Thank you, Supreme Court.

For taking up the gun control issue.

It is *not* clear in the Constitution whether it is an individual or a collective (read militia) right. Personally, I believe it is an individual right and that gun-control laws should need a constitutional amendment to be enacted.

People have differed over this for years, and it has hurt the Democratic Party overall. Now, our candidates can simply say, "It is now up to the Supreme Court", and I can say "Thank God, FINALLY".

pass the buck and not take a position on the issue, is that your idea?

If they say they would want more gun-control legislation, or to get rid of gun-control legistlation... it makes no difference. The Supreme Court will now decide whether gun control is even constitutional. It makes it a moot point.

What do I care if our candidates consider it an individual or a collective right? The court will decide so their opinion will not matter.

decision without a change to the constitution. There is a big difference between protecting your home from an intruder and protecting others by a militia. I would think we could have both except that there is a big difference in living on the farm or living in the inner city.

They have to decide what the right afforded by the constitution is. After that, the legislative branches can take over and make modifications necessary.

No one is really for sure what the right afforded by the second amendment is, although I suspect it is a guaranteed individual right. I could be wrong about that, however.

will be so narrow as to only affect D.C. IMO they will stay away from the broader question.

To think otherwise is just naive. The NRA bought the office of the president, vice president, and several of the justices. It's not the government we have to fear....it's organizations like the good ole', gun-totin, "my dead hands" aw-shuckin' NRA.

'

Once they rule, if it is broad enough, it should make clear what laws will be needed in the future. Hopefully, no more gray area.

For instance, there are now some people who do not support gun control laws because they feel they are unconstitutional.

If the court rules that they are constitutional, then the issue becomes only one of if they are needed or not.

If the court rules that they are unconstitutional, then the gun control lobby can go about amending the constitution so that some gun control is legal.

The fact that the court has been silent for so long on the issue has made it so no one is really sure where the line, if any, currently is. Once that is determined, parties can go about legally moving the line one way or another.

Guns have never been defined as separate from a regulated militia before. Now, with this new ruling, whatever it will be, the second amendment could means that everyone, not just a militia, is entitled to arm themselves. And we all know what a holy mess that will be.

Articles I find on Google seem to indicate otherwise.


"The Supreme Court therefore views the words "the people" in the Second Amendment to have the same meaning as in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. If "the people" really meant the right of states to maintain a militia, then we would be left with the absurd notion that only the states have the right to peaceably assemble, only the states have the right to be secure in their persons and property, etc. The Supreme Court's position is indisputable: the Second Amendment protects the individual right to bear arms. Also instructive is the Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, Second Session (February 1982):

The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."

http://www.thefiringline.com/Misc/library/kates.html

There are at least two sides to this. The court should decide. That is all I am saying.

would ever say that the militia portion does matter and the right to bear arms is not separate in nature. It would mean everyone would have to turn in their arms. It is the most unpractical thing, next to rounding up and throwing out all the illegal aliens, that this country would ever try to do. It could never happen. It is a waste of time debating this amendment. And we'll see who the strict constructionist are on the court as the right likes to keep telling us because with all do respect to your opinion, that amendment is one sentence and militia is clearly involved in the first portion. And I don't support changing the way things are done now. It would wreck havoc on the public.

Then the Democrats arguing that it is a collective (militia) right will have to re-think their position in accordance with that interpretation. Either way, it might settle the question over what gun control laws, if any, are constitutional. It is the gray area that is currently hurting the party.

What regulation? What the NRA wants, the NRA gets.

Does the guarantee that "we the people" can individually carry arms, or are we collectively only given the right of protection by a militia in the second amendment.

Do you have to prove you're part of a militia? Really. Some parts of the consitution are more "sacred" than others.

It is whether my right to buy a gun is *protected* by the second amendment.

The constitution does not guarantee me the right to buy groceries, but I can (and do).

The question is whether the government can *prevent* me from buying and keeping a gun.

Currently, the government (as a whole... Federal, State, Municipal) treats this as "We can't take away your National Guard, but we *can* take away your right to own a weapon, or certain weapons, individually"

The individual right, apart from the whole militia thing, to have a gun? Nowhere.

You have no absolute right to free speech.

The press does not have the absolute right to report.

You have no absolute right to practice your relgion.

And you do not and will not EVER have an absolute right to own a gun.

