Supremes have granted cert to the DC gun ban case

[Little-Acorn]

Looks like the Supreme Court has decided that they WILL hear and adjudicate the case of the gun ban imposed in Washington DC.

This could become quite a landmark case, if they give a ruling about whether the 2nd amendment protects the right of ordinary people to keep and vbear arms, regardless of their military affiliation or the type of weapons (military-style or non-military style) in question.

OTOH, they might simply say that the weapons owned by the man who brought the case, are or are not protected by the 2nd, but that their ruling does NOT apply to "weapons and rights generally".

I hope they decide the former, and rule that the 2nd means exactly what it says. In modern language: "Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for freedom and security, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."

Such a ruling by the highest court in the land, could eventually result in the entire house of cards built by gun-ban fanatics, tumbling down as more and more cases are brought subsequent to the ruling.

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

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Supreme Court Will Hear D.C. Guns Case

Nov 20 02:09 PM US/Eastern
By MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the District of Columbia can ban handguns, a case that could produce the most in-depth examination of the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" in nearly 70 years.

The justices' decision to hear the case could make the divisive debate over guns an issue in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections.

The government of Washington, D.C., is asking the court to uphold its 31-year ban on handgun ownership in the face of a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban as incompatible with the Second Amendment. Tuesday's announcement was widely expected, especially after both the District and the man who challenged the handgun ban asked for the high court review.

[April15]

Or they could affirm certain weapons have no place in the general populace.

[Little-Acorn]

Or they could affirm certain weapons have no place in the general populace.

True, they could. After all, the USSC has at various times ruled that the Fed could ban states from regulating abortion - a Federal power found nowhere in the Constitution; and they have ruled that Eminent Domain could be used to transfer property from one private group to another, a flat violation of the 5th amendment; and even that the Fed could regulate political speech before an election, in flat violation of the 1st amendment.

So yes, the Supremes might invent the "fact" that certain guns aren't protected by the 2nd amendment, and carry on their history of fallacious judicial activism mentioned above.

Hopefully, though, with the addition of Roberts and Alito and the retirement of weathervane O'Connor, they will begin to reverse that trend, and rule that the 2nd means exactly what it says.

Another essay on the same topic, with more detail and analysis:

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

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

Court agrees to rule on gun case

Tuesday, November 20th, 2007 1:02 pm
by Lyle Denniston

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) is expected to be heard in March — slightly more than a year after the D.C. Circuit Court ruled that the right is a personal one, at least to have a gun for self-defense in one’s own home.

The Justices chose to write out for themselves the constitutional question they will undertake to answer. 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 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.

Actually, the way the justice(s) phrased the question in their statement announcing cert, is a very good sign of how they may rule.

From the second article above:

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?”

Here we have one or more Justices writing in plain black and white, that the 2nd protects a right of non-militia people to KBA for private use; and merely asking whether the DC gun ban violates that right.

No way that phrasing could be accidental. Not on this issue.

They could just as easily have asked, "Do non-militia people have a Constitutionally protected right to KBA for private use? **IF SO**, do the DC Code sections violate it?"

That would have left open the possibility that people don't have the RKBA. But the Justices DID NOT phrase it that way.

The long darkness of the Judiciary's unconstitutional denial of the 2nd amendment, may be drawing to a close at last.

[Pale Rider]

This is going to be the most important case the USSC has heard for many, many years.

Myself, I can't see how this statement is that hard to understand.

"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."

If they decide that it is unlawful for people to keep and bear arms, we will be closer to a another civil war than ever before. I for one, will NEVER give up my guns. I'll die first.

[actsnoblemartin]

You should be able to have a shotgun, or pistol. Machine gun no.

There is the comprimise.

[Joe Steel]

This is going to be the most important case the USSC has heard for many, many years.

Myself, I can't see how this statement is that hard to understand.

"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."

If they decide that it is unlawful for people to keep and bear arms, we will be closer to a another civil war than ever before. I for one, will NEVER give up my guns. I'll die first.

"People" is not the plural of person. "People" is a term of art meaning the citizenry consider collectively. The People have a right to arms but no person or persons have a right to arms.

In the plain English of the late 18th century "keep" meant manage and "arms" was a metaphor for armed force. To "keep arms" meant manage an armed force.

"Bear arms" meant "serve in an armed force."

The Second Amendment, then, is a declaration by the People of their right to ensure the army comprised only common citizens and was controlled by the citizens collective.

[Pale Rider]

"People" is not the plural of person. "People" is a term of art meaning the citizenry consider collectively. The People have a right to arms but no person or persons have a right to arms.

