Quoted: Quoted: I have a bad feeling based on the way they framed the issue: “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?” Seems to me they answered the question. The right of the individual appears to be assumed.

I read it that **way** too. One can hope right... M-16's the same price or cheaper than AR's...say it ain't so.

As others have said, now it's decision time, and will either free us or totally sink us.
Like the hurricane said to the palm tree- Hang on to your nuts. This ain't no ordinary blow job.

So we can expect a ruling just before the elections?

Hmmm….

-3D

08 will be very interesting indeed.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: oh hell yes! ETA: sounds like a pretty good "framing" too. a pro-ruling to the second amendment "question" posed as they did, could be applied to a lot of our other bans... Yes, and a anti-ruling to the second amendment question could lead to a lot of other bans. This is a very dangerous court case. we've been losing slowly for the last 70 years. without a big SCOTUS decision, we had no hope of ever reversing anything, and were doomed to continue living under mountains of accumulating legislation. it had to be done if we ever wished to take back our rights. This case was inevitable, and the way the 2008 election is looking, this is our last chance.

that's my thinking as well.

Who will argue the pro 2A side?

“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?”

That last bit makes me nervous, what if they say we can indeed have guns, we just can't take them out of our homes?

Quoted: “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?” That last bit makes me nervous, what if they say we can indeed have guns, we just can't take them out of our homes?

i'll be putting a large, underground, addition on to my basement.

www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8T1IL100&show_article=1


Supreme Court Will Hear D.C. Guns Case

Nov 20 02:39 PM US/Eastern
By MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - 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, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. That decision supported the collective rights view, but did not squarely answer the question in the view of many constitutional scholars. 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.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: oh hell yes! ETA: sounds like a pretty good "framing" too. a pro-ruling to the second amendment "question" posed as they did, could be applied to a lot of our other bans... Yes, and a anti-ruling to the second amendment question could lead to a lot of other bans. This is a very dangerous court case. we've been losing slowly for the last 70 years. without a big SCOTUS decision, we had no hope of ever reversing anything, and were doomed to continue living under mountains of accumulating legislation. it had to be done if we ever wished to take back our rights.

We WILL win - the 2nd is an individual right as are the other Amendments.

The Supremes will decide along a narrow line.

Our victory will NOT be absolute.

My guess is that we will win 7-2




5sub

Quoted: Quoted: I'm nervous about this one, SCOTUS often gets it wrong. Still it will be a great victory for us if they get it right! Thats just it.  By definition, they CAN'T get it wrong.  They are the final word and arbiter on any constitutional issue and what they say goes.  The only way to undo it is for a later court to come along and change it.

With all do respect hat's a pretty naive statement. They can and do get it wrong. POTUS can refuse to enforce their ruling, Congress can refuse to provide funds to support their ruling, Congress can pass new laws to negate their ruling, etc etc.

Think "sword & the purse".

Quoted: “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?” That last bit makes me nervous, what if they say we can indeed have guns, we just can't take them out of our homes?

Zero chance of that happening.

Playing Devil's Advocate, what if it doesn't go our way? What if ownership is regulated to a privelage and that the SCOTUS takes a "living document" approach to this matter; stating that with the military, under government control, leaves no need for an armed populace?

Then prepare to see a bunch of old fat men with guns sue the state guard to allow them to join

Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 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?

"individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia" - uh, oh - the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment mentions militias but not the operative clause of the 2nd.  Does one need to be a "member" of a militia to have a 2nd amendment right?  And does it need to be a "state-regulated" militia?  If so, what if the state doesn't have one?  Bam, the Second Amendment is nugatory.

"for private use" - I'd argue that these weapons are available for public use to defend the country and are not merely for private use.  (They are also available to revolt against tyranny, which is a public use as well).  

Quoted: I'm worried as all hell on this.  Who in the hell would have ever thought that the SCOTUS would rule that it's okay for the government to sieze your land on behalf of  developers because a shopping mall is a larger tax base than a single family home?  Personally, I'm very much worried over this, as we all should be.

