US Supreme Court may hear DC v Heller

[Guest Hyaloid]

STORY LINK

Supreme Court Could Take Guns Case

Nov 11 01:03 PM US/Eastern

By MARK SHERMAN

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Supreme Court justices have track records that make predicting their rulings on many topics more than a mere guess. Then there is the issue of the Second Amendment and guns, about which the court has said virtually nothing in nearly 70 years.

That could change in the next few months.

The justices are facing a decision about whether to hear an appeal from city officials in Washington, D.C., wanting to keep the capital's 31-year ban on handguns. A lower court struck down the ban as a violation of the Second Amendment rights of gun ownership.

The prospect that the high court might define gun rights under the Constitution is making people on both sides of the issue nervous.

"I wouldn't be confident on either side," said Mark Tushnet, a Harvard Law School professor and author of a new book on the battle over guns in the United States.

The court could announce as early as Tuesday whether it will hear the case.

The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or instead spells out the collective right of states to maintain militias. The former interpretation would permit fewer restrictions on gun ownership.

The Second Amendment reads: "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."

The federal appeals court for the District of Columbia was the first federal panel to strike down a gun-control law based on individual rights. The court ruled in favor of peepee Anthony Heller, an armed security guard whose application to keep a handgun at home was denied by the district.

Most other U.S. courts have said the Second Amendment does not contain a right to have a gun for purely private purposes.

Chicago has a similar handgun ban, but few other gun-control laws are as strict as the district's.

Four states—Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New York—are urging the Supreme Court to take the case because broad application of the appeals court ruling would threaten "all federal and state laws restricting access to firearms."

The district said its law, passed in 1976, was enacted by local elected officials who believed it was a sensible way to save lives. The law also requires residents to keep shotguns and rifles unloaded and disassembled or fitted with trigger locks.

The city's appeal asks the court to look only at the handgun ban because local law allows possession of other firearms.

Critics say the law has done little to curb violence, mainly because guns obtained legally from the district or through illegal means still are readily available.

Although the city's homicide rate has declined dramatically since peaking in the early 1990s, it ranks among the nation's highest, with 169 killings in 2006.

Heller said Washington remains a dangerous place to live. "People need not stand by and die," he said in court papers.

He said the Second Amendment gives him the right to keep working guns, including handguns, in his home for his own protection.

The last time the court examined the meaning of the Second Amendment was in a 1939 case in which two men claimed the amendment gave them the right to have sawed-off shotguns. A unanimous court ruled against them.

Gun control advocates say the 1939 decision in U.S. v. Miller settled the issue in favor of a collective right. Gun rights proponents say the decision has been misconstrued.

Chief Justice John Roberts has said the question has not been resolved by the Supreme Court. The 1939 decision "sidestepped" the issue of whether the Second Amendment right is individual or collective, Roberts said at his confirmation hearing in 2005.

"That's still very much an open issue," Roberts said.

Both the district government and Heller want the high court to take the case. The split among the appeals courts and the importance of the issue make it likely that the justices will do so, Tushnet said.

The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[Marswolf]

No man's rights are safe while the Congress or Supreme Court are in session.

[Mike.357]

I have read and re-read

"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."

this so many times it makes my head spin. I am clueless as to how it cannot be interpreted that 2A allows for people to have guns. To me it is a no brainer.

Hopefully the Supremes will not hear this case.

[Marswolf]

Yeah, the Constitution is a living document. It can be ignored on a whim of SCOTUS.

[The Rabbi]

My prediction is they will decide narrowly that there is an individual right and states etc cannot ban guns outright. But they can regulate them to death. Net result to the rest of us: none.

[Guest tjbert47]

My prediction is they will decide narrowly that there is an individual right and states etc cannot ban guns outright. But they can regulate them to death. Net result to the rest of us: none.

I hear what you are saying Rabbi. But for the life of me I don't know how they can ignore the rest of that sentence ( shall not be infringed ) .

Tom in TN

[The Rabbi]

It wouldn't be considered an infringement. There are no absolute rights granted in the Constitution.

