United States Supreme Court agrees to rule on District of Columbia v. Heller

[motivez]

After a hiatus of 68 years, the Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to rule on the meaning of the Second Amendment — the hotly contested part of the Constitution that guarantees “a right to keep and bear arms.” Not since 1939 has the Court heard a case directly testing the Amendment’s scope — and there is a debate about whether it actually decided anything in that earlier ruling. In a sense, the Court may well be writing on a clean slate if, in the end, it decides the ultimate question: does the Second Amendment guarantee an individual right to have a gun for private use, or does it only guarantee a collective right to have guns in an organized military force such as a state National Guard unit?

The city of Washington’s appeal (District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290) seeking to revive its flat ban on private possession of handguns is expected to be heard in March — slightly more than a year after the D.C. Circuit Court ruled that the Second Amendment right is a personal one, at least to have a gun for self-defense in one’s own home. (The Court took no action on Tuesday on a conditional cross-petition, Parker, et al., v. District of Columbia, 07-335, an appeal by five District residents seeking to join in the case. The absence of any action may mean that the Court has decided not to hear that case. If that is so, it will be indicated in an order next Monday. The Court also may simply be holding the case until it decides the Heller case.)

The Justices chose to write out for themselves the constitutional question they will undertake to answer in Heller. Both sides had urged the Court to hear the city’s case, but they had disagreed over how to frame the Second Amendment issue.

Here is the way the Court phrased the granted issue:

“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?”

The first listed section bars registration of pistols if not registered before Sept. 24, 1976; the second bars carrying an unlicensed pistol, and the third requires that any gun kept at home must be unloaded and disassembled or bound by a lock, such as one that prevents the trigger from operating.

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.

The D.C. Circuit ruled that the Amendment does apply to the District because of its federal status, subject to all provisions of the Constitution. At this point, therefore, it appears that the Court’s review may not reach a major question — does the Second Amendment also protect individual rights against state and local government gun control laws? But a ruling by the Court recognizing an individual right to have a gun almost surely would lead to new test cases on whether to extend the Amendment’s guarantee so that it applied to state and local laws, too. The Court last confronted that issue in Presser v. illinois, in 1886, finding that the Amendment was not binding on the states.

Some observers who read the Court’s order closely may suggest that the Court is already inclined toward an “individual rights” interpretation of the Second Amendment. That is because the order asks whether the three provisions of the D.C. gun control law violate “the Second Amendment rights of individuals.” But that phrasing may reveal very little about whether the Amendment embraces an individual right to have a gun for private use. Only individuals, of course, would be serving in the militia, and there is no doubt that the Second Amendment provides those individuals a right to have a gun for that type of service. The question the Court will be deciding is, if there are individuals who want to keep pistols for use at home, does the Second Amendment guarantee them that right. Just because the Second Amendment protects some individual right does not settle the nature of that right.

One of the interesting subsets of the question the Court will be confronting is whether the 1939 case of U.S. v. Miller is a precedent for what the Second Amendment means — individual or collective right. If that decision did find in favor of a collective right, the current Court would have to decide whether this was a binding precedent, or whether it should be overruled. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., has already taken a stand on that question. At his nomination hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he said that “the Miller case sidestepped” the issue of whether the Amendment protected a collective or an individual right. He added: “An argument was made back in 1939 that this provides only a collective right, and the Court didn’t address that….So people try to read into the tea leaves about Miller and what would come out on this issue, but that’s still very much an open issue.”

The local law at issue in Heller has been discussed widely as a sweeping ban on private possession or use of handguns. But the Court order granting review took it a step further: the one section that will be at issue that goes beyond handguns is the provision that requires that any gun kept at home be unloaded and disassembled, or at least be locked. Thus, that provision also applies to rifles and shotguns kept at home, in terms of whether those weapons would remain “functional” in time of emergency if that provision were upheld. That part of the order appeared to widen the inquiry in a way that the local residents who challenged the law had wanted.

