Supreme Court ponders whether to rule on DC's handgun ban

[nivek]

For we US residents following firearms/gun laws and rulings:


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/21232.html


Supreme Court ponders whether to rule on DC's handgun ban
By Michael Doyle | McClatchy Newspapers

* Posted on Thursday, November 8, 2007

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court takes aim at gun control Friday, in a private conference that soon could explode publicly.

Behind closed doors, the high court's nine justices will consider taking a case that challenges the District of Columbia's stringent handgun ban. Their ultimate decision will shape how far other cities and states can go with their own gun restrictions.

"If the court decides to take this up, it's very likely it will end up being the most important Second Amendment case in history," said Dennis Henigan, the legal director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Henigan predicted "it's more likely than not" that the necessary four justices will vote to consider the case. The court will announce its decision Tuesday, and oral arguments could be heard next year.

Lawyers already are swarming from every angle.

Texas, Florida and 11 other states weighed in earlier on behalf of gun owners who are challenging D.C.'s strict gun laws. New York and three other states want the gun restrictions upheld. Pediatricians filed a brief supporting the ban. A Northern California gun dealer, Russell Nordyke, filed a brief opposing it.

Tom Palmer considers the case a matter of life and death.

Palmer turns 51 this month. He's an openly gay scholar in international relations at the Cato Institute, a libertarian research center, and holds a Ph.D. from Oxford University. He thinks that a handgun saved him years ago in San Jose, Calif., when a gang threatened him.

"A group of young men started yelling at us, 'faggot,' 'homo,' 'queer,' 'we're going to kill you' (and) 'they'll never find your bodies,' " Palmer said in a March 2003 declaration. "Fortunately, I was able to pull my handgun out of my backpack, and our assailants backed off."

He and five other plaintiffs named in the original lawsuit challenged Washington's ban on possessing handguns. The District of Columbia permits possession of other firearms, if they're disassembled or stored with trigger locks.

Their broader challenge is to the fundamental meaning of the Second Amendment. Here, commas, clauses and constitutional history all matter.

The full text of the Second Amendment says, "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."

Gun-control advocates say this means that the government can limit firearms ownership as part of its power to regulate the militia. Gun ownership is cast as a collective right, with the government organizing armed citizens to protect homeland security.

"The Second Amendment permits reasonable regulation of firearms to protect public safety and does not guarantee individuals the absolute right to own the weapons of their choice," New York and the three other states declared in an amicus brief.

Gun-control critics contend that the well-regulated militia business is beside the point, and say the Constitution protects an individual's right to possess guns.

"The right to keep and bear arms should be understood in light of the many reasons that the founding generation of Americans valued that right, including hunting and self-defense," Texas, Florida and the 11 other states declared in a competing amicus brief.

Last March, a divided appellate court panel sided with the individual-rights interpretation and threw out the D.C. handgun ban.

"The right to keep and bear arms was not created by the government, but rather preserved by it," Judge Laurence Silberman wrote for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. "The amendment does not protect the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms, but rather the right of the people."

The ruling clashed with other appellate courts, creating the kind of appellate-circuit split that the Supreme Court likes to resolve.

The ruling obviously stung D.C. officials, but it perplexed gun-control advocates. If D.C. officials tried to salvage their gun-control law by appealing to the Supreme Court — as they then did — they could give the court's conservative majority a chance to undermine gun-control laws nationwide.

"There is a lot at risk," Henigan acknowledged.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia already have indicated sympathy for the individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, as has the Bush administration. Others have been coy about the amendment's scope.

"People try to read into the tea leaves . . . but that's still very much an open issue," Chief Justice John G. Roberts said during his 2005 Senate confirmation hearing.

The Supreme Court last considered such a direct challenge to Second Amendment interpretation in the 1939 case United States v. Miller. The court upheld the conviction of a bank robber for carrying a sawed-off shotgun across state lines.

There was no evidence, the court said in an opinion written by a conservative justice born in 1862, "that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

kevinL

[refit1701]

Umm...I think I'd rather they leave it alone.

We might wind up turning in our guns quicker if the Supremes decided that the Gov't CAN regulate ownership. You can bet that Hitlery will jump on it once she's in in 2009.

Of course better, more manly men than the Hitlery have been downed by the gun control bogeyman.

[SOTVEN]

Bottom line is bad guys always get guns one way or another. Worldwide. So by limiting possesion ususally applies to law abiding citizens and never the crooks. Plain Common Sence.

[refit1701]

Bottom line is bad guys always get guns one way or another. Worldwide. So by limiting possesion ususally applies to law abiding citizens and never the crooks. Plain Common Sence.

BINGO!! You win.

[Nickathome]

I've been following this story closely. I am curious to see where the supreme court goes with this, although its pretty simple IMO. "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed", doesn't pertain to one group or another, it pertains to everyone. Its as simple as that!.

[Barley Pop]

They did a comparison to the war in the sandbox vs. DC. Study confirmed it was safer to be a soldier in the gulf war then to be a citizen in DC. This is a city with strict gun laws. We need to go back to an armed society is a polite society.

