Supreme Court to Consider D.C. Handgun Ban
5.56X45mm
Milforum Mac Daddy
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.
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.
pixiedustboo
Redfidelboo
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.
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.
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
SCOTUS' potential impact on 2nd amendment .....
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.
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.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
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?
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?
Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
The Constitutional and SCOTUS experts are talking ...
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.
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.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
so in other words, no one knows.
5.56X45mm
Milforum Mac Daddy
You got that right.... hence why I have my fingers crossed and my AR-15 ready to go just in case.
Gator
U of B and B Alumnus
Gator
U of B and B Alumnus
I believe it is a good case for the Court to pick up, at any time.
Although, I do not understand why the District chose to Appeal the case to begin with, as the D.C. Circuit ruling was sound, in my own opinion, but, more importantly, I also believe the District Government has no legal standing to exist at all, as the Constitution places sole control of the District of Columbia in the hands of the United States Congress.
I see the Right to Keep and Bear as carved in stone, and not a Militia only Right as the Militia is covered in other sections of the Constitution, the Founders, in my opinion, not needing to expressly state that the Militia only can keep and use Weapons in the Second Amendment.
I believe it is high time for the USSC to put the States (and in this case the District) in their place and force them to extend a Constitutionally protected right to all Citizens.
Although, I do not understand why the District chose to Appeal the case to begin with, as the D.C. Circuit ruling was sound, in my own opinion, but, more importantly, I also believe the District Government has no legal standing to exist at all, as the Constitution places sole control of the District of Columbia in the hands of the United States Congress.
I see the Right to Keep and Bear as carved in stone, and not a Militia only Right as the Militia is covered in other sections of the Constitution, the Founders, in my opinion, not needing to expressly state that the Militia only can keep and use Weapons in the Second Amendment.
I believe it is high time for the USSC to put the States (and in this case the District) in their place and force them to extend a Constitutionally protected right to all Citizens.
5.56X45mm
Milforum Mac Daddy
If there is a general gun ban and round up you bet your ass I'll be fighting for my rights.
Gator
U of B and B Alumnus
If the Supreme Court adversely rules from your wanted outcome, and there is a Round-Up, you will have no Rights in the matter.
I for one do not see an USSC outcome like that, anything close to it, but, in any event, I do believe your Terrorist Actions would end the same as it was last time Traitors in the South tried to destroy the United States of America.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Like I said. If they overrule the constitution and place a ban on the right to bear arms, that would be a dangerous precedent where other constitutional rights could be overruled.
mmarsh
Active member
Its funny how people keep saying 'overrule the constitution'. The job of the USSC is to interpret the constitution. If they rule the gun ban is constitutional it means they view the 2nd Amendment the way the Founding fathers wanted it to be interpreted.
Just because YOUR OPINION of the 2nd Amendment doesn't match a Supreme Courts ruling doesn't mean they overruled anything. That why we have a USSC, to make these types of decisions. They are the referee of US politics. Therefore its their opinion that counts, not yours.
BTW most legal scholars I read say the court is likely to rule the ban unconstitutional due to the fact its a CONSERVATIVE court. But that no legal argument is 100% foolproof and that neither side should be certain of success. Just remember, that if they uphold the ban, you cannot really blame the left, can you? I suspect the USSC, will come to a sort of compromise. As a ruling one way or other runs the risk of being overturned by a future USSC.
Besides this case is about STATE/CITY law to restrict guns not FEDERAL. Even if the court does decide the local Government has the right to ban guns it doesn't mean it will. And even if your township decides to ban guns the solution is very simple: Move elsewhere. The people of Washington DC/New York/and in certain places in California have made it clear: They don't want guns in their communities. Strikes me as unreasonable to force people to accept guns on a population that doesn't want them, just like its unreasonable to force gun control on a people who do.
And if anyone is really foolish enough to take up arms against the United States simply because they disagree with that ruling, how long do you think you would last? The fact is, you would be a red smear on the pavement faster than it took you to finish reading this message. You can count on that.
Just because YOUR OPINION of the 2nd Amendment doesn't match a Supreme Courts ruling doesn't mean they overruled anything. That why we have a USSC, to make these types of decisions. They are the referee of US politics. Therefore its their opinion that counts, not yours.
BTW most legal scholars I read say the court is likely to rule the ban unconstitutional due to the fact its a CONSERVATIVE court. But that no legal argument is 100% foolproof and that neither side should be certain of success. Just remember, that if they uphold the ban, you cannot really blame the left, can you? I suspect the USSC, will come to a sort of compromise. As a ruling one way or other runs the risk of being overturned by a future USSC.
Besides this case is about STATE/CITY law to restrict guns not FEDERAL. Even if the court does decide the local Government has the right to ban guns it doesn't mean it will. And even if your township decides to ban guns the solution is very simple: Move elsewhere. The people of Washington DC/New York/and in certain places in California have made it clear: They don't want guns in their communities. Strikes me as unreasonable to force people to accept guns on a population that doesn't want them, just like its unreasonable to force gun control on a people who do.
And if anyone is really foolish enough to take up arms against the United States simply because they disagree with that ruling, how long do you think you would last? The fact is, you would be a red smear on the pavement faster than it took you to finish reading this message. You can count on that.
Last edited:
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
How would you like it if they start to "interpret" the first amendment quite differently from the way you see it?
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
NOT YOUR JOB ...
You can conjecture all you want ... BUT IT ISN'T YOUR JOB TO INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION - it is NOT for 'you' to say what any amendment means.
It is the job of SCOTUS to look at ANY law or piece of legislation that is brought before it, and interpret it in accordance with THEIR view of how it 'jibes' with the constitution.
IF they view it as being in violation of the constitution, then it is 'struck down' .
IF they find it is in accordance with their view of the constitution, then it is 'upheld'.
By the way, that is what they are supposed to do (and that's in the constitution also).
The Legislature Branch writes the laws, the Courts interpret the law and the Executive Branch enforces the law.
It is part and parcel of the checks and balance that is built into our government.
As -MM- said ...
You can conjecture all you want ... BUT IT ISN'T YOUR JOB TO INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION - it is NOT for 'you' to say what any amendment means.
It is the job of SCOTUS to look at ANY law or piece of legislation that is brought before it, and interpret it in accordance with THEIR view of how it 'jibes' with the constitution.
IF they view it as being in violation of the constitution, then it is 'struck down' .
IF they find it is in accordance with their view of the constitution, then it is 'upheld'.
By the way, that is what they are supposed to do (and that's in the constitution also).
The Legislature Branch writes the laws, the Courts interpret the law and the Executive Branch enforces the law.
It is part and parcel of the checks and balance that is built into our government.
mmarsh
Active member
I would grit my teeth and accept it. The SCOTUS has already made rulings I thought were wrong, The "imminent domain" ruling for example. I see that ruling as far more dangerous than the right to ban guns, but do you see me calling for armed rebellion in the street? Nope.