Graybeard Outdoors banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
853 Posts
I received this in my email just today also.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) -- the trade association of the firearms industry -- applauded the decision by the United States Supreme Court to determine authoritatively whether the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides an individual right to keep and bear arms.

The U.S. Supreme Court granted a review of a decision from March by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Parker, et al., v. District of Columbia (Circuit docket 04-7041) -- a case that upheld the striking down of the District's ban on private ownership of handguns while asserting that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to keep and bear arms. The case is now known as District of Columbia v. Heller. The mayor of Washington, D.C., Adrian M. Fenty, filed the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, setting the stage for the high court to rule. According to FBI statistics, Washington D.C., with its gun ban, ranks as one of the most dangerous cities in the United States and maintains one of the highest per-capita murder rates in the country.

"The firearms industry looks forward to the Supreme Court putting to rest the specious argument that the Second Amendment is not an individual right," said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel. "This intellectually bankrupt and feeble argument has been used by gun control advocates to justify laws and regulations that deny Americans their civil right to own and lawfully use firearms for protection, hunting, sports shooting and other lawful purposes.

"The firearms and ammunition industry is unique in that our products are the means through which the Second Amendment right is realized," continued Keane. "If there were no firearms and ammunition manufacturers, than the Second Amendment becomes an illusory right."

While the Heller case will be the first time since 1939 that the Supreme Court has addressed the Second Amendment (U.S. v. Miller), the nation's leading historians, legal scholars and constitutional experts are on record as having concluded that the Second Amendment provides an individual right. Such renowned scholars as Lawrence Tribe of Harvard, Akhil Reed Amar of Yale, William Van Alstyne of Duke and Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas have been vocal in their assertion that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and bear arms.

"The government has powers, not rights," added Keane. "The contention that the Second Amendment is a collective right of the government is completely without merit."

BACKGROUND:
In March, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in striking down the District's gun ban, held in Parker, et al., v. District of Columbia that "The phrase 'the right of the people' . . . leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual." This was the second time in recent history that a federal circuit court upheld the longstanding belief that the Second Amendment was an individual right. In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in the case of U.S. v. Emerson that "All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans."
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,517 Posts
Now's as good a time as any. Despite the adamant claims here, the 2nd has been something of an ignored calculus problem to the SCOTUS for decades. The language defies an easy interpretation and precedent is rare. This is really going to be a huge ruling, at least where gun bans are particularly strict.

My guess = they punt. They give us a split decision that leaves no clear precedent but rather invalidates some laws and keeps some. I suspect total bans on conventional guns like DC's will be in trouble, while long established bans such as those on automatic weapons survive. Course that's just a guess from a guy who rarely dabbles in appeals work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,772 Posts
dukkillr said:
Now's as good a time as any. Despite the adamant claims here, the 2nd has been something of an ignored calculus problem to the SCOTUS for decades. The language defies an easy interpretation and precedent is rare. This is really going to be a huge ruling, at least where gun bans are particularly strict.

My guess = they punt. They give us a split decision that leaves no clear precedent but rather invalidates some laws and keeps some. I suspect total bans on conventional guns like DC's will be in trouble, while long established bans such as those on automatic weapons survive. Course that's just a guess from a guy who rarely dabbles in appeals work.
.
Kinda hope you're right. How long do you think this decision will take, before 2008 or after?

...TM7
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
853 Posts
TM7 said:
Kinda hope you're right. How long do you think this decision will take, before 2008 or after?

...TM7
This case should be going before the court between from March to maybe sometime Summer of 2008.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,075 Posts
Considering the reason that the bill of rights exists, it would astound me if any interpretation but individual rights would be rendered. It would mean that our bill of rights isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,602 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
If the Supreme court thought the lower appeals court made the right decision then why would they need to review the case?

I've got to say I'm a bit nervous over this one as it could wind up being one of the biggest losses of individual liberty in the history of the country.

