Supreme Court Will Hear D.C. Guns Case

[NineseveN]

Originally Posted by knight0334

I know.. The redcoats weren't supposed to fire upon the people of Boston too. ...but we know how that turned out.

The feds see the federal government as a business. ...without any power over the people it couldn't maintain a means to stay in business. Unfortunately, we the people have allowed the government more room to grow in its ability to defend itself from the people it's supposed to serve. I'm sure the feds will do anything to defend it's own existence even in violation of the US Constitution.


====

On a side note for a couple posts up, there is a DC Guard.

http://dcng.ngb.army.mil/

That's just my thought on it. We all know what the law says, but the POTUS is in the unique position to do whatever he or she wants in most cases and then let the question of whether or not what they did was legal get tied up in the courts or in congress. That alone wouldn't stop DHS from taking a Presidential order to swallow the idea of a "National Guard" and deputize or enlist law enforcement agents from other states across the country to come and quell he "violent mod of armed gun nuts standing in front of the capital". The courts will hopefully sort it out, but it isn't happening on short order.

And consider this, no matter how peaceful you try and keep a protest, all it would take is one asshat with a gun to run a cop the wrong way (or have a cop run him the wrong way) and a fight breaks out. now we have tear gas and less-lethal riot control and a mob of confused, angry and scared people with guns. Don't think for a second that some of the law and order or anti-gun forces wouldn't try and send in an agent provocateurs to incite such a thing and use the resulting violence as a platform to push their big-government-law-enforcement-at-all-costs or anti-gun agendas right through Congress.


Just some food for thought.

[knight0334]

Originally Posted by NineseveN

That's just my thought on it. We all know what the law says, but the POTUS is in the unique position to do whatever he or she wants in most cases and then let the question of whether or not what they did was legal get tied up in the courts or in congress. That alone wouldn't stop DHS from taking a Presidential order to swallow the idea of a "National Guard" and deputize or enlist law enforcement agents from other states across the country to come and quell he "violent mod of armed gun nuts standing in front of the capital". The courts will hopefully sort it out, but it isn't happening on short order.

And consider this, no matter how peaceful you try and keep a protest, all it would take is one asshat with a gun to run a cop the wrong way (or have a cop run him the wrong way) and a fight breaks out. now we have tear gas and less-lethal riot control and a mob of confused, angry and scared people with guns. Don't think for a second that some of the law and order or anti-gun forces wouldn't try and send in an agent provocateurs to incite such a thing and use the resulting violence as a platform to push their big-government-law-enforcement-at-all-costs or anti-gun agendas right through Congress.


Just some food for thought.

I do agree. No matter how peaceful you keep things - someone always gets their coat rubbed the wrong way. I agree also that BigBro and anti-gun forces would stoop to such a level.

But hey, I got nothing better to do if a big stink needs to be raised. ...only thing I live for is work to receive a paycheck to support the family of some credit card company employee.


PS: I'll reply back with my predictions of the US Sup. Court's opinion later.. its quitting time.. !!! woohooo!!

[Statkowski]

DC doesn't have a National Guard.

Which is why 10,000 federal troops were called in to patrol the city/district during the May 1971 anti-war protests (I was one of them). We had bullets - nearby. We also had bayonets. And we were well-trained in Garden Plot riot control duties.

[knight0334]

My predictions:

1. the 2A is an individual right, but can be regulated to some extent.
2. States/territories/districts will be allowed to regulate concealed carry - but not outlaw it completely.
3. States/territories/districts must provide for a means to license/permit persons to carry concealed if the States/territories/district govt opts to regulate by law.
4. NFA stuffs will remain regulated by the US Govt.
5. unlicensed open carry wont be addressed or forced upon the states.

[Philadelphia]

Originally Posted by knight0334

My predictions:

1. the 2A is an individual right, but can be regulated to some extent.
2. States/territories/districts will be allowed to regulate concealed carry - but not outlaw it completely.
3. States/territories/districts must provide for a means to license/permit persons to carry concealed if the States/territories/district govt opts to regulate by law.
4. NFA stuffs will remain regulated by the US Govt.
5. unlicensed open carry wont be addressed or forced upon the states.

I doubt it will get to that many issues in this one case.

I have a slightly different prediction:

1. The 2A is an individual, fundamental right, subject to strict scrutiny analysis of restrictions on that right, same as all fundamental rights.

2. The 2A applies to acts of the DC gov't.

3. The DC outright gun ban violates the 2A. The Court will not speculate as to how DC might recraft its laws to avoid violating the 2A.

4. Litigation interpreting the meaning of this one case will go on for the next two or three decades.

5. That's it.

[rwilson452]

I would not include your #2 but it will be implied in some manner. Yep, decades.

In brief. bans are out. State AWB will be under assault. NYC sullivan act will be challenged and reach the supreme court, outcome unknown. US code preventing new full autos will likely fall as it is an effective ban over time, again reaching the supreme court.

As I understand it, It takes about $200,000 to get a case to the supreme court. Are you willing to contribute?

Originally Posted by Philadelphia

I doubt it will get to that many issues in this one case.

I have a slightly different prediction:

1. The 2A is an individual, fundamental right, subject to strict scrutiny analysis of restrictions on that right, same as all fundamental rights.

2. The 2A applies to acts of the DC gov't.

3. The DC outright gun ban violates the 2A. The Court will not speculate as to how DC might recraft its laws to avoid violating the 2A.

