Supreme Court Will Hear D.C. Guns Case

[NineseveN]

I would rather lose in a cause that I know must triumph to continue and preserve liberty than to count on the practice of avoiding the battle to maintain the status quo. It is true that there is inherent safety and certain small blessings brought forth by the latter, but I know that some day, such dealings will ultimately fail us and thus, the former is the only path worth walking, even if the road is hard and some may fall along the way. You have to risk losing before you can win anything.

[Philadelphia]

Originally Posted by Mtbkski

Four hours and no responses??? I guess everyone is giving this matter some thought. Kind of scary when you really think about it.

Hang tough everyone, and lets just hope that it goes our way. Hate to think that the PAFOA Shoots may one day disappear. That would be a bummer.

Guess there really isn't anything we can do to help out in this fight is there?

The case will likely take something like a year for the court to decide. In the mean time there's really not much we can do but make sure the organizations fighting for our rights have the resources they need to do the very best.

[Philadelphia]

Originally Posted by Rule10b5

I see where you're coming from, but I disagree.

First, D.C. didn't advance that argument in its cert. petition -- to the contrary, it expressly contented that "the Second Amendment restricts only federal interference with state-regulated militias and state-recognized gun rights." They've conceded the issue about state-recognized gun rights (not that a position in a cert. petition is definitive). Anyway, it doesn't matter, because the court isn't taking that up -- it's only going to deal with the D.C. issue.

And here's a snip from the 11/20 Order:

"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?"

All the rest of the stuff we're worried about isn't even technically before the Court. They're going to sidestep -- a limited grant of cert. is a total telegraph.

Second, post-Miller (which we could debate all day long) Congress has been free to do exactly what you're afraid of -- enact a national gun ban, absent participation in a state militia. The AWB is pretty clear evidence of that. Heller isn't going to change that for the worse -- we only really stand to gain. (Notwithstanding that the Commerce Clause has been tortured, in any case, to allow such a result).

Finally, and as a complete aside, I just noticed that Walter Dellinger is lead counsel for D.C. He was my Con Law professor. How nauseating; I actually liked the guy.

In Miller the issue was whether the state could regulate sawed off shotguns and look what we got. As you point out, an eventual AWB for law abiding.

I wouldn't be so nonchalant about the potential effects of the decision or how broad it may be. The question presented is basically does a complete gun ban violate the rights of individuals (who are not affiliated with state militias). If answered in the negative, hello liberal push for complete gun bans on everyone (who are not affiliated with state militias).

Given the composition of the Court, it seems likely that things will go our way but there are never any guarantees. If there were, there'd be no need for litigation. ;-)

[Rule10b5]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia

In Miller the issue was whether the state could regulate sawed off shotguns and look what we got. As you point out, an eventual AWB for law abiding.

I wouldn't be so nonchalant about the potential effects of the decision or how broad it may be. The question presented is basically does a complete gun ban violate the rights of individuals (who are not affiliated with state militias). If answered in the negative, hello liberal push for complete gun bans on everyone (who are not affiliated with state militias).

Given the composition of the Court, it seems likely that things will go our way but there are never any guarantees. If there were, there'd be no need for litigation. ;-)

Yep. And what really chafes my ass (and everyone else, I suppose) about Miller is that the court found regulation of a sawed-off shotgun permissible specifically because it wasn't "any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense." One would think that the court couldn't have applied the same logic if they were talking about a firearm that was ordinary military equipment -- like an automatic rifle. It's probably just as well -- they would have found a worse way to justify the NFA, I'm sure.

And not that it matters, but I've always wondered what would have happened had Miller and Layton been represented by counsel before the Supreme Court, rather than running for the hills after successfully demurring at the District Court. I find the idea of an unrepresented appellee antithetical to the judicial process.