In that case, they ruled on the law.  Connecticut eminent domain law allowed the City of New London to do what it did and the landowners stuck with a losing case right up to the US Supreme Court.

The US Supreme Court determined that the actions of the city of New London did not violate either the Connecticut state constitution, the laws of Connecticut, or the US Constitution.

Its not their fault Connecticut has bad laws and that the US Consitution is silent on the specifcs of eminent domain..

Quoted: I'm worried as all hell on this.  Who in the hell would have ever thought that the SCOTUS would rule that it's okay for the government to sieze your land on behalf of  developers because a shopping mall is a larger tax base than a single family home?  Personally, I'm very much worried over this, as we all should be.

We all should be worried...

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'm nervous about this one, SCOTUS often gets it wrong. Still it will be a great victory for us if they get it right! Thats just it.  By definition, they CAN'T get it wrong.  They are the final word and arbiter on any constitutional issue and what they say goes.  The only way to undo it is for a later court to come along and change it. With all do respect hat's a pretty naive statement. They can and do get it wrong. POTUS can refuse to enforce their ruling, Congress can refuse to provide funds to support their ruling, Congress can pass new laws to negate their ruling, etc etc. Think "sword & the purse".

Exactly.  The SCOTUS is NOT the final decider of anything except the constutionality of existing law.  They are every bit as co-equal as the other branches, despite popular opinion.

The Bush administration, which has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, has yet to weigh in on this case.

It's about time for Bush to get on board.




5sub

Imagine this scenario for 2008.

1. HR 1955 passes linkage

2. SCOTUS rules against us opening all types of confiscation beginning immediately after. Anyone resisting becomes a terrorist per MR 1955

3. Hitlery wins for POTUS.

4. Chaos and mayhem in the final superpower

It may turn out to be one hell of a final show guys.

Damn, I need a drink.

Quoted: Who has that Shitstorm graphic? Either way one is coming.

+1

I don't like the way they granted the issue.  It sounds like they may very well consider the "collective rights" position.  And I think we may be screwed if they do, because it gives them an out.

F--k, waiting for this ruling is going to be more nerve racking than any election in my lifetime.

This is for all the marbles folks.

A clear win would be the happiest day of my lifetime. No joke.

Quoted: Quoted: Did the Court phrase it that way?  Or did the Media? “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?” Because if the court did, they appear to be prepared to issue a broader ruling than many have expected. That is the way the court phrased it. 07-290 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL. V. HELLER, DICK A. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 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 2nd Amendment does not mention "for private use in their homes" - it only couches the RKBA in the context of "the security of a free state".

So the SCOTUS could very easily answer their own question as "NO - those laws do NOT 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 BECAUSE the 2nd amendment says nothing about "private use in the home".

Remember - he who frames the question wins the debate.

For those concerned about the "in their homes" part, just remember this is more of a "keep arms" case, not a "bear arms" which can be addressed at a later date(ie National CCW). This is addressing the more pressing issue of merely keeping arms, which in case you didn't know its hard to bear things you can't keep.

Quoted: I don't like the way they granted the issue.  It sounds like they may very well consider the "collective rights" position.  And I think we may be screwed if they do, because it gives them an out.

IMHO, will be (and Is) an individual right.


There's just no cover left for the liberal position on this issue.  The EXTREMELY LIBERAL Harvard Professors  Laurence Tribe and Alan Durschwitz (sp ??) have both moved to an 'individual right' position on this issue.




5sub

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Did the Court phrase it that way?  Or did the Media? “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?” Because if the court did, they appear to be prepared to issue a broader ruling than many have expected. That is the way the court phrased it. 07-290 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL. V. HELLER, DICK A. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 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 2nd Amendment does not mention "for private use in their homes" - it only couches the RKBA in the context of "the security of a free state". So the SCOTUS could very easily answer their own question as "NO - those laws do NOT 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 BECAUSE the 2nd amendment says nothing about "private use in the home". Remember - he who frames the question wins the debate.

a "no" for the question phrased as-is though, would seem to take a pretty big swipe at self-defense as a whole [ETA: since most weapon usage "in the home" is done to protect ones self].

