Here we go!

[stevie_d_64]

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/a ... ndmen.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monday, July 16, 2007
Second Amendment case headed to Court
Posted by Lyle Denniston at 10:57 AM

UPDATE Tuesday a.m. Attorneys for the D.C. citizens who challenged the local handgun control law said Tuesday they will join in urging the Supreme Court to hear the city's appeal. They will oppose an extension of time to file the city's petition, however.

Local government officials in Washington, D.C., announced Monday they will appeal to the Supreme Court in a major test case on the meaning of the Second Amendment. The key issue in the coming petition will be whether the Amendment protects an individual right to have guns in one's home -- an issue on which there is now a clear conflict among federal Circuit Courts. The city will be defending the constitutionality of a local handgun control law that is regarded as the strictest in the nation.

The petition would have been due Aug. 7, but city officials said Monday that they would ask Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., for a 30-day extension of time to file the case. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty and city Attorney General Linda Singer disclosed the appeal plan at a press conference, along with local Police Chief Cathy Lanier. (A news release announcing the action can be found here ) The Mayor said: "We have made the determination that this law can and should be defended and we are willing to take our case to the highest court in the land to protect the city's residents. Our handgun law has saved countless lives -- keeping guns out of the hands of those who would hurt others or themselves."

The D.C. Circuit Court ruled on March 9 that the Second Amendment does guarantee an individual right to possess a gun -- at least within one's own home. The ruling was the first by a federal appeals court to strike down a gun control law based on that view of the Amendment's reach. The case is Parker, et al., v. District of Columbia (Circuit docket 04-7041). On May 8, the Circuit Court refused by a 6-4 vote to rehear the case en banc. The mandate is scheduled to be issued Aug. 7, but will be withheld after the city files its Supreme Court petition. Thus, the existing gun law would remain in effect temporarily.

In an earlier filling in the D.C. Circuit, city officials said their appeal to the Supreme Court would present some variation of these questions: "(1) whether the panel majority's decision conflicts with the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), as Judge [Karen LeCraft] Henderson concluded in dissenting from the panel majority's decision; (2) whether the Second Amendment protects firearms possession or use that is not associated with service in a State militia; (3) whether the Amendment applies differently to the District because of its constitutional status, as Judge Henderson also concluded; and (4) whether the challenged laws represent reasonable regulation of whatever rights the Amendment protects." The city noted that the panel had acknowledged that its ruling conflicts with decisions "of most other federal courts of appeals, many State courts, and the highest local court in this jurisdiction, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals."

The Circuit Court majority found that one of the six Washington residents who filed the challenge to the local gun control law had a right to bring the lawsuit. That individual is Dick Anthony Heller, a special police officer who works at the Federal Judicial Center (home of the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts) near Capitol Hill in Washington. He is licensed to carry a handgun on his job, but he applied for permission to have a pistol in his home; he was denied a license under the local law. Heller has said in court papers that he lives in a high-crime neighborhood in the city.

Heller, according to the Circuit Court, had standing to sue to challenge the gun registration provisions of the local law, as well as the clause that bars anyone from carrying a pistol without a license and a provision requiring all owners of licensed guns to keep them disassembled or with a trigger lock engaged when not in use.

The D.C. law has been in effect for nearly 31 years -- since September 1976. The lawsuit to strike it down was filed in February 2003.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like I've said in the past, the U.S. Supreme Court is not a lock for us...

But...If there was ever a time to at least try this...This may be our best opportunity...

If it is determined by the court that the 2nd Amendment is a "fundamental" right...Its over...And its going to be a very, very hard road to hoe for a long time to get it back to it being ruled as an "individual" right...

If it is anything less than an individual right...We are going to see bans, restrictions, infringements, and confiscations from here to Christmas...We thought the OSHA thing was bad...Whoa nellie...

More important to me (and what I vehemently believe) is that it be opinioned as an "inalienable" right...There is no higher authority or moral stance that this right has than that definition...

[Flatland2D]

Being that the question was specific to the 2nd amendment ("A well regulated militia...") I voted for individual right as it says the "right of the People". If it were gun ownership in general I may have voted differently.

I don't think it will be upheld in Supreme Court. But, it's such a dangerous area to go to I would still worry. I don't think there are enough anit-gun activist justices that would make a ruling taking guns out of the homes in America.

[stevie_d_64]

I would extend a very open and reasonable invitation for the two folks so far whom have voted in the Fundamental column...

I honestly would love to see the basis for that idea...

I believe I'm pretty clear about my position, and I could go on and on about it...

I would be very interested in hearing from you...PM's are fine...I will keep that discussion private...

[stroo]

You do realize that the answer could be a. b. and c? Those are not necessarily competing answers.

[longtooth]

Definately agree w/ stroo as long as it is in the correct order.
C, (B & A).