Barley...

[SOTVEN]

About 13 years ago when I was in studying in U-Mass Boston, I had wrote a research paper for a business ethics course, regarding how safe it is to have an armed society. Bottom line was (at least for then and I am sure it still holds true) that the safest state to live was NH, where one person could get any gun with their driver's license. On the other hand the most dangerous state was Washington DC where not even police oficers were permited to carry guns off duty. Like I had wrote in the paper back then, the above finding brought to my mind the ancient Latin quote "Si vis pacem parabellum" meaning "to have peace prepare for war." Here in Greece rifles and handguns are prohibited from ownership, and are not even sold in stores. Yet this past week a major incident took place in the island of Crete where police forces (16 vehicles) were struck by drug lords armed with ak47s and various handguns, while the average of armed robberies has reached 5-6 per day. Those who want guns to harm others will get a way to get them. The problem is how do the rest of us find a way to fight back, or atleast even out the chances...

[Nickathome]

About 13 years ago when I was in studying in U-Mass Boston, I had wrote a research paper for a business ethics course, regarding how safe it is to have an armed society. Bottom line was (at least for then and I am sure it still holds true) that the safest state to live was NH, where one person could get any gun with their driver's license. On the other hand the most dangerous state was Washington DC where not even police oficers were permited to carry guns off duty. Like I had wrote in the paper back then, the above finding brought to my mind the ancient Latin quote "Si vis pacem parabellum" meaning "to have peace prepare for war." Here in Greece rifles and handguns are prohibited from ownership, and are not even sold in stores. Yet this past week a major incident took place in the island of Crete where police forces (16 vehicles) were struck by drug lords armed with ak47s and various handguns, while the average of armed robberies has reached 5-6 per day. Those who want guns to harm others will get a way to get them. The problem is how do the rest of us find a way to fight back, or atleast even out the chances...

Its nice to see that others see the point that its safer to have an armed society than to ban ownership. One has to only look to England, Australia, Canada, and elsewhere where private gun ownership is either outright banned, or severely limited, to see that it doesn't work. Disarming the law abiding does nothing but give the criminal element the upper hand. Sadly the gun hating politicians in this country don't have the common sense to realize this. When a city in Florida (the exact city escapes me at the moment) enacted laws allowing anyone to legally own a firearm, the doomsayers immediatley cried that this would become another Dodge City. Their cries of "gun toting maniacs would rule the streets", and that "anarchy would reign supreme" were unfounded. The exact opposite happened, and their crime rate went down the toilet. This is proof that an armed society works. Yet again however, the idiot anti-gun advocates still did not concede defeat.

I don't understand the mindset that the antis exhibit, where they actually think that enacting more and more prohibitive gun laws will somehow deter and or reduce crime. The whole meaning of the word crime, or criminal means "operating outside the law", so where does this say that criminals will suddenly abide by a new gun law when they more than likely obtained their weapon through illicit means in the first place?

Thanksfully I live in a state (Penna) where common sense actually does prevail in the halls of justice. Just the other day our infamous gun grabbing ex-mayor of Philly, Governor Ed Rendell testified in Harrisburg on the part of his buddy Mayor John Street that more gun laws need be enacted to stop Philadelphia's burgeoning gun problem and murder rate. I was happy to see lawmakers turn a deaf ear to Rendell's testimony. One lawmaker even went on TV and told it like it is and mentioned how Philadelphia has a drug problem, and its mayor needs to get tougher on crime and enforce existing laws instead of trying get more unenforceable laws enacted that will do absolutely no good whatsover in reducing the crime rate. I'm so glad those morons in Philly were again shot down. I don't know what it is but every time Philly has a problem, their answer is to try to have more ridiculous laws enacted that wind up impacting the whole state rather than helping their own cause. Thankfully again the lawmakers in this state used their heads instead of falling victim to the knee-jerk reactive numbnuts in Philthadelphia. Lets hope the supreme court includes common sense in their decision making on this issue. For if they don't, I can foresee a lot of very upset individuals should this go sour.

[SOTVEN]

Hello Nickathome, I have been trying to find a hardcopy of that research paper I wrote just for referances but no luck. In the past I thought about gun control as well as other enactments that various politicians are trying to pass, and my question was "how can these politicians have no common sence?" Now my belief has changed a lot. They do not lack common sense, but what they do is try to present results to a society that does not care to find out what the problem is. In other words a polititian will do anything to gain votes and ultimately fix his/her ass on the well-paid state chair. Therefore, they will admit and say anything that will further secure that chair. Presenting the guns as the ultimate evil will always have lots of followers, since most people do not care to take time and think what is wrong, rather they say "tooth hurts, chop off head." Bottom line, no polititian will ever be hurt by gun control, since not only they have armed security around them at all times, but I am certain that their majority "packs iron" regardless of the legislation that applies to the rest of us.