Now that the consitutional subject is guns, we can speak gobbledygook and get away with it. Please define to me ABSOLUTE RIGHT.

And absolute right is exact that... a right which cannot be taken away or restricted.

ALL rights in the constitution are granted conditionally, if anyone has ever told you otherwise, they are talking out their rear.

(or a right to own one) then I think we're well within the bounds of what was contemplated under the Constitution when written.

If so, you might be onto something...

Even if the Court rules that you have the right to keep and bear arms, does that apply to any and all arms? Military weapons, atom bombs, hand grenades, biological weaponry?

I hope they will precisely define an interpretation so that we can begin the process of legislation for needed reform without always going back to the constitutional argument.

If so, did you understand how the case answers your questions in your OP?

You also posed an interesting Constitutional question based on your beliefs, just for the hell of it. Cool.

In reality, they aren't even taking up the gun control issue at all.

"In its announcement to take the case Tuesday, the court said it would limit its ruling to one question: whether D.C. laws "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 only question they are to answer is whether a FEDERAL BAN on handguns is allowed.

The answer will be no.

The Federal Government cannot issue an outright ban on handguns. This isn't a gun control case, it is a GUN BANNING case and a whole different animal.



Here are the issues that will not be covered by the ruling.

Whether gun control (strict rules and regulations for gun ownership) can be enforced at a federal level.

Whether states can ban guns and/or enact strict gun control laws.


At the end of the day, this is much ado about absolutely nothing.

They have made it very clear that they are only address one specific issue and the issue has to do with BANNING guns, NOT gun control.

The media is playing with you to make you think this case means something.

If they rule that the federal government can't restrict anyone's right to keep a handgun, then the next step is to ascertain whether states and municipalities can, either.

They are ruling on the issue of BANNING, not restrictions.

If the decision doesn't cover enough, then I am sure there will be lots more cases for them to consider.

I know you are hoping for a certain result, but it isn't going to happen and the court has actually made it very VERY clear that they aren't going to address the broader issue you want them to.

This ruling will do absolutely nothing about the gun control debate. It is about whether the federal government can completely BAN handguns. Its not going to address what is or is not "arms". It will not address impact on the states. It will not address restrictions on ownership. ONLY banning.

This ruling will have no effect on gun control laws. NONE. No more cases will come up for them to consider. The "debate" will go on, completely, totally, utterly unfettered.

Any decision rendered by the court in this case will have no immediate impact outside of Washington DC.

Assuming a finding in favor of Heller, DC will be able to limit (to some degree), possession of handguns (and long arms), in the home, and under what circumstances they can be stored.

However, in order to reach that finding they will have to first conclude that the 2nd amendment is an individual right and not a collective one, and that opens up a completely new ball game/round of challenges to gun control laws both state and local.

With that in mind your "much ado about nothing" comment could not be further from the truth.

A finding of the individual right will lay down the foundation for future plaintiffs challenging state and local gun control laws.

Hopefully, one of these cases (the Chicago handgun ban seems the most likely candidate), will find it's way to the SCOTUS and will end with the determination that the 2nd amendment is incorporated by the 14th amendment and therefore applicable to the states.

Unfortunately, that could take years to decide.

"However, in order to reach that finding they will have to first conclude that the 2nd amendment is an individual right and not a collective one, and that opens up a completely new ball game/round of challenges to gun control laws both state and local."

Even rules clearly stated in the constitution are not set in stone. The right to free speech is hardly absolute and even if the court rules as far as is POSSIBLY CAN, the only issue they are ruling on is whether DC (and maybe eventually, years from now the "states") can BAN handguns.

This doesn't, in the least, speak to restrictions, which is the real heart of the gun control issue.

This new ball game you speak of, has been already happening for years and years and years... nothing NEW comes out of this case and nothing ultimately changes.

There are actually 3 issues at stake here that the court will be addressing...




The first section has to do with disallowing registration of handguns if not already registered prior to the ban, the second prohibits carrying an unlicensed handgun and the 3rd address the requirement that all firearms be kept unloaded and/or stored in a disassemble d state and/or secured with a gun lock.

All three are clearly restrictions.

It should be worth noting that in the cert filed by DCs lawyers, that they did not raise or contest the issue of firearms storage (which was found to be in violation of the 2nd amendment by the lower court). The logic behind that as I understand it, that by allowing citizens to keep their firearms in an unlocked/assembled condition, their right to self defense would still be available to them.