[carlson1]

Definately agree w/ stroo as long as it is in the correct order.
C, (B & A).

[stevie_d_64]

I agree with you guys...

I've done some studying, and the inalienable or moral basis (I believe) for the Amendment has launched me to a very personal revelation about when a person figures out that having the ability to protect life, by possibly (as bad as it sounds) taking (see next sentence) a life, is nearly the ultimate way of valueing life in general...

A criminal sometimes do not have the same compulsions, or reservations about respecting life...

Does this make "their" life less valuable??? Certainly not...But...

I seriously doubt anyone in these forums desires to arbitrarily, or even having to be forced to take a life...

I believe we go out of our way to not be placed into situations where this may happen...

But this is just my opinion...

[chewy555]

Definately agree w/ stroo as long as it is in the correct order.
C, (B & A).

[seamusTX]

I chose C.

Self-defense is the fundamental right of every living thing. Some plants can defend themselves. Even an atheist can recognize that self-defense is necessary to the continuation of life.

- Jim

[jhutto]

My .02 (obviously not legal advice etc...)


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
-Declaration of Independence.

"The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution"
-The bill of rights

The goverment exists ONLY to protect our rights.
I believe any and all "gun control" laws are unconstitutional.
The Citizens of the United States of America are protected from the people, the state, and the central goverment concerning any regulation of posession of firearms. IE their Rights <SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED>

Any other "interpretation" is bull

[phddan]

Amendment II

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.


"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

How much clearer can it be??

Dan

[srothstein]

I have to agree that A, B, and C are all true. I just disagree that there is any order to it. All three are equally true and true at the exact same time.

The only thing I can think of to explain why we are disagreeing about this is that we may not be understanding the terms in the same way.

An inalienable right is created for us by our very existence. It can be an individual right or a group right. In this case, I believe it is an inalienable right that was created when the individual came into existence, so it is an individual inalienable right.

I see fundamental rights as those which are basic to existence. In other words, they are also inalienable by definition. Because they are so basic to our very existence, the government must show a very pressing need for any restriction on these whatsoever. I agree with what was posted about self-defense, it is fundamental to life itself. As such, the Second Amendment is a fundamental right, and individual right, and an inalienable right all at once and with equal priority.

[stevie_d_64]

I have to agree that A, B, and C are all true. I just disagree that there is any order to it. All three are equally true and true at the exact same time.

The only thing I can think of to explain why we are disagreeing about this is that we may not be understanding the terms in the same way.

An inalienable right is created for us by our very existence. It can be an individual right or a group right. In this case, I believe it is an inalienable right that was created when the individual came into existence, so it is an individual inalienable right.

I see fundamental rights as those which are basic to existence. In other words, they are also inalienable by definition. Because they are so basic to our very existence, the government must show a very pressing need for any restriction on these whatsoever. I agree with what was posted about self-defense, it is fundamental to life itself. As such, the Second Amendment is a fundamental right, and individual right, and an inalienable right all at once and with equal priority.

In my opinion a "fundamental" condition, as you state very well, as basic to "existence" is a grerat point...But, defining a "moral" right to self-defense (when you add this to the equation) is allowing an entity (government) to "regulate the conditions" of that existence...

I would not want to continue giving our government the long leash to continue telling me, or any of you, "how" and with what we choose to do about defending ourselves...

I would also clarify that I believe there is a clear distinction between what we all agree is an "individual" right, and an amplifying term called the "inalienable" right...

Individual right being one that is based upon the rule of law, and not based so much upon a moral side of any issue...Most of us accept this with no reservations...And I am in that column for the most part...

My stance about the "Inalienable" right, is one based upon my interpretation that to defend ones self is a moral obligation to protect the gift of life that has been given to you...And your stewardship of that gift is something that shows respect for ALL life...I just can't see how you can throw rocks (unless you are a Godless, liberal, socialist, anarchist) that do not respect the gift of life enough to respect the individual/inalienable right to keep and bear arms in the defense of ones self, other people and your country...

This is what is always at stake when our government starts playing around with something I think they need to leave alone, or totally un-fetter the populace of this country...

When I apply this logic to what I see in an elected official, it kinda goes a bit farther than just our 2nd Amendment right...

I'm just not so sure that if I was an elected official that this template would rate me anything, in any regard to this and other issues...

I don't believe it would be about me in any case...

[SC1903A3]

The Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), recognized that the right to arms is an individual right, stating that it “is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.�

[stevie_d_64]

The Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), recognized that the right to arms is an individual right, stating that it “is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.�

...dependent upon "its existence", meaning the Constitution???

Interesting, and good point...

The problem I see is not what you said, it's that I don't think there is anyone left smart enough to write another one like it, to keep the dunderheads from eventually messing it up again...

Maybe that the nature of a Representative Republic...It needs a serious tune up, or some kind of drastic re-build, from time to time...

I can see that...