Court agrees to rule on gun case | SCOTUSblog

Man, this is going to be an epic case. I expect it to come down on the side of an individuals right to own a firearm for personal use instead of the militia, but maybe not.. The court is still split 5-4 on many issues and there's still a swing vote, it just doesn't go by the name of O'Connor anymore..

If the court should rule the that the Second Amendment only provides for individuals serving in the militia to own a firearm for personal use, I'm thinking there would be an immediate backlash and push by anti-gun control advocates and conservatives for a constitutional amendment "clarifying" what it is the Second Amendment actually says... and of course, the disagreement by liberals who want to be able to restrict ownership rights based on the type, etc..

Who do you guys think would come out on top in that battle? Are there enough states to ratify?

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by motivez

Court agrees to rule on gun case | SCOTUSblog

Man, this is going to be an epic case. I expect it to come down on the side of an individuals right to own a firearm for personal use instead of the militia, but maybe not.. The court is still split 5-4 on many issues and there's still a swing vote, it just doesn't go by the name of O'Connor anymore..

If the court should rule the that the Second Amendment only provides for individuals serving in the militia to own a firearm for personal use, I'm thinking there would be an immediate backlash and push by anti-gun control advocates and conservatives for a constitutional amendment "clarifying" what it is the Second Amendment actually says... and of course, the disagreement by liberals who want to be able to restrict ownership rights based on the type, etc..

Who do you guys think would come out on top in that battle? Are there enough states to ratify?

I personally hope they come down on the side of the militia and the Constitution IS amended. There is nothing wrong with clarification ALL can understand instead of people reading into it what they want.

[kinggovernor]

I think its time to clarify this issue and I don't think it is going to come from a SC decision. I believe in personal ownership of guns, but with some reasonable restrictions.


I guess I have problems with the SC getting to decide our most important issues

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I personally hope they come down on the side of the militia and the Constitution IS amended. There is nothing wrong with clarification ALL can understand instead of people reading into it what they want.

As long as you don't agree with the amendment it is alright to do away with it, right?

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by motivez

Court agrees to rule on gun case | SCOTUSblog

Man, this is going to be an epic case. I expect it to come down on the side of an individuals right to own a firearm for personal use instead of the militia, but maybe not.. The court is still split 5-4 on many issues and there's still a swing vote, it just doesn't go by the name of O'Connor anymore..

If the court should rule the that the Second Amendment only provides for individuals serving in the militia to own a firearm for personal use, I'm thinking there would be an immediate backlash and push by anti-gun control advocates and conservatives for a constitutional amendment "clarifying" what it is the Second Amendment actually says... and of course, the disagreement by liberals who want to be able to restrict ownership rights based on the type, etc..

Who do you guys think would come out on top in that battle? Are there enough states to ratify?

The bill of rights are clearly restrictions on the government, they are nothing more. They don't grant the gov't power, they restrict its power.

The 2nd amendment grants citizens the right to bear arms. Plain and simple.

It amazes me how people get confused by a single sentence.

[hsmith]

Personally, I don't see this being a landmark ruling. if it is, it will side on the gun rights as the court is stacked in that favor.

The case is pretty clear cut. It was an honest citizen protecting themselves when the police could not. DC's laws are flawed and unjust, they need to be done away with. End of story.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by hsmith

As long as you don't agree with the amendment it is alright to do away with it, right?

Yes, that's the principle of our constitution. If you don't agree with an amendment you should advocate to change or repeal it.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Yes, that's the principle of our constitution. If you don't agree with an amendment you should advocate to change or repeal it.

True.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by hsmith

The bill of rights are clearly restrictions on the government, they are nothing more. They don't grant the gov't power, they restrict its power.

The 2nd amendment grants citizens the right to bear arms. Plain and simple.

It amazes me how people get confused by a single sentence.

Considering people who are much more well versed in Constitutional matters than either myself or you disagree on the true meaning and intent of the Second Amendment, I'd say your assertion is a little arrogant and condescending.

Obviously there's ambiguity there or everyone would agree.. it's not that they're confused, their interpretation simply differs from your own.

