Supreme Court agrees to hear Heller

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Supreme Court agrees to hear Heller (Page 1 of 11)

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:19:07 AM EDT

From scotusblog:

Court agrees to rule on gun case

Tuesday, November 20th, 2007 1:02 pm After a hiatus of 68 years, the Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to rule on the meaning of the Second Amendment — the hotly contested part of the Constitution that guarantees “a right to keep and bear arms.” Not since 1939 has the Court heard a case directly testing the Amendment’s scope — and there is a debate about whether it actually decided anything in that earlier ruling. In a sense, the Court may well be writing on a clean slate if it, in the end, decides the ultimate question: does the Second Amendment guarantee an individual right to have a gun for private use, or does it only guarantee a collective right to have guns in an organized military force such as a state National Guard unit?

The city of Washington’s appeal (District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290) is expected to be heard in March — slightly more than a year after the D.C. Circuit Court ruled that the right is a personal one, at least to have a gun for self-defense in one’s own home.

The Justices chose to write out for themselves the question(s) they will undertake to answer. Both sides had urged the Court to hear the city’s case, but they had disagreed over how to frame the Second Amendment issue.

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?”

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:19:44 AM EDT

[#1]

LET'S GET READY TO RUUUUMMMMBLLLLLEEEE!!!

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:20:48 AM EDT

[#2]

Get ready guys, 2008 looks like it is going to be one hell of a ride.....

Let's hope for the best.

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:20:52 AM EDT

[#3]

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...

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:21:33 AM EDT

[#4]

This will be a hell of a year won't it?

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:21:57 AM EDT

[#5]

It's go time.

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:22:10 AM EDT

[#6]

Part of me is overjoyed and expectant this will go in the favor of the individual right to own firearms.

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

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:22:13 AM EDT

[#7]

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.

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:22:18 AM EDT

[#8]

Just heard the news on Rush and came here to post--very interesting!

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:22:33 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
This will be a hell of a year won't it?

Indeed.

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:23:22 AM EDT

[#10]

This will be interesting

It will be just as interesting to hear the liberal media slant on this leading up to the case.

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:23:37 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Did the Court phrase it that way?

“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 they did, they appear to be prepared to issue a broader ruling than many have expected.

I agree.

I think this will be the foundation upon which we can challenge other laws that it will not directly address - like the ridiculous "may issue" CCW rules in my state.

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:23:59 AM EDT

[#12]

I am a little nervous now... I hope this goes the right way.

Original document for granting certiorari is here:

www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/1120-orders.pdf

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:24:08 AM EDT

[#13]

“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,

Keypoint is that they acknowledge the underlying assumption that the 2nd Amendment protects the INDIVIDUAL'S right to keep and bear arms.

Now it's just a matter of whether or not that DC law violates the "rights of INDIVIDUALS" to keep and bear arms.

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:24:24 AM EDT

[#14]

w00t!!

I have a very good feeling about this.

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:25:15 AM EDT

[#15]

Got ~~Ammo~~ milk?

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:26:18 AM EDT

[#16]

“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?”

It gets better each time I read it!

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:26:46 AM EDT

[#17]

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:27:12 AM EDT

[#18]

I'm not a betting man, but I'd be willing to bet on this one.

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:27:34 AM EDT

[#19]

It looks like this will be the case that decides it all. If the court rule in our favor then the gun control people will be routed. But, if they rule against us, then we will be on the defensive for a long time.

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:27:57 AM EDT

[#20]

This will either make us, or really sink us!

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:27:58 AM EDT

[#21]

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:29:23 AM EDT

[#22]

imagine a world in which anti-gun politicians mean nothing...

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:30:08 AM EDT

[#23]

I don't know what it is, but when I read it the first time I got a sinking feeling in my stomach.

I really, really hope they get this one right.

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:30:17 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
w00t!!

I have a very good feeling about this.

I do too.

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:30:56 AM EDT

[#25]

Don't count your chickens just yet.

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:32:56 AM EDT

[#26]

WOOHOO!!!! This is the best chance we have to settle this once and for all!!!

ETA: All your page 2 are belong to me!

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:33:20 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:
w00t!!

I have a very good feeling about this.

I do too.

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?”

