And so it begins...

[red-beard]

Supreme Court Hears Arguments
In Closely Watched Gun Case

By MARK H. ANDERSON
March 18, 2008 1:37 p.m.

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday, hearing arguments over a Washington, D.C., ban on handguns, appeared ready to affirm a constitutional right for individual gun ownership.
But it was less clear how and to what extent the high court might invalidate the D.C. law, which is the strictest set of gun regulations in the country.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's key swing vote, stated his position on the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution early in the arguments, giving gun rights supporters on the high court a likely majority on a divided court.
"In my view it supplements it, saying there is a general right to bear arms," Justice Kennedy said, explaining he believes the Second Amendment covers both the right of states to form militias and the rights of individuals to own guns.
The Supreme Court hasn't ruled directly on the Second Amendment in almost 70 years. It also over time has offered little guidance on the extent to which the amendment covers individual gun ownership for self-defense, hunting and recreational shooting. In taking up the D.C. handgun ban, the court said it would decide whether a federal appeals court properly concluded the city's laws violated the Second Amendment because it bars individuals from owning handguns.
The court allotted extra time beyond the usual hour it gives for oral arguments in appeals. Walter Dellinger, a veteran advocate before the court, appeared in support of D.C. and argued the Second Amendment refers to military needs and doesn't extend to rights for individuals. "The second clause -- to keep and bear arms -- is referred to in a military context," Mr. Dellinger said.
Early in his presentation, Mr. Dellinger encountered critical questioning from conservatives on the court. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia in particular challenged Mr. Dellinger's reading of the Second Amendment.
U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, arguing on the side of challengers to the D.C. laws, said they violate the Constitution. "The Second Amendment as it is written guarantees an individual right," Mr. Clement said. He urged the Supreme Court to find a broad right for individual gun ownership that he said may even extend to machine guns, because those guns are routinely issued to military personnel.
Alan Gura, an Alexandria, Va., attorney representing the law's challengers, urged the justices to reject the entire set of D.C. gun regulations. "We have here a ban on all guns for all people in all homes at all times," Mr. Gura said. "That is too broad and too sweeping under any review."
Moderate and liberal members of the court made it clear they didn't see a broad individual gun ownership right. Justice John Paul Stevens several times turned to the political context in which the Second Amendment was written, noting that language in Pennsylvania and Vermont constitutions that covered self-defense rights were rejected during development of the Second Amendment.
It wasn't clear, however, whether the case would split 5-4 with Justice Kennedy voting on the conservative side. Justice Stephen Breyer asked several hypothetical questions that assumed an individual right but focused closely on whether the D.C. gun ban is reasonable given the level of criminal violence the city has faced.
The Supreme Court could affirm a lower court ruling that declared the D.C. handgun ban unconstitutional and it could outline guidelines for what is allowed and not allowed in the law.
The D.C. law, on the books since 1976, bans handgun registration, bars concealed weapons possession and require shotguns and rifles to be registered and then kept unloaded and disassembled or locked.
The law was challenged by six D.C. residents who said they wanted to legally possess handguns in their homes for self-protection. A U.S. District Court threw out the challenge, but a panel of the Washington-based U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived one of the claims and ruled a special police officer, the now-retired Dick Heller, was wrongly denied a handgun permit.
The D.C. Circuit added the city can't ban handguns in the home or require that residents keep their guns dismantled or equipped with a trigger lock.
The case is D.C. v. Heller, 07-290. A decision is expected by July.

[legion]

And we will have to wait three months for a ruling.

Make no mistake, I want this rulling to be clearly reasoned and not rushed.

[tabs]

Mark my words the Supremes will uphold the Appeals Courts decision and may even go beyond its parameters in upholding the right to bear arms.

[legion]

Originally Posted by red-beard

He urged the Supreme Court to find a broad right for individual gun ownership that he said may even extend to machine guns, because those guns are routinely issued to military personnel.

The 1939 case ruled that a sawed-off shotgun could be banned because it DOES NOT have a legitimate military use.

Under that logic, how could M16s and machine guns be banned? They DO have legitimate military uses...

Does the military issue handguns? Even according to the 1939 ruling, the DC ban is unconstitutional...

The actual ruling from 1939 has pretty much been cherry picked and bastardized since day one.

[red-beard]

I expect they will uphold the appeals court decision, but will also lay the groundwork to allow "reasonable" regulation. Just like the 1st Amendment.

Of course what they think is reasonable for the 1st or 2nd, I am sure I will find repugnant.

[tabs]

If you want to look at it this way there is "reasonable" regulation allready in place. The Supream will shut the door on alot of the Liberal crap allready out there. If you look at which way the wind is blowing in American politics the forces of gun control are on the losing end of the stick. So much so that the Dems will not touch the issue with a 10 foot pole. Obviousily for fear of losing even more elections.

[Joeaksa]

Originally Posted by legion

And we will have to wait three months for a ruling.

Make no mistake, I want this rulling to be clearly reasoned and not rushed.

Hell, if they want to "reason it" then all they have to do is read the 2nd and follow it!

~~~~~~~~

Amendment II (the Second Amendment) of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights declares a well-regulated militia as "being necessary to the security of a free State" and prohibits infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

~~~~~~~~

Clear enough to me!

[legion]

Originally Posted by tabs

If you look at which way the wind is blowing in American politics the forces of gun control are on the losing end of the stick. So much so that the Dems will not touch the issue with a 10 foot pole. Obviousily for fear of losing even more elections.

Yep, even Obama went moderate on gun control when he went national. As a state senator, he was clearly anti-Second Amendment:

http://www.sportsmenforobama.org/

[sammyg2]

Lemme see iffn I got this right, it's against the law to own a hand gun in Washington DC, but it's OK for the mayor to smoke crack with a hooker?