Reuters: U.S. high court to rule on D.C. handgun ban

General General Discussion
1

U.S. high court to rule on D.C. handgun ban

Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:20pm EST

WASHINGTON, Nov 20 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court said on Tuesday it would decide whether handguns can be banned in the nation’s capital, a case that could produce its first ruling in nearly 70 years on the right of Americans to bear arms.

The nation’s highest court agreed to hear an appeal by officials from the District of Columbia government arguing that the city’s 31-year-old law banning private possession of handguns should be upheld as constitutional.

The justices said they would review a precedent-setting ruling by a U.S. appeals court that broadly interpreted an individual’s constitutional right under the Second Amendment to bear arms and struck down the city’s law for violating those rights.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case most likely in late February or in March, with a ruling expected by the end of June. The decision could be a factor in the political debate in the 2008 elections.

Supporters and opponents of the law, one of the strictest in the nation, agreed the case could have important legal and political significance.

The Second Amendment says, “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.”

City lawyers argued the amendment guaranteed the right to bear arms only in connection with service in a state-regulated militia, like today’s National Guard, and not for individuals.

But the appeals court adopted the position that the Bush administration has advocated previously – that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms.

The justices, in their decision to take the case, rephrased the issue as whether provisions of the Washington handgun ban violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals “who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes.”

The Supreme Court has not ruled on the scope of the Second Amendment since a 1939 decision when it upheld a federal gun control law but did not definitively resolve the constitutional issue.

#

Edited to add link to SCOTUS docket page for District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.

2

I predict a great victory for the 2nd Ammendment!

3

In another thread, and before SCOTUS agreed to hear Heller (then Parker), another forum member offered an excellent take on the implications of this case. It’s worth repeating a couple of excerpts here:

4

Content deleted.

5

Is the “D. C.” a State of the USA? Is it a state of the “UNION”?

If not, how is it governed by the “United States of America”?

Is it like “Guam” ect?

District of Columbia? Who’s “Columbia”?

6

Content deleted.

7

Interesting questions, actually, which are addressed in this commentary on scotusblog.com. Notably:

The Court did not mention any other issues that it might address as questions of its jurisdiction to reach the ultimate question: did the one individual who was found to have a right to sue — Dick Anthony Heller, a D.C. resident – have a right to challenge all three of the sections of the local law cited in the Court’s order, and, is the District of Columbia, as a federal enclave, even covered by the Second Amendment. While neither of those issues is posed in the grant order, the Court may have to be satisfied that the answer to both is affirmative before it would move on to the substantive question about the scope of any right protected by the Amendment.

Here, according to scotusblog.com, is the language SCOTUS used in agreeing to hear the case:

Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 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?

I’d like to get some corroboration of Don G.'s assertion:

It’s been (and is) my understanding that when SCOTUS agrees to hear a case, it will rule on that case – but since my understanding is always evolving…anyone?

8

This is a fight I’ve been waiting many years for.

9

Be careful for what you wish, it could go:

Individual Right Pro: Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito
Individual Right Con: Ginsberg, Souter, Kennedy, Stevens, Breyer

It’s hard to know.

M_P

10

Word.

I think it was Mike Huckabee who cautioned Republicans who are anxious for Hillary to get the Democratic Party nomination: “You may want what you get, but you might not get what you want.”

Same applies here. It’s in SCOTUS’s hands now.

11

Content deleted.

12

I would have rather seen the Supreme Court let the Appeals Court ruling stand.

13

another fellow over on fsn pointed this out and i qoute
Something that is not commonly understood:
During the time the 2nd amendment was written the word “regulated” was not used as it is today. At the time “regulated” meant “in good working order”. If you don’t believe me find a 1770’s English dictionary and look it up!

Thus another way to spell out the Second Amendment is “A militia in good working order being necessary to the security of a free state…” That makes it pretty cut and dry------INDIVIDUAL RIGHT!!! un quote

:eek: wow who woulda Thunk well lets old our breaths and see …

14

My own guess is little will change. They will rule pistols, rifles and shotguns are protected and individuals can own. They will not touch NFA. They will not touch CA ban on handguns, AWB Laws, Import Laws, registration schemes, etc.

Little will change for the majority of us. Both sides will claim victory. A few people in DC and Morton Grove will now be able to buy a handgun, if they can find a dealer selling them…

15

My prediction is they will strike down outright bans, but will not touch regulations.

16

Content deleted.

17

Welcome to the M4Carbine.net Law Library. :smiley:

Obviously, by virtue of SCOTUS agreeing to hear DC v. Heller, the case is well down the road. All petitions and briefs, as well as the petitioner’s reply, have been filed with the Court.

Parties filing amicus briefs: the American Academy of Pediatrics, also on behalf of the Society for Adolescent Medicine and Children’s Defense Fund; the American Civil Rights Union; and the Solicitor General of New York, also on behalf of the states of Hawaii, Illinois and Maryland.

Edit: Link to amicus brief filed by the National Rifle Association at the appellate level (then Parker v. District of Columbia).

18

I thought that was obvious… well regulated simply means well trained, possibly even using standardized equipment.

19

Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 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?

…this is the only question they’ll address…
But it’s enough…
The other questions will still have to be addressed as suits are filed and the process will be repeated for each…
…I would still rather know where we stand before the election…I’d rather not have them just allow the appeals decision to stand, I’d rather they tell us flat out what they think of us and draw a line in the sand…
I can’t wait to see how the candidates start to dodge whether they stand for or against this decision…It’s gonna’ be a hellava’ year…that’s for certain…

20

You never know what your going to get with the SC. The way I see it, it can go 3 ways.

#1) SC rules so narrowly and vaguely that there is virtually no impact or change to anything. Everyone left disappointed and SC happy that they really didn’t do anything.

#2) SC rules that it is a collective right or that states or fed can ban or regulate gun ownership, transport, possession, ect. States start to ban guns and the Michigan “Militia” swells its numbers 1000X and starts looking for a fight. Things start to get ugly. America becomes more polarized than ever.

#3) SC rules that states and fed cannot ban guns or regulate ownership/Carry on private property. But public establishments under DIRECT control (not roadways, parks, ect), government can regulate possession. Everyone happy except banners. Eventually they get over it. Most states and fed start to fight crime. Population less polarized. Some senators move to remove 2nd Amendment from the Constitution. This becomes the new rally cry of the libtards. More and more establishments (Airports, ect) declare themselves goven’t establishments in order to control arms possession.