First, it is actually taken as a a single issue that encompasses three codes sections, not three seperate issues.

"In its announcement to take the case Tuesday, the court said it would limit its ruling to one question: whether D.C. laws "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" http://www.rttnews.com/FOREX/politicalnews.asp?date=11/21/2007&item=12

Second, still none of this speaks to actual gun control debate, but instead BANNING.

In the end, nothing that happens in this case will have any impact whatsoever on the gun CONTROL debate in this country.

People who think it will are being fooled by the media.

Personally... I think your assessment of the impact and importance of this the case is vastly underestimated.

Conversely... I think the assessment/expectations from (the extreme), of both sides is vastly overestimated: "the elimination of state and federal gun control laws is in grave danger"...

Or (as you will)...

"Our next objective should be overturning the 1986 machine gun ban and eliminating the NICS check".

I'm not ruling any possibility out... including a decision in favor of DC (which I lean towards not happening), but
realistically, none of the above will ever happen in our lifetime... if ever.

I'd hope for the SCOTUS handing us the whole enchilada.... including incorporation (but, that's not going to happen either).

I agree that the gun control debate (assuming a decision in favor of Heller), will be far from over. Only this time it will be a whole new slate with 2nd amendment/RKBA advocates leading the charge.

Anywhoo...

You might find this blog interesting... (FWIW, it's owned and operated by some of the lawyers that represented DC in the Parker/Heller case).

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp

This commentary is interesting to say the least.

If the court rules that it is a militia right, and not an individual right, and municipalities *CAN* constitutionally ban firearms, then the gun control crowd gets a big victory because a three-day wait, restrictions are a moot point. If you can outright ban something, then you can darn well regulate it short of banning and arguments about the constitutionality of your proposed regulations are meaningless.

If it applies to the federal government, then the fourteenth amendment will probably make it apply to the states as well.

Even if they rule that you cannot ban handguns, it may or may not address whether you can regulate them. At the very least, the sense of the court will be noted in the decisions. They may point to an right of an individual to own handguns is constitutionally protected, and the constitution may well need to be amended to pass any gun control laws. The Constitution says that the right (whatever that is) cannot be infringed. I think that will have ramifications for background checks and potentially waiting periods.

Whatever it is, the non-definition we have now is the cause of a lot of inflammatory debate with both sides pointing to the same sentence as justification for their position.

"Whatever it is, the non-definition we have now is the cause of a lot of inflammatory debate with both sides pointing to the same sentence as justification for their position."

First, Short of doing something the court has already made clear it isn't going to do, the case has no impact beyond the specific facts of this case, which involve a federal banning of handguns.

Second, no matter what the court says, the same sides will continue to point to the same language to justify their positions, because one side will believe the court "got it wrong" and the other side will believe the court "got it right".

The Court has in the past taken a fairly narrow straight forward single issue and expanded it into a very wide reaching. Remember the question before the Tanney court was whether Dred Scott could sue for his freedom. The ruling of the court was that since Scott was not a U.S. citizen he could not sue in Federal Court for his freedom. That answered the question before the court, however they also ruled that there was absoultly no way a negro slave could become a citizen of the United States. It voided the Missouri Compromise as a undue violation of the 10th Amendment of the Consititution, and it also ruled that the Federal Government must enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.

It is about DC law, specifically, the DC ban on private ownership of handguns. And if the SCOTUS says that one city doesn't have the right to ban handguns outright, then it would seem that no city would be able to. Unless of course, the SCOTUS specifies that their ruling, whatever it may be, only applies to DC.

Because our government isn't republican (small "r") and Congress has legislative authority over us. As an example, criminals that in most places would go to a state prison are sent into the Federal system.

Of course, DC's status is notoriously troubling from a Constitutional standpoint (I personally don't think the federal district was meant to have a large resident population), and any ruling will be hung up by that.

Still, it's going to open up cans of worms.

"The Second Amendment states that: “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.” We held in Love v. Pepersack, 47 F.3d 120 (4th Cir.1995), that the Second Amendment does not confer an absolute individual right to bear firearms."

If you contend that only the militia should have the right to bear arms, what's the point of that? How can you guarantee a free state if the state is the only one with the arms? I view the Second Amendment in the same light as the First, a necessity for the security of a free state. For what it's worth I haven't owned any guns in decades, but I believe the Second Amendment to be a vital last resort protection for the the people against authoritarian or despotic rule.