4. Litigation interpreting the meaning of this one case will go on for the next two or three decades.

5. That's it.

[DaveM55]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336689,00.html

For gun control proponents and opponents a lot is riding on a former security guard for the Supreme Court Annex. Next Tuesday , the Supreme Court will hear arguments over whether the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and its requirement that any rifles or shotguns remain locked violates the plaintiff, Dick Heller's, constitutional rights.

Whatever the court decides, no one expects them to end gun control any more than the First Amendment's "congress shall make no laws" has prevented the passage of campaign finance regulations. The decision is likely to be limited to just whether a ban "infringed" on "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

If the D.C. ban is accepted by the court, it is hard to believe that any gun regulation will ever be struck down. If the court strikes it down, where the courts draw the line on what laws are considered "reasonable" regulations will take years to sort out .

Thus far the District of Columbia has spent a lot of time making a public policy case. Their argument in their brief to the court is pretty simple : "banning handguns saves lives."

Yet, while it may seem obvious to many people that banning guns will save lives, that has not been D.C.'s experience.

The ban went into effect in early 1977, but since it started there is only one year (1985) when D.C.'s murder rate fell below what it was in 1976. But the murder rate also rose dramatically relative to other cities. In the 29 years we have data after the ban, D.C.'s murder rate ranked first or second among the largest 50 cities for 15 years. In another four years, it ranked fourth.

For Instance, D.C.'s murder rate fell 3.5 to 3 times more than Maryland and Virginia's during the five years before the handgun ban went into effect in 1977, but rose 3.8 times more in the five years after it.

Was there something special about D.C. that kept the ban from working? Probably not, since bans have been causing crime to increase in other cities as well. D.C. cites the Chicago ban to support its own. Yet, before Chicago's ban in 1982, its murder rate, which was falling from 27 to 22 per 100,000 in the five years, suddenly stopped falling and rose slightly to 23 per 100,000 in the five years afterwards.

Neither have bans worked in other countries. Gun crime in England and Wales increased 340 percent in the seven years since their 1998 ban. Ireland banned handguns and center fire rifles in 1972 and murder rates soared — the post-ban murder rate average has been 144 percent higher than pre-ban.

How could this be? D.C. officials say that the ban will disarm criminals. But who follows a ban and turns their guns in? Criminals who would be facing long prison sentences anyway if they were caught in a crime, or typically law-abiding citizens? By disarming normal people, a gun ban actually makes crime easier to commit.

[mikepro8]

Originally Posted by DaveM55

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336689,00.html

For gun control proponents and opponents a lot is riding on a former security guard for the Supreme Court Annex. Next Tuesday , the Supreme Court will hear arguments over whether the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and its requirement that any rifles or shotguns remain locked violates the plaintiff, Dick Heller's, constitutional rights.

Whatever the court decides, no one expects them to end gun control any more than the First Amendment's "congress shall make no laws" has prevented the passage of campaign finance regulations. The decision is likely to be limited to just whether a ban "infringed" on "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

If the D.C. ban is accepted by the court, it is hard to believe that any gun regulation will ever be struck down. If the court strikes it down, where the courts draw the line on what laws are considered "reasonable" regulations will take years to sort out .

Thus far the District of Columbia has spent a lot of time making a public policy case. Their argument in their brief to the court is pretty simple : "banning handguns saves lives."

Yet, while it may seem obvious to many people that banning guns will save lives, that has not been D.C.'s experience.

The ban went into effect in early 1977, but since it started there is only one year (1985) when D.C.'s murder rate fell below what it was in 1976. But the murder rate also rose dramatically relative to other cities. In the 29 years we have data after the ban, D.C.'s murder rate ranked first or second among the largest 50 cities for 15 years. In another four years, it ranked fourth.

For Instance, D.C.'s murder rate fell 3.5 to 3 times more than Maryland and Virginia's during the five years before the handgun ban went into effect in 1977, but rose 3.8 times more in the five years after it.

Was there something special about D.C. that kept the ban from working? Probably not, since bans have been causing crime to increase in other cities as well. D.C. cites the Chicago ban to support its own. Yet, before Chicago's ban in 1982, its murder rate, which was falling from 27 to 22 per 100,000 in the five years, suddenly stopped falling and rose slightly to 23 per 100,000 in the five years afterwards.

Neither have bans worked in other countries. Gun crime in England and Wales increased 340 percent in the seven years since their 1998 ban. Ireland banned handguns and center fire rifles in 1972 and murder rates soared — the post-ban murder rate average has been 144 percent higher than pre-ban.

How could this be? D.C. officials say that the ban will disarm criminals. But who follows a ban and turns their guns in? Criminals who would be facing long prison sentences anyway if they were caught in a crime, or typically law-abiding citizens? By disarming normal people, a gun ban actually makes crime easier to commit.

Well, duh. We all know that.

[headcase]

It is outstanding to see that reported by a major news outlet!

[tl_3237]

This should be VERY interesting!!!

U.S. SUPREME COURT AGREES TO C-SPAN’S REQUEST FOR SAME-DAY RELEASE OF ORAL ARGUMENT IN UPCOMING FIREARMS CASE
Chief Justice Roberts Approves Immediate Release of Oral Argument For District of Columbia v. Heller
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- On Tuesday, March 18, 2008, C-SPAN will air the Supreme Court oral argument of District of Columbia v. Heller which the Court is scheduled to hear that day. The immediate release of the audio recording of the Court's argument was in response to a request by C-SPAN (Release time is approximately 11:15 A.M.).
The Court will make the recording available to the media soon after the conclusion of the oral argument. The oral argument will air on C-SPAN, and C-SPAN Radio as soon as it is released. The audio recording will also be archived online at www.c-span.org on the "America and the Courts" page.