Miller isn't exactly a bastion of high legal reasoning, in any case. Pretty much cobbled together bullshit to generate the desired result, IMHO.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by Rule10b5

However, we need to remember that individual rights are not, under current jurisprudence, unrestricted. They are subject to reasonable regulation if a legitimate government interest is advanced (too complicated to get into -- look at 1st Amendment jurisprudence if you want an idea how complicated it is).

that little figment of judicial imagination, combined with the supreme court claiming the commerce clause basically invalidates the rest of the constitution, is why our system has failed so miserably to keep this a free country.

anyway, i think the decision is going to come down in favor of individual rights. what effect that will have will, imho, be determined by the follow-up cases that will be brought in light of the decision. (e.g., people in states that are not shall issue and do not allow open carry claiming the state is violating the individual right to bear arms...)

[s.wyn]

yes, I agree with you. I feel they will rule for 2A. But I feel they will be vague on the decision. They will leave holes for the anti peoples to find.They may also rule that D.C. is under congressional rule. I hope they don't. Because the citzens should have the rite of self-preservation against scum as the rest of us.Anti-gun asswholes are losing ground slowly that why they are clinging to this so hard.I know in ohio where I live many political positions have been lost due to gun control. For example ccw. Leaders need to wake up. why else are they afraid to talk about it. that is why we really havenot heard about it in debates.

[Mtbkski]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/72034

Article in Newsweek on the upcoming court case.

[Kenshin]

Gun-control advocates argue the trouble is that most people aren't nearly as well trained as Heller. Studies show that rates of gun accidents, suicide and murder of family members are far higher in homes with firearms.

I think thats all i need to say.


Actually i think ill say something.... HERE'S YOUR SIGN.

[Shawn.L]

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408http://www.gunowners.org
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
By now, you have probably heard the news which was delivered prior toThanksgiving that the U.S. Supreme Court will be taking up the DC gunban case. Gun Owners of America's foundation (GOF) will be submitting an amicusbrief before the Supreme Court in support of the lower court'sdecision that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. The case, D.C. v. Heller, resulted in nullification of the gun ban inthe District of Columbia. Judge Laurence Silberman wrote themajority opinion for the DC Court of Appeals which decided that theDC law violated the individual right to keep and bear arms protectedby the Second Amendment. Silberman's opinion was based on an extensive review of thehistorical record which makes it clear that the militia was intendedto be a mandatory body composed of all military-aged males who wererequired to own their own military weapons. He found that the"state" referred to in the Second Amendment is a reference tosociety, not a political entity. The city of Washington, DC is contesting the appellate court'sdecision in an attempt to preserve its draconian gun ban. But the Gun Owners Foundation has commissioned one of the nation'stop experts in constitutional law. The GOF brief will highlightrecent legal scholarship which argues that the Second Amendment rightto bear arms is as much an individual right as the First Amendment'sguarantee of freedom of speech.
GOF could definitely use your tax deductible contribution to helpfund this case. Please go to http://www.gunowners.com/donate.htm todonate online and help Gun Owners Foundation defend our SecondAmendment rights in our highest court!
Is A Do-Nothing Congress Always Bad? Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) made headlines recently when discussingthe frustrations that Democrats have had in using their power to pushtheir agenda through the Congress. Earlier this month, Newsday reported that, "Democrats seeking to makegood on such promises as... passing stricter gun laws... have foundthemselves thwarted by Senate rules." Gun owners should say "thankyou" to Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) who is responsible for thisslowdown, as he is the champion who has placed a "hold" on theVeterans Disarmament Act! This has been very aggravating for Rep. McCarthy. "I thought thatsince I'd even gotten the NRA's cooperation, this would be a walk inthe park," she said in reference to the Veterans Disarmament Act thatshe introduced in the House. "It has been frustrating." You will remember that it pretty much was a "walk in the park" in theHouse, as the bill sailed through that chamber without a recordedvote. And that takes us to our unfinished business. After the bill cleared the House in June, you immediately startedlobbying your Senators, asking them to oppose the bill. But now thatthe bill has stalled in that chamber, we need to let the Housemembers know that it was reprehensible for gun control to pass theHouse WITHOUT a recorded vote. Moreover, we need to tell them thatif the Senate sends the bill back to the House, we don't want this tohappen again. We realize that most of the rank-and-file congressmen were hoodwinkedby the Democratic leadership in June. On the night of June 12, thelegislative report (which was sent to every congressman to advisethem of the votes they would face the following day) did NOT INCLUDEthe Veterans Disarmament Act on the schedule. But the decision wasthen made in the early morning hours to ram the bill through beforelunch. Most Congressmen never saw it coming. They were fooled once... theyneed to be on guard the next time and make sure it doesn't happenagain.