Thanks for the thread, Ravy.

That'll show 'em.

Should they use atomic weapons against fellow Americans, that will indeed be the end of the government and the entire Constitution will be meaningless.

the entire Constitution IS already meaningless. My point was, some paranoid gun owners feel that they should own guns in case the government wants to take over. As if standing in front of your house with your gun is going to avert the utter destruction caused by the thousands of atomic weapons the government has at hand. That's like saying "They can't take my freedumm--I got me a gun!"

I also believe after 2000, if you're not at least a little bit paranoid, you're not paying attention. I also believe should a Hitler type despot take over, the first two Amendments, they would eliminate would be the first Two Amendments as they have the most potential for causing them trouble, even if someone with a gun doesn't stand a snowball's chance in Hell against nuclear weapons.

Look at Roe v. Wade. Allegedly, that "settles" the abortion issue in favor of women's privacy. Has it dropped off the radar? Hell no.

A SCOTUS decision about controversial foo just shifts the national debate topic from "Do you support legislation to do foo?" to "Would you nominate/approve a judicial nominee who would rule in favor of foo?"

Certainly the depth of the opinion, and the split, if any, makes a difference.

If Roe type decisions were always decided strongly 9-0 the argument would not be as strong.

Usually, by the time the supreme court agrees to hear a case, it's because some difficult constitutional point is unclear. If the case is so clearcut that the various justices, despite their spread of legal backgrounds and political leanings, can all concur, I think it's safe to say there was very little controversy to begin with, or the case wasn't testing it very well, or perhaps the judges for the lower courts were utterly incompetent. :shrug:

On the other hand, there have been some decisions with broad concurrence that didn't resolve squat -- e.g., the Dred Scott vs. Sandford decision came down 7-2 and it caused more problems than it resolved (at least in the "short term"). Even Roe was 7-2, and it's still a madhouse.

This one will play out much the same. Strong lobbies are encamped on either side of the issue, ready to piss all over the ruling regardless.

It's a lot like abortion issue. In that I could care less. I have zero interest in owning a gun ever. I frankly don't understand why people would want a gun. I think it's funny to think of militia's being need to "keep the government honest". Yeah Americans are really going to rise up in armed conflict against the government. Most Americans can't even bother to rise up to vote once every 4 years. So abortion and gun ownership: safe, legal and rare is the way to go:)

"safe, legal and rare".

Any thanks to the Supreme Court should be tempered with the realization that the Supreme Court might rule that it is perfectly OK for anyone to own guns. The SC could throw out the law in DC.

And that would mean more people getting killed.

Right now, people on both sides of the argument try to have it both ways. End the arguments, draw a line, then deal with the results.

And that would mean more people getting killed.

I live in DC.

Do you really, honestly, think the handgun ban has kept one single criminal from getting a gun?

Do you really think that?

Blood could indeed flow in the streets of DC.

The blood of criminals, the good kind.

;)

distinction in its first constitution.

A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 28 Sept. 1776

And


PA ratified the BOR on 10 March 1790 and with contemporaneous knowledge of the Second Amendment, PA modified its constitution that took effect on 2 Sept. 1790 to say

As an inalienable right it is impossible for PA citizens to give the right of self-defense away when they ratified our Constitution or when they ratified the BOR. PA citizens acknowledged that fact by retaining the right of self-defense in their constitution when they modified it just five months after they ratified the BOR.

Either an individual’s natural, inherent and inalienable right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment as one of the enumerated rights or it is protected by the Ninth Amendment as an un-enumerated right.

it is decided as an individual right... particularly in the land of "free-speech zones".

handguns for self-defense.

just in time for The Most Important Election In Our History(TM).

Food for thought: The gun lobby is widely credited with causing President Gore to lose his home state of Tennessee. If Gore takes Tennessee, King Dumbass** becomes no more than a genial but goofy gentleman rancher, and our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity continues.

Think about it.

huh?

But that is my point. There are two schools of thought about what the second amendment actually says. The Supreme Court needs to speak.

Leaving it fuzzy increases the debate and rhetoric.

Then deal with it. If they overturn gun laws, and even Roe... get on with it.

The fact is that the THREAT of doing these things is where the real damage to the country is being done. Let them take a stand, let lawmakers deal with it or suffer the backlash of not dealing with it. This is America. Constitutional issues shouldn't be decided by pundits on cable TV.