http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21901379/

Sounds like D.C. don't follow the 2nd Amendent...

Parker Versus DC... I've been watching this case like a hawk. This is the first 2nd Amendment related case to go before the Supreme Court since the 1939 Miller Case. Basically the lower courts ruled that DC open wide ban on firearm ownership is against the Constitution but sadly DC thinks that they're in the right and hey're going to take this to the US Supreme Court.

DC has the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. No one can own a firearm unless it was purchased and registered before 1977. Only firearms that can be own after 1977 are those by retired police officers. Those that are pre 1977 must be dismantled and stored in a locked safe. You cannot move your firearm from room to room without law enforcement approval. You cannot use your firearm in self defense and the sell of ammunition or possession of ammunition is illegal. Basically there is an outright ban of the 2nd amendment.

This case was brought up because a number of DC residents wanted to have the right to use firearms to defend themselves in their homes. They were not pushing for a right to carry outside of their homes. Just for the right to use a firearm to defend themselves in their homes.

This case is a big issue because either ruling will be huge. If SCOTUS rules in favor of the 2nd amendment and says that the DC ban is illegal then that means that many other laws will be found illegal. Laws such as those in NYC and California. If SCOTUS rules that the DC ban is legal then that means that those that want to further restrict the 2nd amendment will have a free ride.

I'm am glad though that this case is going now to SCOTUS instead of later. Because I know what will happen if the Democrats get elected. They'll try and pack SCOTUS with anti constitution judges. At least the 2nd amendment has a fighting chance in the current SCOTUS.

I blogged about this tonight.

It's a pissy issue at my house. Hopefully it's also an issue in every other red-blooded American household in the United States. This does not just effect D.C. This will effect ALL of us eventually.

Then, I'm not going to Gallaudet University....

This picture could explain at all...

Second Amendment:
"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."


According to legal scholars:
Significantly, the Second Amendment refers explicitly to "the right of the people," not the rights of states or the militia. And the Bill of Rights is the section of our Constitution that deals exclusively with individual liberties.

That is why there has been an outpouring of legal scholarship - some from prominent liberals - that recognizes the Second Amendment as securing the right of each individual to keep and bear arms.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No case in recent history has had the potential impact that this case has.

This is the first time that SCOTUS may have to rule whether the 2nd amendment is an 'individual' right to own a weapon or a 'militia' right which resides with the state.

On the one hand, if SCOTUS rules this is an "individual's right" to own and to bear arms and overturns the Washinton DC ban ... many of the state restrictions (including local ordinances) could very well be taken to court and be overturned because of SCOTUS' ruling.

On the other side of the coin, if SCOTUS rules this is a "state militia right" and backs the Washington DC ban ... then other state and local government bodies could pass legislation that would make owning a weapon even more restrictive.

No matter which way SCOTUS goes, the ruling is NOT expected right away ... the ruling will more than likely be issued some time next year (just in time to become an election issue).

Whether SCOTUS will impact another election, is a subject for a different thread.


THE ARGUMENT CONTINUES.

And if the constitution is overruled here, that would be a precedent for other constitutional rights to be debated over and lost.
But if it is indeed the militia and not the individual, then who is to say that only the state can create a militia? Is there a law on that? Could a neighborhood decide that it too wants to create a small militia that specializes in something (let's say armed convoy) and therefore give the members of that militia the right to bear arms?

Originally Posted by Fox

Then, I'm not going to Gallaudet University....

If you go, let me know.


i have also been watching this. There is no way it will pass. There will be some serious ConLaw lawyers out there that will eat this up.

According to some of the Constitutional and SCOTUS experts, they think the Washington DC gun ban will be declared unconstitutional, and will be overturned by a 5 to 4 vote based upon the predilections of the court members.

They seem to think that the finding on the amendment will be that the 2nd amendment right is an individual right and not a state right.

A concensus of at least 7 different 'experts' from as many different sites (I used the most often finding from the experts) .....
Roberts - most likely favorable
Stevens - most likely negative
Scalia - 100% favorable
Kennedy - more than likely favorable.
Souter - negative
Thomas - He's an originalist so probably favorable
Ginsburg - most liberal of all the justices, big negative
Breyer - he likes using international law as precedent, negative
Alito - a good federalist, favorable

The one single point they all agree on however, is the prediction that it could end up going the other way just as easily.

so in other words, no one knows.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

so in other words, no one knows.

You got that right.... hence why I have my fingers crossed and my AR-15 ready to go just in case.