[Nickathome]

Hello Nickathome, I have been trying to find a hardcopy of that research paper I wrote just for referances but no luck. In the past I thought about gun control as well as other enactments that various politicians are trying to pass, and my question was "how can these politicians have no common sence?" Now my belief has changed a lot. They do not lack common sense, but what they do is try to present results to a society that does not care to find out what the problem is. In other words a polititian will do anything to gain votes and ultimately fix his/her ass on the well-paid state chair. Therefore, they will admit and say anything that will further secure that chair. Presenting the guns as the ultimate evil will always have lots of followers, since most people do not care to take time and think what is wrong, rather they say "tooth hurts, chop off head." Bottom line, no polititian will ever be hurt by gun control, since not only they have armed security around them at all times, but I am certain that their majority "packs iron" regardless of the legislation that applies to the rest of us.

SOTVEN, I agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying. Politicians can, will, and do say anything to anyone as long as it will get them votes. One organization however, that we have in the U.S. that can put alot of heat on the anti-gun politicians, and rightly so, is the NRA (National Rifle Association). This group can cause alot of pain for the politician who feels he/she is more powerful and go head to head against them. The NRA is one of our best allies in this regard.

[tstephenson]

Guys,
New member here just wanted to put in my dollar. The problem is so much bigger than Gun Control, I will never give mine up, line in the sand and it is firm for sure. But just fighting on one issue is hopeless I am afraid. I work in public schools as a high school teacher I could, and have writen volumes on big government control over the years. I recently went on a tirade about soda pop. Seems the State is now regulating when pops can be consumed on state school property. That is how wild this thing is getting. What the "heck" is the government doing telling us when to drink a pop, my gosh!!!! What is next, who knows if the government actualy think it is their bussness when I can have a pop then nothing is off limits, guns included. This is not what me, my dad, and my son's have fought for I know that. I am not sure what to do next but I do know that giving up our arms is not one of them.
Tim

[Nickathome]

tstephenson;

The recent proposed Mass bill to ban spanking also goes along this line. This is getting to the point of ridiculousness. All I have to say to those in Mass. is they had better watch all the Super Nanny reruns, because sparing the rod(and I am by no means religious) breeds monsters, as has been clearly televised.

[MSeriesRebuild]

tstephenson;

The recent proposed Mass bill to ban spanking also goes along this line. This is getting to the point of ridiculousness. All I have to say to those in Mass. is they had better watch all the Super Nanny reruns, because sparing the rod(and I am by no means religious) breeds monsters, as has been clearly televised.

Have you also noticed that Super Nanny never suggest applying the rod though? When watching some of those shows I think some of her methods are rediculous. We never know how or whether these situations really do get worked out. Oh well, if it were me I'd likely be locked up for using too much rod.

[Nickathome]

I find it funny that if you go to the Super Nanny website and read her bio, you will notice she doesn't even have children. Yet, this person is an "expert" in child rearing/discipline. I guess she has a degree to back it up. What a joke! I simply laugh at all those idiot parents whose kids have come to rule the household. On each episode, Mom and Dad are some incoherent, or self absorbed individual who more than likely shouldn't have had kids in the first place. Super Nanny's methods border on the absurd, and I am sure never work for the long term. Yes, you never see a follow up visit a few months down the road because in all probability the families are probably in the same situation as before SN showed up.

I laugh at those parents who have tried to tell me that using corporal punishment is wrong. Each of these people should look within, as they will see their own kids are disrepectful little monsters, and mine are not. Reason being, I spank and they use "time outs" or "no ipod for a week", type punishments.

I have gotten compliments from total strangers (literally) while out at restaurants from their observations of my kid's well behaved demeanor. Each time I have gotten compliments I always say something like "they better behave or they'll get their asses whacked". In every case I have gotten positive responses from that statement. Noone, or no law is going to tell me how to raise my children, period. There's a big difference between spanking and abuse, if these yuppie modern parents can't differentiate that then they deserve to have monsters for kids. I will not tolerate that. My kids are being raised the same way I was. I turned out OK and so will they.

[N1VSM]

tstephenson;

The recent proposed Mass bill to ban spanking also goes along this line. This is getting to the point of ridiculousness. All I have to say to those in Mass. is they had better watch all the Super Nanny reruns, because sparing the rod(and I am by no means religious) breeds monsters, as has been clearly televised.

As a M*sshole myself , and having been a high school teacher here, I've seen that there is a HUGE gap between laws and law enforcement.

For example, it is *still* illegal to eat peanuts in Church in MA. When was the last time that was enforced?

Also, there is a cell phone ban for drivers in CT (which I fully support), BUT the state troopers have far better things to do with their time than to bust drivers for using the phone.

As for spanking, so many of us are mandatory 51A reporters that if a kid is really getting beaten up at home (not just a paddling) that DSS will be involved in a heartbeat. If you've ever had DSS investigate you, it's like being dissected by aliens. I can't buy the line that abuse is slipping though the system.

Ok, I'll step down now.