May 8, 2007
D.C. Gun Laws Likely Headed to Supreme Court
When in early March the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the District's restrictive gun laws were unconstitutional, over 70 years of legal thinking on the Second Amendement was upended and the nationwide debate over gun control was given new life. And with another decision by the court today, it looks like the matter will be settled by the Supreme Court.
We've just learned that this morning the Court of Appeals denied the District's request for a new hearing before the full court, effectively pushing the case, Parker vs. District of Columbia, to the Supreme Court. The case, originally presented by six District residents, argued that the city's gun laws, which date back to 1976 and forbid the ownership of handguns, unconstitutionally limited the residents' Second Amendment rights.
Until this case was decided, many legal experts and courts had adopted an interpretation of the Second Amendment indicating that gun ownership was a collective right, but the new ruling disagreed, declaring that it was an individual right that could not be subjected to blanket prohibitions. The New York Times reported on Sunday that a number of prominent legal scholars, including liberal thinkers, have come to believe that the Founding Fathers intended gun ownership to be a matter of personal, not collective choice. The last time the Supreme Court dealt with a Second Amendment case of this scope was in 1939.
UPDATE: You can read more about the Court's refusal to rehear en banc a test case on the validity of the law over at SCOTUSblog.
|
If you check out DC's legal argument, it's rather alarming for all the voting rights/make us a state folks: DC argues that we're not a state, we're completely a federal construct, and, as such, the 2d Amendment doesn't apply to us.
Some good language from the Supreme Court striking down this ludicrous law could actually help in the voting rights and statehood debate.
I'm waiting for the 4th through 8th Amendments to stop applying so we can clean up the other 2/3rds of this city via police-state action. Everyone ditch their Uggs and Chucks and get out your jackboots!
Bobby D: While that aspect of DC's arguments is ridiculous, I do not believe it would help much in the voting rights debate, as it is not a major legal issue in the case.
You make a good point, Politburo.
Stating the Obvious, you are obviously a fu**ing idiot.
I can't say I support the "we're not a state" argument. In my mind, the "well-regulated Militia" language is a better argument, especially for the notion that the right to bear arms is a collective right - if a citizen militia (i.e. non-regular troops) isn't necessary for our collective defense, then the right to bear arms isn't absolute. Just my .02.
hey was up yall suck
Bobby D.:
I thought about changing my name to "Missing the obvious", but that would be redundant.
While we're at it, let's tell the feds to send our "well-regulated Militia," the National Guard, back from Iraq. The Guard will put our collectively-owned firearms back in the Armory and everyone will be happy. Right?
Wow. For 130 years no one questioned that it was an individual right. Then, about 70 years ago, the new-fangled "collective right" theory started growing, much like a cancer. It's good to see that at least one group of judges can read....
I kinda wonder how many other Amendments are collective rather than individual rights. How about the 1st Amendment? Are religion, speech, petition, and peacable assembly just collective rights with no individual counterpart? Does one guy with a blog count as "the press" or one jerk with a cult "a religion?"
It's kinda comforting to know that no matter where I go, "stupid legislation" and "DC Government" will always go together like chicken wings and mambo sauce. I never really cared for mambo sauce though. I like my wings straight up. If I wanted rancid coughsyrup, I'd get the codeine stuff outta my meth lab. But I don't know if I'm ready for a DC where anyone can own a gun. It just doesn't seem right, like residents having voting representation or people standing to the right on the Metro escalator, or actually washing their ass instead of slapping their junk with Hai Karate and thinking that kills the funk. But if Bootsy Collins has taught us anything, it's that you can't kill the funk. I know there's a point here somewhere, and it's probably under my hat, but I have yet to meet a problem that couldn't be fixed with a sidewalk full of hot brass, or at least made more entertaining.
Appeal to the Supreme Court isn't a matter of right. In recent years they've waited for a solid circuit split before granting cert. Not sure if this is really a big enough deal to assume they give a shit at this point.
I don't give a rat's behind what the USSC rules. If they want any weapon of mine, they're going to have to come and take them.
Look at it this way.Repeat the following sentence.Most of the black jelly beans,although I like the red one's most of all,were lying on the bottom of the jar.
Notice how the part about liking the red ones is just an after thought?That is how the part of the second amendment about militias should be read because that is how it is written.The original founding fathers left plenty of thoughts on paper regarding how they felt about this subject and it has nothing to do with militias or state rights or federal rights.
In fact states and the feds have no rights,at least none granted by The Bill of Rights,anyways.The Constitution grants no rights either.Instead what it does is provide a safeguard against the governments taking away rights that you naturally have(unalienable) just for being a living,breathing human being.
Also,the Bill of Rights refers to "We the People" and not "We the States" or "We the Federal Government" and in fact the 9th Amendment clarifies this.
In addition this article is wrong where it states;"Until this case was decided, many legal experts and courts had adopted an interpretation of the Second Amendment indicating that gun ownership was a collective right."
Actually that isn't rue.People like The Brady Center and their ilk have been touting that lie for years now.If one actually takes a close look at many of these case one finds that it just isn't so.For instance U.S. vs. Miller is one example.Infact,if i'm not mistaken,this is the first example of anyone trying to push the "second means militia" theory in court.
Anyhow,when this case was filed the prosecutor just assumed that the second meant militia in the wording of one of it's arguements even though no court had ever ruled to that ends.
Truth is the whole case wasn't about the Second amendment anyways but rather about police power abuse vs. money making,interstate commerce,etc,....
In reality not much was actually decided one way or another in U.S. vs. Miller.Fundamental issues related to the case were never truly decided because the Supreme Court remanded the case to the federal district court "for further proceedings" which never took place Also,by the time of the Supreme Court decision,Miller had been killed and Layton made a plea bargain after the decision was handed down bso there were no claimants left to continue legal proceedings.
Monkeyerotica said;"But I don't know if I'm ready for a DC where anyone can own a gun."
Monkeyerotica,you already live in a D.C. where anyone can own a gun.The thing is that most law abiding citizens just don't because they don't wanna break the law.That only leaves crooks with guns.Roughly 90% or higher of guns used in crimes are stolen.Also,there are over 200 million guns in this country.Only 4/1000 of one percent of them were used in crimes last year.