This is not going to have the effect most of us are hoping for. One of 2 things will happen ; either we will lose , or they will come out with some sort of gobltygook convoluted response that will keep the status quo .

Quoted: I don't like the way they granted the issue.  It sounds like they may very well consider the "collective rights" position.  And I think we may be screwed if they do, because it gives them an out.

That's what I think.

But as a pessimist, I can't lose, either I am right, or pleasantly suprised.

I would rather be suprised on this one.

TXL

Quoted: The Bush administration, which has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, has yet to weigh in on this case. It's about time for Bush to get on board. 5sub

Amicus Curiae filings will be coming in by the metric ton on this one

Quoted: LET'S GET READY TO RUUUUMMMMBLLLLLEEEE!!!

I'm afraid the rumble might be the bad kind if they rule against our right to KABA.

The best I'm hoping for, realistically, is for them to strike down wholesale bans.

All the rest of the bullshit gun laws will remain on the books.

John

Quoted: This is not going to have the effect most of us are hoping for. One of 2 things will happen ; either we will lose , or they will come out with some sort of gobltygook convoluted response that will keep the status quo .

ding ding ding winner
The SC has a history of this

Quoted: Here is the way the Court phrased the granted issue: “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?”

THIS is the phrase that concerns me...

Quoted: There is that nagging doubt that SCOTUS will get this wrong.

That would be the point at which we would have to make a choice... are we a free people still living under the Constitution that the Founding fathers gave us?  Or are we now a nation of serfs and consumers who exist solely to enrich and aggrandize the "elite"?

It's about time!

Quoted: Quoted: The Bush administration, which has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, has yet to weigh in on this case. It's about time for Bush to get on board. 5sub Amicus Curiae filings will be coming in by the metric ton on this one

With all the states that have already filed them, this should be an automatic incorporation.....

TXL

Quoted: “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?” That last bit makes me nervous, what if they say we can indeed have guns, we just can't take them out of our homes?

That is not the issue in this case.  They are only answering this question, and very narrowly.  Constitutional cases are decided along very narrow lines.

We would have been WAY better off if they refused to hear the case, sending it back. This could be a real setback. It would be nice if the 2nd had a period between the militia and the right of the poeple.

tag

Quoted: Quoted: I don't like the way they granted the issue.  It sounds like they may very well consider the "collective rights" position.  And I think we may be screwed if they do, because it gives them an out. IMHO, will be (and Is) an individual right. There's just no cover left for the liberal position on this issue.  The EXTREMELY LIBERAL Harvard Professors  Laurence Tribe and Alan Durschwitz (sp ??) have both moved to an 'individual right' position on this issue. 5sub

Except that SCOTUS rulings over the past 40 or 50 years have had more to do with the justices' perception of what they think would be good for society than what the law is.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Did the Court phrase it that way?  Or did the Media? “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?” Because if the court did, they appear to be prepared to issue a broader ruling than many have expected. That is the way the court phrased it. 07-290 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL. V. HELLER, DICK A. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 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 2nd Amendment does not mention "for private use in their homes" - it only couches the RKBA in the context of "the security of a free state". So the SCOTUS could very easily answer their own question as "NO - those laws do NOT 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 BECAUSE the 2nd amendment says nothing about "private use in the home". Remember - he who frames the question wins the debate.

This question was framed exactly how we wanted it.  The DC laws say you can't keep the guns in your home, and they are answering whether the laws that say you can't keep guns in your home are constitutional.  That is the only question they will answer, and along the way they will have to determine if there is an individual right or not.

Start praying, Mac, this is going our way so far.

Quoted: This is not going to have the effect most of us are hoping for. One of 2 things will happen ; either we will lose , or they will come out with some sort of gobltygook convoluted response that will keep the status quo .

This is what I see too.   I don't expect them to say anything other than something to keep everything the same as it is today....which still might be somewhat of a win for us, as it might prevent further erosion, but there will be no restoration.....count on it.

We are either going to win huge, or lose huge.  Get ready for the ride . . .

