DC lawyers file last brief in gun ban case

[Little-Acorn]

From the sound of his arguments as told here, this guy sounds like a dead duck. What will he say when the defense starts giving him remedial English lessons, and/or the justices ask WHERE in the Constitution the permission for "reasonable restrictions" on gun ownership can be found?

------------------------------

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/...214387394/1001

D.C. lawyers file last brief in gun ban case

by David C. Lipscomb
March 5, 2008

D.C. Attorney General Peter J. Nickles said lawyers for the city filed their final brief with the Supreme Court in the city's effort to overturn a lower court ruling tossing out the District's 30-year-old ban on handguns.

Mr. Nickels said at a news conference this morning that he was confident in the District's chances of winning the case and called the city's brief "the gold standard."

Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard March 18.

Attorneys for the District will argue that the Constitution protects only the gun rights of militias and that the Second Amendment restricts Congress from disarming state militias and does not prevent states from enacting firearms regulations.

They will also argue the District's gun laws do not infringe on the right to own guns in part because the Constitution permits "reasonable restrictions" on firearms.

The case arose when the District in September appealed a March 2007 ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that found restricting residents from keeping guns in their homes was unconstitutional.

The Circuit Court's ruling overturned a decision in U.S. District Court against six D.C. residents who in 2003 sued the city to keep handguns in their home for protection.

[Mr. P]

IMO this will be the landmark case of the first 10 yrs of the 21st century. Maybe even of the century.

[Kathianne]

IMO this will be the landmark case of the first 10 yrs of the 21st century. Maybe even of the century.

Seems where the smart $ is.

[Monkeybone]

woot!

i can understand not wanting ppl to carry the guns around. i am almost fine with that. but not letting them have them even in their homes was ridicilous (sp, sorry).

"Hold on Mr. Burglar while i assembly my gun!"

[5stringJeff]

They could decide this case very narrowly, however - for instance, they may only say that the handgun ban is unconstitutional without stating that guns are an individual right. So it may not be the landmark decision people expect.

[Mr. P]

They could decide this case very narrowly, however - for instance, they may only say that the handgun ban is unconstitutional without stating that guns are an individual right. So it may not be the landmark decision people expect.

I donno, they'll have to give their basis for the ruling. I don't see how they could avoid the Constitution. Even if they just refer to case law I think it would brush the Constitution..we'll see,