Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Challenge to DC Gun Ban

[brien]

CNSNews.com -- News This Hour


By Melanie Hunter
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
November 20, 2007
03:04 pm


Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Challenge to DC Gun Ban

(CNSNews.com) - The U.S. Supreme Court announced on Tuesday that it will decide whether the ban on owning guns in the District of Columbia is constitutional, a pivotal case that could determine if the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the right to own firearms. At issue is a 31-year-old Washington, D.C., law banning handguns and requiring that all shotguns and rifles be kept unloaded and either trigger-locked or disassembled at all times. There is no exception for self-defense. "The Bill of Rights does not end at the District of Columbia's borders, and it includes the right to keep and bear arms," said Alan Gura, lead counsel for the plaintiffs in Heller v. District of Columbia

So, here it is, the one we have anticipated since Parker vs District of Columbia

Full story:
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Challenge to DC Gun Ban -- 11/20/2007

The Supreme Court has not heard a Second Amendment case since 1939, when it issued a confusing and inconclusive decision in a case involving the interstate transportation of a sawed-off shotgun.

snip>

Heller promises to be among the most closely watched constitutional law cases in decades. At stake is not just the question of whether people have a constitutional right to own guns, but also the court's willingness to stand up for rights that are expressed in the Constitution, even when those rights are strongly opposed by a vocal minority.

The time has finally come to settle this matter.

[Sonart]

.

What... one thread on the exact same subject wasn't sufficient, brien?

Arguments scheduled for March, 08


.

[brien]

Quote by: Sonart . What... one thread on the exact same subject wasn't sufficient, brien? Arguments scheduled for March, 08 .

Just wanted those who didn't visit the other thread to know yesterday when this news broke.

[Whatssnew]

"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." Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Quote form Second Amendment

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the District of Columbia can ban handguns, a case that could produce the most in-depth examination of the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" in nearly 70 years. The justices' decision to hear the case could make the divisive debate over guns an issue in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections. The government of Washington, D.C., is asking the court to uphold its 31-year ban on handgun ownership in the face of a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban as incompatible with the Second Amendment. Tuesday's announcement was widely expected, especially after both the District and the man who challenged the handgun ban asked for the high court review. The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment of the Constitution protects an individual's right to own guns or instead merely sets forth the collective right of states to maintain militias. The former interpretation would permit fewer restrictions on gun ownership. Gun-control advocates say the Second amendment was intended to insure that states could maintain militias, a response to 18th century fears of an all-powerful national government. Gun rights proponents contend the amendment gives individuals the right to keep guns for private uses, including self-defense. Alan Gura, a lawyer for the D.C. residents who challenged the ban, said he was pleased that the justices were considering the case. "We believe the Supreme Court will acknowledge that, while the use of guns can be regulated, a complete prohibition on all functional firearms is too extreme," Gura said. "It's time to end this unconstitutional disaster. It's time to restore a basic freedom to all Washington residents." Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the Supreme Court should "reverse a clearly erroneous decision and make it clear that the Constitution does not prevent communities from having the gun laws they believe are needed to protect public safety." The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, when the court ruled that a sawed-off shotgun was not a weapon that would be used in a militia. Chief Justice John Roberts said at his confirmation hearing that the correct reading of the Second Amendment was "still very much an open issue." The Second Amendment reads: "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." Washington banned handguns in 1976, saying it was designed to reduce violent crime in the nation's capital. The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because "handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia." The District is making several arguments in defense of the restriction, including claiming that the Second Amendment involves militia service. It also said the ban is constitutional because it limits the choice of firearms, but does not prohibit residents from owning any guns at all. Rifles and shotguns are legal, if kept under lock or disassembled. Businesses may have guns for protection. Chicago has a similar handgun ban, but few other gun-control laws are as strict as the District's. Four states — Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New York — urged the Supreme Court to take the case because broad application of the appeals court ruling would threaten "all federal and state laws restricting access to firearms." Dick Anthony Heller, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at home for protection. The laws in question in the case do not "merely regulate the possession of firearms," Heller said. Instead, they "amount to a complete prohibition of the possession of all functional firearms within the home." If the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to have guns, "the laws must yield," he said. Opponents say the ban plainly has not worked because guns still are readily available, through legal and illegal means. Although the city's homicide rate has declined dramatically since peaking in the early 1990s, Washington still ranks among the nation's highest murder cities, with 169 killings in 2006. The U.S. Court Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 for Heller in March. Judge Laurence Silberman said reasonable regulations still could be permitted, but said the ban went too far. The Bush administration, which has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, has yet to weigh in on this case. Arguments will be heard early next year. The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.

Quote form Fox News

I am worried that if we allow the Second Amendment to be over ridden just once, especialy by the Suprem Court, then it could lead to its ultimate demise. The main thought I have on the issue is if you out-law guns what happens? Only the law abiding citzens give them up. And as a result crime will sky rocket because of the inability of people to defend themselves. Personaly I do not have a gun, but if they try to pass a law I will go out and buy one. Then they can pry it from my cold dead hands. And I would be in favor of using them against those who try to take them from you in an anti-constituional fassion. Our rights our worth fighting for.

[Nemiroff]

Amen to that, you're absolutely right....

although i doubt that last part about using them on those who try to take them from you.....they have ALOT more guns, and they can use them ALOT better then you most likely can...so i dont think thats a good idea, for your sake

[tivodan1116]

NEWSFLASH: Volconvo has a Search function that tells you if there are already threads started on a particular topic, like this one right here:

U.S. justices could decide constitutionality of gun ownership

[Whatssnew]

If a person is being attacked and kills there attacker in the process of self defence you will most likely be found in the right for defending your rights from being violated. Just the same the send amendment clearly states that state as well as people have the right to bear arms. And if some polotician thinks for a minute I am willing to bow down to there wishes, and allow them to violate my rights I will fight for them, violantly if nessisary. And if I am out matched I will not care, though I will try not to be foolish in the way I fight for my rights. A person who will not fight for the rights that are given to us by the constitution is not worth of its protection. No offence intended.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: tivodan1116 NEWSFLASH: Volconvo has a Search function that tells you if there are already threads started on a particular topic, like this one right here: U.S. justices could decide constitutionality of gun ownership

Although, to be fair, the search function is not what it once was.


I get nothing but grief from that thing, particularly since I had the audacity to make a post like that, recommending it.

[xyzer]

This latest attempt at judicial interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is another attempt to change the constitution without using the amendment process. Gun control advocates know they couldn't win in a popular referendum.
ISTM there is a need only to control gun ownership and/or record ownership and ballistics characteristics.
In this case the guy who brought the action uses a gun at work and yet is forbidden from keeping one at home? The records show that where gun ownership is permitted gun related crimes drop.

If we can 'gin' up a right to privacy for taking life(abortion) why can't we gin up the right of privacy for a method of saving life?)gun ownership)