[Im Neero]

No word until November 16 now. I don't think that they're going to hear it, but that's just a feeling based on nothing whatsoever.

[Guest tjbert47]

It is a God given right and has nothing to do with the Constitution. The Constitution just recognizes that right.

Tom in TN

[The Rabbi]

It is a God given right and has nothing to do with the Constitution. The Constitution just recognizes that right.

Tom in TN

I dunno. I've read the Bible in Hebrew. I've read at least parts of the Christian Bible in Greek. I never saw a reference to keeping and bearing arms. Maybe I missed something.

[molonlabetn]

I suppose the prophet Nehemiah was mistaken, then, instructing those working on the walls of Jerusalem to keep spears and bear swords...

Perhaps not proof, by definition, that arming oneself is a 'right'... but it is certainly biblical.

That is only one of several references to arming oneself in the Bible or Torah... mousegunner has a more comprehensive list in an earlier thread.

It could be said that humans have no rights, from God's perspective (God owing us nothing), but... The gifts given to us, such as life, are under his authority only. No other individual, or group, has authority over the life, abilities and talents which God has given, or the manner in which an individual preserves them, except perhaps when the bounds of law have been breached, and require temporal punishment. But even then, it is under only God's authority that anyone be truly forgiven.

Moreover, the life given to each human, by God, is not just a gift... it is a duty bound by his will to carry out, which no other human has authority to end prematurely.

With that said. A 'right' is not an incomprehendable, vaporous principle in the mind... it is the simple fact that no human is above any other, and all are equally entitled to continue living. Doing so is a struggle, as promised after the fall of Adam & Eve, thus it is to be expected that it is equally justified to struggle against evil humans as it is the harshness of this fallen world, to maintain that life.

[The Rabbi]

I suppose the prophet Nehemiah was mistaken, then, instructing those working on the walls of Jerusalem to keep spears and bear swords...

Perhaps not proof, by definition, that arming oneself is a 'right'... but it is certainly biblical.

That is only one of several references to arming oneself in the Bible or Torah... mousegunner has a more comprehensive list in an earlier thread.

OK, so the next time you work on the walls of Jerusalem you can carry a spear or sword under that authority. But if you want to carry a pistol in Tennessee or anywhere else in this country you better come up with more believable authority than that.

Further, I've mentioned, there is no word for "right" as we understand it in Hebrew. The whole concept of rights is alien to the Bible, which tends to see things in terms of obligations. Right is an Enlightenment concept, at least as used today.

[molonlabetn]

But, at least as I was attempting to explain it, there's no basis for any human to hold authority over what another may or may not do with regard to the responsible keeping of their life. Therefore, no person (or group of people) has the legitimate authority to take my life, or to prevent me from fighting for it, as long as I have posed no harm to their lives. This principle is indeed exhibited in the Bible, and saying that it only applies to those specific times, places and circumstances is false. ie, the will of one group of people does not hold sway over the existence of another as long as they have the strength to protect it. And there is no duty to allow oneself to be overcome by those who wish to harm you.

[The Rabbi]

But, at least as I was attempting to explain it, there's no basis for any human to hold authority over what another may or may not do with regard to the responsible keeping of their life. Therefore, no person (or group of people) has the legitimate authority to take my life, or to prevent me from fighting for it, as long as I have posed no harm to their lives. This principle is indeed exhibited in the Bible, and saying that it only applies to those specific times, places and circumstances is false. ie, the will of one group of people does not hold sway over the existence of another as long as they have the strength to protect it. And there is no duty to allow oneself to be overcome by those who wish to harm you.

Go on democratic underground forum and see how far you get with that one.

But your supposition is false. The Bible does not say no one has power over your life as long as you arent hurting anyone. Not unless you hold Ayn Rand wrote the Bible. The opposite, in fact. If you work on the Sabbath, your life is forfeit. If you worship idols, your life is forfeit. If you commit consensual homosexual sodomy, your life is forfeit. I can point out citations for all these.