There is much at stake.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,075 Posts
victorcharlie:

I'm with you, man! After the Kelo v. New London ruling, I'm not too optimistic about anything the court does.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
853 Posts
It might go this way.

Glenn Reynolds on the Second Amendment and the options the Supreme Court Faces

* It can find that the Second Amendment doesn't really do anything - that it's merely a relic of an older era. But that's a rather dangerous approach: What other parts of the Constitution might be considered relics? And can a judicial approach that leaves a tenth of the Bill of Rights meaningless possibly be sound?

* It can find that the Second Amendment doesn't grant individual rights, but only protects the right of states to arm their militias (or "state armies," as some gun-control advocates put it). This would make the DC case go away, but at some cost: If states have a constitutional right, as against the federal government, to arm their militias as they see fit, then states that don't like federal gun-control laws could just enroll every law-abiding citizen in the state militia and authorize those citizens to possess machine guns, tanks and other military gear.

posted from http://www.nypost.com/seven/11212007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/lawyers__guns__washington_537742.htm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,301 Posts
One of the liberals on the court is well into his eighties and may not make it to next spring, that could be a plus factor for out side.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,992 Posts
Dusty said:
One of the liberals on the court is well into his eighties and may not make it to next spring, that could be a plus factor for out side.
Send him Ron Pauls Hookers LOL ;D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
210 Posts
Almtnman said:
It might go this way.

Glenn Reynolds on the Second Amendment and the options the Supreme Court Faces

* It can find that the Second Amendment doesn't really do anything - that it's merely a relic of an older era. But that's a rather dangerous approach: What other parts of the Constitution might be considered relics? And can a judicial approach that leaves a tenth of the Bill of Rights meaningless possibly be sound?

* It can find that the Second Amendment doesn't grant individual rights, but only protects the right of states to arm their militias (or "state armies," as some gun-control advocates put it). This would make the DC case go away, but at some cost: If states have a constitutional right, as against the federal government, to arm their militias as they see fit, then states that don't like federal gun-control laws could just enroll every law-abiding citizen in the state militia and authorize those citizens to possess machine guns, tanks and other military gear.

posted from http://www.nypost.com/seven/11212007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/lawyers__guns__washington_537742.htm
Mr Reynolds continues with a third option on the 2nd page of that article, to uphold the lower court's decision that the Washington DC gun ban is invalid in view of the second amendment, and the second amendment is an individual not a collective right. Follow the link provided above in the previous email to read the whole article.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,605 Posts
I'm not a Constitutional scholar and I am currently a participant in a separate SCOTUS appeal this spring. Like Hellar in the DC case, I too have a substantial interest in this Courts upcoming opinions, as my case like his was upheld by the Circuit Appeals Court. That the SCOTUS would even accept these cases is most baffling. Common Sense and Logic do not exist within the high courts decisions as confirmed by past record. If the majority decides to legislate from the bench without Congressional procedure, it does so, and there is little we can do about it once the decision is made. If one looks at the entire 2nd Amendment and the Bill of Rights severally, it is clear that the term people means the individual and nothing else. The Xth Amendment clearly separates the powers granted to the US government and reserves all other powers to the States or people respectively. This clearly indicates that the term people having rights and powers as used in writing the Bill of Rights, and especially the Xth, is different and distinct from those of the States or the US government. I can only wonder how the SCOTUS will twist the definition of people to mean anything other than how the founders intended. If they do not redefine this term, there can be no doubt that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right to bear arms. It does not necessarily mean firearms; hovever in Miller, the SCOTUS upheld Illinois in taking Millers firearm because he did not prove in his original defense that a shotgun was used militarily. The SCOTUS in the majority decision indicated that had Miller done so in the original defense, the high court might have decided in his favor. That the high Court is now hearing a direct individual firearms case under federal jurisdiction where Constitutional law, and not State law applies, bodes rather well for a favorable outcome. I can only hope that my case is upheld too.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top