weapons that could be part of a militia. That may be a very bad ruling for us gun guys. (I originally thought it held that the right was collective. I have looked and it was not quite that issue.)
The Constitution was written by revolutionaries who were sick and tired of government autocratic control and authority. The comma was not dropped in there at random. There are no other "communal" rights in the Constitution. They are all personal rights to personal freedoms.
A free man was meant to have the right to own guns. And, a free man has the right to use it do defend his freedom if necessary. Course, that can get kinda messy.
Best Regards, Jake
I agree with Craig (above). It would seem obvious, as written, "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
A well regulated militia was considered all males at the time.
This will be an interesting argument and outcome.
Jim
Fortunatly, or not as the case may be, the court will not be addressing whether the States may limit gun ownership. D.C. is not a state. So even if they rule against D.C. that may settle nothing elsewhere. It might make state governments more reluctant to pass restrictive laws but chances are the court will give a very narrow ruling that applies to D.C. only.
npm
It's in the bag, surely. Isn't it a conservative Court?
The court is about evenly balanced 4 libs, 4 cons with one swing voter...Kennedy. Better than it was before Roberts was named Chief Justice.
Let us all give thanks that Kennedy's first name isn't Teddy.
If the Supremes rule "OUR" way, the next thing is everyone from Nancy P. to PETA will be calling for a Constitutional Amendment to reverse the Second Amendment.
Which has no chance of ratification by the states. It has as much chance as the abortion amendment.
Two points. The phrase "the people" has already been ruled in other amendments to mean just that, individuals. The court also ruled on the term "malitia" in a case where a governor said that the Federal government had no jurisdiction over the National Guard because it was the state Malitia. The court ruled that it was actually a branch of the Army and that the malitia is composed of the citizens who supply their own arms. We all know the bull argument that the antis constantly preach but there is NO historic precedent to support their argument. The NRA has been working for years compiling historic fact concerning the second amendment. Time will tell how narrow an interpretation they shall rule on. The trap has been set and is about to be sprung. We will know who the activist judges are. You would have to have some very convoluted reasoning to say this right is anything other than an individual right.
Women and minorities make up a majority of this country yet they have the protection under the law like a minority..... That's not convoluted thinking!!!! And that same convoluted thinking cannot be applied to other areas. Oh boy what happens to those poor unfortunate kids as they go through law school!!!!!
All the best
Does anyone know who will be presenting the case in the court? NRA has a great team and will pull out all the stops. Who is presenting the other side?
Not an NRA case I don't think. Of course, they will file an amicas brief. Jake
Please note the following:
"The right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bears arms shall not be infringed". is the primary clause in the Second Ammendent.
"A well regulated militia as being necessary to the security of a free State" Is a dependent clause and in meaningless on it's own.
Jim
There.. fixed it for you.
Please note the following:
"The right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bears arms shall not be infringed". is the primary clause in the Second Ammendent.
"A well regulated militia as being necessary to the security of a free State" Is a dependent clause and in meaningless on it's own.
Jim
There.. fixed it for you.
The same day the 2nd Amendment passed, the Senate rejected an amendment which would have limited the keeping and bearing of arms to bearing "for the common defence". That certainly shows their meaning.