Further, you can apply your "argument" to property as well, with equal results. Maybe no one can tell you what you can do with your property. But try buying a house in any suburban area and raising pigs in your backyard. Codes will beg to disagree and I predict your argument won't get too far.

[molonlabetn]

Go on democratic underground forum and see how far you get with that one.

But your supposition is false. The Bible does not say no one has power over your life as long as you arent hurting anyone. Not unless you hold Ayn Rand wrote the Bible. The opposite, in fact. If you work on the Sabbath, your life is forfeit. If you worship idols, your life is forfeit. If you commit consensual homosexual sodomy, your life is forfeit. I can point out citations for all these.

Further, you can apply your "argument" to property as well, with equal results. Maybe no one can tell you what you can do with your property. But try buying a house in any suburban area and raising pigs in your backyard. Codes will beg to disagree and I predict your argument won't get too far.

First of all... the democratic underground wouldn't recognize reason if they drowned in it.

Second of all, you illustrated my point rather well... all of those citations regarding the forfeit of one's life pertain to the revocation of God's will for you to live based on a violation of his command, NOT by any human authority.

NOWHERE does it say that any individual has the power to gratuitously decide who may live or die, of their own volition.

[The Rabbi]

OK. But it is a loooong stretch to go from "no one may gratuitously decide if I live or die" to "therefore I have the right to carry any kind of firearm I want anywhere I want." In fact, any connection between the two will exist only on a gun forum, not in the real world.

[molonlabetn]

OK. But it is a loooong stretch to go from "no one may gratuitously decide if I live or die" to "therefore I have the right to carry any kind of firearm I want anywhere I want." In fact, any connection between the two will exist only on a gun forum, not in the real world.

As long as the commonly held belief in the human right to life is recognized, there is no question that self-defense is a reasonable reaction to prevent harm. The issue in modern times is what level of force is appropriate for situations which may result in death of innocent people. It is generally accepted for police/military to use lethal force to prevent or mitigate the loss of innocent life, so the question becomes whether or not the state (or individuals responsible for the state) have more rights than any individual.

The 'real-world' test is fallible, simply because the majority of people do not think for themselves... they simply follow whatever sounds good. And history tells us that many evil things have been made to sound good, and gained the support of oblivious, misled people. It has always been this way, and always will... actually, seldom has the 'right thing to do' been supported by any great majority, and even when it has, the power to carry it out was not in their hands if the government was corrupt, and they themselves were unarmed.

[The Rabbi]

It is undoubted that the state has more power than any individual. It has the power to chiefly to enforce its laws. That is the primary power of the police, not protecting lives. The ability to take life is only pursuant to their role as law enforcers.

Private citizens do not have the role of law enforcers. Ergo their ability to take life is severely circumscribed.

It is easy to dismiss the public as "idiots' and indeed some of them are. But overall there is a "court of public opinion" that plays out on every issue. If we as gun owners/advocates do not take that into consideration and craft our arguments accordingly then we will never win this court, and not in the legal ones or the legislatures either.

Arguments like "I have a god-given right to own a full-auto Uzi" are just not going to cut it, and will brand us as morons. So arguments have to be based on strict legality, on statistics, and on common sense or common experience.

[Guest jackdog]

Hope the court hears the case and rules on it. At least at that point we may have a definitive answer. Perhaps we will then be forced to refresh the tree of liberty.

[The Rabbi]

Perhaps we will then be forced to refresh the tree of liberty.

I can see the headlines now: Court Decides No Individual Right. Gun Owners Take To Rooftops.

Doesnt pass the laugh test.

Even if they decide against us it won't make any difference to what things are now. Most of us (all of us here in TN) still have constitutional protection via our state constitutions.

I don't a big change one way or another.

[Marswolf]

Even if they decide against us it won't make any difference to what things are now. Most of us (all of us here in TN) still have constitutional protection via our state constitutions.

I don't a big change one way or another.

As long as your guns and ammo never cross state lines.

[The Rabbi]

Something like 38 other states (including CA) have similar clauses in their Constitutions. Like I said, no big change either way.

[molonlabetn]

Story updated. See: http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3028