Quoted: That would be the point at which we would have to make a choice... are we a free people still living under the Constitution that the Founding fathers gave us? Or are we now a nation of serfs and consumers who exist solely to enrich and aggrandize the "elite"?

I see a lot more walmarts and loan originators around than I do real freedoms. I'm going to have to say we are the latter, by and large. Too comfortable to fight so long as pizza places still deliver and cable & the internet are still running. The rare proponents of freedom will be demonized & neutralized via coercion between the media, the ruling class, and their stormtroopers

Quoted: This is not going to have the effect most of us are hoping for. One of 2 things will happen ; either we will lose , or they will come out with some sort of gobltygook convoluted response that will keep the status quo .

But the "status quo" being kept will reinvigorate the gun-grabbers... there will be nothing to stop a wave of anti-gun legislation from sweeping the nation under the pretense that "SCOTUS has decided that gun nuts cannot keep whatever guns they want... society can control them!  And we want to control CCW, assault rifles, sniper rifles, high-capacity magazines, guns that are too big, guns that are too small, guns that are too powerful..."  Sure, some states will resist.  But many like CA, NJ, IL, etc. will be swept under.  And once gun control "succeeds" here, it'll be coming to your state next.

This case is going to decide the future course of American history.  It will, quite literally, decide if freedom is a God-given, inalienable right... or a status that is defined by the government according to the necessities of the day.

Quoted: Quoted: I don't like the way they granted the issue.  It sounds like they may very well consider the "collective rights" position.  And I think we may be screwed if they do, because it gives them an out. That's what I think. But as a pessimist, I can't lose, either I am right, or pleasantly suprised. I would rather be suprised on this one. TXL

I agree. I hope it goes in our favor, but I have very little faith in this court. We have 2 known conservatives, 2 probable conservatives and 5 liberals. This could easily go very wrong for us. I hope it doesn't.

Quoted: I'm worried as all hell on this.  Who in the hell would have ever thought that the SCOTUS would rule that it's okay for the government to sieze your land on behalf of  developers because a shopping mall is a larger tax base than a single family home?  Personally, I'm very much worried over this, as we all should be.

EXACTLY.

I bet they rule the 2nd amendment only applies to individuals who are part of the state regulated militia...(National Guard)

They are already setting us up by the simple phrasing of the question. Just look at how they worded it...

Quoted: Quoted: Playing Devil's Advocate, what if it doesn't go our way? What if ownership is regulated to a privelage and that the SCOTUS takes a "living document approach to this matter, saying that with the military under government control then there is no need for an armed populace?   I hope you people realize that before there was ever a standing military, when the government served the people, at the time when the Constitution was written; the armed populace was the militia. As such the bounds of the Second Amendment, that we are the militia, may require upholding the Constitution of the United States. The only problem with that argument is the Militia Act of 1903 clearly defines what the militia is: # The organized militia created by the Militia Act of 1903, which split from the 1792 Uniform Militia forces, and consist of State and Federal militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia. # The reserve militia or unorganized militia, also created by the Militia Act of 1903 which presently consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia. (that is, anyone who would be eligible for the draft)

The Founding Father's also were very much against having a standing Army.  They only found it necessary later on so America could have some muscle to back up our diplomatic and expansion efforts following the Revolution.  The current Army/National Guard argument flies in the face of the founders fears.  If the military are the only ones who have guns, how do the people take back the government (as stated in the Declaration of Independence), if the government becomes tyrannical and uses the military to oppress the people?  

2 Things bother be:

#1: Quote from Heller:

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."

He's conceding the ability to regulate firearms possession before walking in the door.

#2: Definition of Regulated:

“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 definition of "regulated" at the time of the drafting of the 2nd Amendment was different than it is now.  At that time, it meant disciplined and trained.  Only more recently has it come to be defined as controlled by laws and restrictions.  

There are tons of quotes from the founders where they use the term "regulated" to refer to "good" soldiers, not "lawful" soldiers.

I was hoping this issue would play a much bigger role in the framing of the question.