In the plain English of the late 18th century "keep" meant manage and "arms" was a metaphor for armed force. To "keep arms" meant manage an armed force.

"Bear arms" meant "serve in an armed force."

The Second Amendment, then, is a declaration by the People of their right to ensure the army comprised only common citizens and was controlled by the citizens collective.

I disagree. People means me, one among many. And I'll shoot the first person that tries to take my guns. You wanna try?

[Joe Steel]

I disagree. People means me, one among many. And I'll shoot the first person that tries to take my guns. You wanna try?

Tell it to David Koresh.

[diuretic]

It's being reported here on domestic radio, creating some interest. I'll be keen to see the interpretation by the Supreme Court for legal reasons, nothing to do with gun control (it's one of the American domestic issues I try to stay away from). I think it will be a fascinating read.

[Jeep Driver]

"People" is not the plural of person. "People" is a term of art meaning the citizenry consider collectively. The People have a right to arms but no person or persons have a right to arms.

In the plain English of the late 18th century "keep" meant manage and "arms" was a metaphor for armed force. To "keep arms" meant manage an armed force.

"Bear arms" meant "serve in an armed force."

The Second Amendment, then, is a declaration by the People of their right to ensure the army comprised only common citizens and was controlled by the citizens collective.

The Militia of the time of the writting of the Bill of Rights kept thier guns at home because they were
"thier guns."
Many of them were some of the most advanced wepons of thier day.(ie Rifles instead of Muskets)
We the People have an obgliation to own Machine Guns , Tanks , Artillery, Air power,
The Declateration requires that we the people have a duty to alter or abolish
Those forms of goverment that no longer serve to provide for our personal defense and therby instute new goverment to preserve the consent of the governed.

Our founders ment for us to control our goverment by whatever means nessary . Period
But If the people of this nation decide to use thier power of voteing to place us into slavery. we the people have it with in our power to place ourselves into A form of slavery that we can never vote ourselves out of, ever again.

And armed man is a citizen an unarmed man is a slave.

It started before with taxes. Otherwise known as Robbery.

When I read the Declaration, I see Bravery that has few equals in human history.

[Pale Rider]

Tell it to David Koresh.

I'm telling you.

[5stringJeff]

Or they could affirm certain weapons have no place in the general populace.

Just like Hitler did!!!

[5stringJeff]

If they decide that it is unlawful for people to keep and bear arms, we will be closer to a another civil war than ever before. I for one, will NEVER give up my guns. I'll die first.

I'll be right there with you, weapons at the ready.

[Pale Rider]

I'll be right there with you, weapons at the ready.

We won't be alone Jeff. There will be tens of millions of Americans that will unite. It'll either be another civil war, or the the SC will reverse it's decision. They will NEVER completely disarm this nation without a battle. A battle that would fracture it forever, maybe for the better. We can give the liberals that want to disarm the people Washington DC, and when their murder rate quadruples like it did in Australia because only the criminals have guns, we can have the last laugh.

[pegwinn]

No offense Joe, but I gotta disagree with a couple of points.

"People" is not the plural of person. "People" is a term of art meaning the citizenry consider collectively. The People have a right to arms but no person or persons have a right to arms. No sir, "people" was (and still is) both the plural of person and a collective reference to a specific group of persons. IE, the people of England, of Virginia, of Dallas, etc etc.

In the plain English of the late 18th century "keep" meant manage and "arms" was a metaphor for armed force. To "keep arms" meant manage an armed force. In common English of the period, Arms actually meant "weapons" in the collective. Considering that firearms were fairly rare on a per capita basis, the term "arms" also includes swords, daggers, clubs, pistols, rifles, pikes, axes, etc. The question we need to ask is when did "arms" begin to mean only firearms. The second amendment also means that outlawing crossbows or knives with six inch blades is in fact unconstitutional.

"Bear arms" meant "serve in an armed force." To Bear actually means "to carry". There is a chance that your definition was in common usage as slang. However, the plain language of the US Constitution demonstrates that there was no intent to use popular or slang versions of the language.

The Second Amendment, then, is a declaration by the People of their right to ensure the army comprised only common citizens and was controlled by the citizens collective. Actually the second amendment is directive on the states to maintain a militia, and to ensure that said militia is able to be formed by the armed citizenry. Historically my interpretation is accurate since the majority of states required service in the militia. Additionally the language syntax follows in a directive and supportive fashion.

Hi, I'm Phil. Tag; You're it.