ACTION: Please use the letter below to contact your Representativeand ask him to do everything in his power to kill the VeteransDisarmament Act -- or at a minimum, to make sure that the bill gets arecorded vote, should it find its way back to the House. You can usethe pre-written message below and send it as an e-mail by visitingthe GOA Legislative Action Center athttp://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm (where phone and fax numbersare also available).

----- Pre-written letter -----
Dear Representative: How ironic that at a time when the U.S. Supreme Court may very wellstrike down DC's draconian gun ban, the Congress might pass apernicious gun ban on veterans and other Americans. The legislation I'm talking about is HR 2640 (S 2084), which has beenopposed by the American Legion, the Military Order of the PurpleHeart and Gun Owners of America. This bill has been sponsored byRep. Carolyn McCarthy and will result in the disarmament of hundredsof thousands of veterans who risked life and limb in defense of ournation. I was appalled by the fact that the Veterans Disarmament Act -- let'scall it what it really is -- passed the House WITHOUT A RECORDEDVOTE! And I am disappointed that there was no one on the floor of theHouse on June 13 to demand such a record. I realize that most of the rank-and-file congressmen were hoodwinkedby the Democratic leadership in June. On the night of June 12, thelegislative report (which was sent to every congressman to advisethem of the votes they would face the following day) did NOT INCLUDEthe McCarthy bill on the schedule. But the decision was then made inthe early morning hours to ram the bill through before lunch. I hope that the Senate will stand up for my rights and kill thislegislation. But should it come back to the House after a conferencecommittee, I hope that you will do everything in your power to makesure this bill never sees the light of day. Fair warning: If the bill passes without a recorded vote, I willhold you just as responsible as if you had voted "aye." To get keepabreast of this legislation, I encourage you to keep in contact withGun Owners of America or go to their very informative section (on theVeterans Disarmament Act) which can be found athttp://www.gunowners.org/netb.htm on their website. Sincerely,
****************************
Please do not reply directly to this message, as your reply willbounce back as undeliverable. To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go tohttp://www.gunowners.org/ean.htm on the web. Change of e-mailaddress may also be made at that location. To unsubscribe send a message togunowners_list@capwiz.mailmanager.net with the word unsubscribe inthe subject line or use the url below. Problems, questions or comments? The main GOA e-mail addressgoamail@gunowners.org is at your disposal. Please do not add thataddress to distribution lists sending more than ten messages perweek or lists associated with issues other than gun rights.

[jfrommbg]

I think the chances of the supreme court ruling in favor of gun rights is good. Kennedy is the swing vote. He tends to be libetarian and likes govt out of peoples business which will give the edge with Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas. I read the "Brady bunch" tried to convince DC to drop this. The Washington Post is downplaying the importance of this one way or the other. They are scared. So what will the impact be? Depends on how narrow the ruling is. Just merely upholding the appealate courts decision that a complete ban is unconstitutional is good but I am hoping it goes further and specifically states that gun ownership is an individual right and does not refer to militias. I cannot tell you how many activist college professors would get on their bully pulpits during some of my college classes years ago and scream about how wrong the NRA is in interpreting the second amendment as an individual right. I cannot wait to look up some of them and email them the ruling if this is clarified. Oh yeah...uh huh...two snaps and a circle...