DC Personal Protection Act (HR 1399, S 1001)

[awkx]

Should DC Personal Protection Act (HR 1399, S 1001) be supported? As many of you are likely aware, the DC Courts of Appeals ruled in Parker v. District of Columbia that the DC handgun ban unconstitutionally infringes the right to keep and bear arms. As such, the main effect of the DC Personal Protection Act (repealing the handgun ban) would be to prevent the Supreme Court from reviewing the appellate court's decision, as the issue would be moot. If the Supreme Court affirms the ruling, it would be a tremendous victory for supporters of the Constitution's second amendment. On the other hand, the Court may reverse the ruling, either on narrow technical grounds or, even worse, in a way that questions the right to arms.

I think we can be fairly certain that Justices Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito would faithfully interpret the Second Amendment. There is no Supreme Court precedent favoring the "collective right" misinterpretation. (US v. Miller was decided on the basis that it was not within the court's judicial notice that a sawed-off shotgun is a weapon commonly used by the military. This provides a precedent only for interpreting the word "arms" as used in the Second Amendment.)

Additionally, the appellate court notes that Justice Ginsburg (joined by Justice Souter, among others) previously indicated that the phrase "bear arms" as used in the Second Amendment applies to individuals even if outside of an organized militia:

We also note that at least three current members (and one
former member) of the Supreme Court have read “bear Arms”
in the Second Amendment to have meaning beyond mere
soldiering: “Surely a most familiar meaning [of ‘carries a
firearm’] is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment (‘keep
and bear Arms’) and Black’s Law Dictionary . . . indicate:
‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in
a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for
offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another
person.” Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998)
(Ginsburg, J., dissenting, joined by Rehnquist, C.J., Scalia, J.,
and Souter, J.) (emphasis in original). Based on the foregoing,
we think the operative clause includes a private meaning for
“bear Arms.”

Furthermore, in U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), the Court seems to have indicated that the phrase "the people" used in the Second amendment refers to US citizens generally:

... it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments..., refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.

Although the present composition of the Supreme Court may not be ideal, if Parker isn't heard, there is no guarentee that a worse case won't be heard (e.g., one brought by a convicted criminal challenging his conviction, which might prejudice the court).

[danp]

I am personally for letting the supreme court rule on this.

The court probably isn't going to get much better than it is now, and it's high time the issue is settled.

Is there a risk that the SC would rule against the individual right to keep and bear arms? Possibly. Likely? I don't think so unless they willfully ignore pretty much all historical and legal evidence which would be a larger issue.

Plus, as you mentioned the case itself is pristine.

This is as close as we're probably going to get to the stars aligning and giving us the best possible case on which RKBA should be judged.

[rwilson452]

Motion seconded.

I am personally for letting the supreme court rule on this.

The court probably isn't going to get much better than it is now, and it's high time the issue is settled.

Is there a risk that the SC would rule against the individual right to keep and bear arms? Possibly. Likely? I don't think so unless they willfully ignore pretty much all historical and legal evidence which would be a larger issue.

Plus, as you mentioned the case itself is pristine.

This is as close as we're probably going to get to the stars aligning and giving us the best possible case on which RKBA should be judged.

[LittleRedToyota]

i agree...i don' think we could ask for a better case. and i think the current supreme court would rule correctly. this is the perfect case...and this is a good time.

i am seriously considering not renewing my membership to the NRA because of their attempts to derail this case.

btw, you know the anti's don't want this case to go before the court...they want the 2nd amendment to be decided in a case where some idiot shot some kid.

[billamj]

Is there a risk that the SC would rule against the individual right to keep and bear arms? Possibly. Likely? I don't think so unless they willfully ignore pretty much all historical and legal evidence which would be a larger issue.

Normally I would agree with you on this one Dan but there are way too many chances that the ruling would not go our way. We know that there are four that we can count on, Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Roberts, but where are the rest? Kennedy, and Stevens, maybe but neither of them is an originalist. Ginsberg, Breyer, or Souter would be completely out of the question and it is not unheard of for any of them to come up with a completely new reading of historic documents. What we need to have BEFORE this goes to the USSC is one more originalist, someone who could be counted on. There are way too many questions witht the current group.

[knight0334]

so.... if the DC case does go to the USSC and it is ruled that the 2nd Amend is a collective right - then what? Whats the likeliness that some states or cities will start Gestapo door-to-door cleansing of firearms? Or if the USSC rules an individual right - that the oppressive states (NY, NJ, IL, etc) and cities must stop enforcement of their anti laws?

Would a ruling in our favor put the entire USA in the legal ownership/carry standard as Vermont?

[awkx]

Knight0334,
I think it is very unlikely that the USSC will rule in favor of the "collective right" misinterpretation, given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. However, this is a danger that the liberal judges will consider a ban on handguns to be a 'reasonable restriction' (on par with the time, place, and manner restrictions on the First Amendment's protection of free speech), because residents would still have access to long-guns. (The appellate court considered this argument and concluded: "We think that argument frivolous. It could be similarly contended that all firearms may be banned so long as sabers were permitted.")

If the Parker ruling is upheld, there is still the question of whether the Second Amendment is incorporated (via the 14th Amendment) against the states.
Also, the Parker appellate court notes that the USSC previously ruled that "prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons does not offend the Second Amendment". (But no such ruling on open carrying. So you might end up seeing lots of people wearing holstered handguns in New York City in protest if concealed-carry isn't permitted there. )