I think this will be a landmark ruling if they actually decide to tackle the broad constitutional issue in play instead of focusing more narrowly on something in the way the law was written, or whether or not it applies to DC because of the way the district was originally created, etc..

It'll really be Kennedy who swings the court either way on it.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by hsmith

The bill of rights are clearly restrictions on the government, they are nothing more. They don't grant the gov't power, they restrict its power.

The 2nd amendment grants citizens the right to bear arms. Plain and simple.

It amazes me how people get confused by a single sentence.

Do you think there should be a limit on the type of arm that can be beared?

[garbagemanlb]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

Do you think there should be a limit on the type of arm that can be beared?

No one can infringe upon my right to bear nuclear arms.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

Do you think there should be a limit on the type of arm that can be beared?

That's the main issue I have with it at this time...what is the definition of "arm." If people take a literal meaning of the document, then you should go back to what they LITERALLY thought an "arm" was back in the day...a day where machine guns, high capacity weaponry and RPGs didn't exist.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

That's the main issue I have with it at this time...what is the definition of "arm." If people take a literal meaning of the document, then you should go back to what they LITERALLY thought an "arm" was back in the day...a day where machine guns, high capacity weaponry and RPGs didn't exist.

The counter argument to that is that obviously the founders had the forethought to realize that technology would advance and they wouldn't be using the same type of weapon 100 years from then..

If you believe that the founders sought to limit the government from telling the people they couldn't own firearms to protect themselves, especially from the government if it became tyrannical.. then wouldn't / shouldn't they be allowed to maintain stockpiles of something that could actually pose a threat to the government? Including rocket launchers, military planes, etc?

Because right now, even if you have 11ty billion machine guns, they don't stand up to the F-22 or whatever..

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

That's the main issue I have with it at this time...what is the definition of "arm." If people take a literal meaning of the document, then you should go back to what they LITERALLY thought an "arm" was back in the day...a day where machine guns, high capacity weaponry and RPGs didn't exist.

exactly, which is why I would rather have congress create legislation to deal with this rather than a SC ruling. It is a very undemocratic way of creating public policy

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by motivez

The counter argument to that is that obviously the founders had the forethought to realize that technology would advance and they wouldn't be using the same type of weapon 100 years from then..

If you believe that the founders sought to limit the government from telling the people they couldn't own firearms to protect themselves, especially from the government if it became tyrannical.. then wouldn't / shouldn't they be allowed to maintain stockpiles of something that could actually pose a threat to the government? Including rocket launchers, military planes, etc?

Because right now, even if you have 11ty billion machine guns, they don't stand up to the F-22 or whatever..

a lack of technology does not mean that a revolution would not be successful in this country.

[motivez]

Well, the SC is simply supposed to interpret and clarify what the law says (or if the law is constitutional) if there is disagreement..

If people don't like the SC's conclusion on the matter, it doesn't mean that's the final word and will stand for all time.

I don't think I'd say it's undemocratic, seems to me that this is a good example of the way our system works..

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by motivez

Well, the SC is simply supposed to interpret and clarify what the law says (or if the law is constitutional) if there is disagreement..

Right and its power to interpret was also ambiguous and not stated out right until Marbury vs Madison in 1803 by the SC.

Look we can argue original intent all we want but it remains that flexability was built into the constitution - which implies to me that the framers knew society and its definitions of liberty, democracy etc would evolve and change. Surely no reasonable person would argue that the 3/5 th clause should remain in the constitution - society evolves and our constitution evolves around it, not the other way around.

I think we should debate how it should be for our age and for those that come after us not what it was in the past.

[motivez]

I think the Constitution is a flexible document, but where you're going to find disagreement is whether or not it's flexible in that it can be interpreted many ways as new things come up and public perception about what is acceptable changes, or if when that happens, it's up to society at that time to write those changes into it so it can be interpreted without having to use creative methods go to looking for what we want out of a document that was written so long ago..

I think it's more likely that the second was what the founders had in mind, amendments and such are the way we go about changing things we disagree with (such as the 3/5th thing)..