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:33:46 AM EDT

[#28]

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!

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:34:12 AM EDT

[#29]

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?

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.

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:34:30 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:
w00t!!

I have a very good feeling about this.

I do too.

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?”

Leaves them open to still say, "Well, we aren't a state, so fuck off."

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:34:38 AM EDT

[#31]

No wthat they will hear it, how long does this take? When can we reasonably expect a decision?

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:34:52 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

imagine a world in which anti-gun politicians mean nothing...

You're such a tease!

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:35:24 AM EDT

[#33]

Is it wrong to hope that one ( or more ) of the leftists on the Court ---- uhm --er goes away?

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:36:01 AM EDT

[#34]

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)

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:36:02 AM EDT

[#35]

Who has that Shitstorm graphic?

Either way one is coming.

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:36:27 AM EDT

[#36]

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.

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:36:50 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Who has that Shitstorm graphic?

Either way one is coming.

There won't be a ruling on this for MONTHS. What is the ETA?

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:36:51 AM EDT

[#38]

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.

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:36:53 AM EDT

[#39]

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; stating that with the military, under government control, leaves 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.

Since the majority of federal courts and several state courts already hold that it is a collective right, a decision against us won't change very much.

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:37:31 AM EDT

[#40]

<Flounder> Oh boy, this is gonna be great!<Flounder>

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:38:06 AM EDT

[#41]

Great!

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:38:06 AM EDT

[#42]

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?

From here: www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/1120-orders.pdf

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:38:25 AM EDT

[#43]

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; stating that with the military, under government control, leaves 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.

Since the majority of federal courts and several state courts already hold that it is a collective right, a decision against us won't change very much.

Yup, it will fall back to state constitutions and what they say about firearms (which is mostly what drives policy now). The Federal government already ignores the 2A as irrelevant.

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:39:09 AM EDT

[#44]

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.

Yes it is, but I think this is probably the best chance we will have to get ANY ruling. If it turns out badly, it will just accelerate our already precarious plummet. If it turns out well, then we have a clear win. Do or die, that is for sure.

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:39:23 AM EDT

[#45]

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.

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:41:14 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

Quoted:
w00t!!

I have a very good feeling about this.

I do too.

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?”

Leaves them open to still say, "Well, we aren't a state, so fuck off."

I disagree.

This framing is PERFECT for our cause.

This is looking good, gentlemen.

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:41:41 AM EDT

[#47]

Still I am concerned about this. This is all the money riding on one bet. My fear is that the Scotus may go from some watered down neutral approach that tries to please everyone and instead pleases no one and creates a legal limbo. Hey it has happened before. The real question is, how fiesty is this court? Are these learned judges willing to make hard decisions, or do they have feet of clay. Worse the scotus is capable of making poor decisions, such as the manifest destiny decision.

I wish that they had just let it stand. That would have been grounds enough to overturn much of the firearms limitations flying around this country. Now its all or nothing. Start rubbing the worry beads.

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:41:44 AM EDT

[#48]

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.

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:42:16 AM EDT

[#49]

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.

Posted: 11/20/2007 9:43:36 AM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
From scotusblog:

Court agrees to rule on gun case

Tuesday, November 20th, 2007 1:02 pm After a hiatus of 68 years, the Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to rule on the meaning of the Second Amendment — the hotly contested part of the Constitution that guarantees “a right to keep and bear arms.” Not since 1939 has the Court heard a case directly testing the Amendment’s scope — and there is a debate about whether it actually decided anything in that earlier ruling. In a sense, the Court may well be writing on a clean slate if it, in the end, decides the ultimate question: does the Second Amendment guarantee an individual right to have a gun for private use, or does it only guarantee a collective right to have guns in an organized military force such as a state National Guard unit?

The city of Washington’s appeal (District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290) is expected to be heard in March — slightly more than a year after the D.C. Circuit Court ruled that the right is a personal one, at least to have a gun for self-defense in one’s own home.

The Justices chose to write out for themselves the question(s) they will undertake to answer. Both sides had urged the Court to hear the city’s case, but they had disagreed over how to frame the Second Amendment issue.

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?”

I'm just thrilled that I was alive to see this day.

5sub

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Supreme Court agrees to hear Heller (Page 1 of 11)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us