Supreme Court may hear 2nd Amendment case

[deerhunter_matt]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-11-11-scotus-gun-laws_N.htm


Thought yall might like to know.

[bowhunter1023]

Man I think I read that somewhere else ;)

Even if you hate Bush, but love guns, be thankful he loaded the Supreme Court up with righties. It should pay off if this goes all the way.

[ap0317ah]

hopfuly this does go all the way and is ruled over before election time, if ruled in our favor it could move gun rights to the forefront of the debates this could be the door closer on obama and clinton
Tom

[ohiosam]

By Mark Sherman
Associated Press
Published: Tuesday, Nov. 20, 2007 11:34 a.m. MST

WASHINGTON — 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.
The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment of the Constitution protects an individual's right to own guns or instead merely sets forth the collective right of states to maintain militias. The former interpretation would permit fewer restrictions on gun ownership.
Gun-control advocates say the Second amendment was intended to insure that states could maintain militias, a response to 18th century fears of an all-powerful national government. Gun rights proponents contend the amendment gives individuals the right to keep guns for private uses, including self-defense.
Story continues below
The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. That decision supported the collective rights view, but did not squarely answer the question in the view of many constitutional scholars. Chief Justice John Roberts said at his confirmation hearing that the correct reading of the Second Amendment was "still very much an open issue."
The Second Amendment reads: "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."
Washington banned handguns in 1976, saying it was designed to reduce violent crime in the nation's capital.
The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because "handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia."
The District is making several arguments in defense of the restriction, including claiming that the Second Amendment involves militia service. It also said the ban is constitutional because it limits the choice of firearms, but does not prohibit residents from owning any guns at all. Rifles and shotguns are legal, if kept under lock or disassembled. Businesses may have guns for protection.
Chicago has a similar handgun ban, but few other gun-control laws are as strict as the District's.
Four states — Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New York — urged the Supreme Court to take the case because broad application of the appeals court ruling would threaten "all federal and state laws restricting access to firearms."
Dick Anthony Heller, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at home for protection.
The laws in question in the case do not "merely regulate the possession of firearms," Heller said. Instead, they "amount to a complete prohibition of the possession of all functional firearms within the home."
If the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to have guns, "the laws must yield," he said.
Opponents say the ban plainly has not worked because guns still are readily available, through legal and illegal means. Although the city's homicide rate has declined dramatically since peaking in the early 1990s, Washington still ranks among the nation's highest murder cities, with 169 killings in 2006.
The U.S. Court Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 for Heller in March. Judge Laurence Silberman said reasonable regulations still could be permitted, but said the ban went too far.
The Bush administration, which has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, has yet to weigh in on this case.
Arguments will be heard early next year. The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.

[ohiosam]

Conventional wisdom is the the Court ruling will be narrow, not a general "Yes" or "No" if the Constitution guarentees the right to individual citizen.

[R. Toker]

Thanks for posting this!! Everyone on this site should be aware of this Supreme court ruling. The founding fathers of this country were very clear in what they meant the 2nd Amendment to stand for. Sadly it has been hijacked by courts and attorneys, Governors and yes Mayors (Guiliani) for far too long. Don't be fooled by those left-wingers who say they "support hunters rights". You tell me where "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" mentions anything about hunting.

What upsets me the most is I have read on this very same forum individuls who don't appreciate the 2nd Amendment. Most notably those who talk against CCW and call folks with CCW permits "paranoid". I have seen it right here!!

[jackalope]

I am already saving to build an AR-15 before that b!^*h gets in office. Lets face it, if Obama, Hillary or giuliani gets elected it’ll be the first move to re ban some guns.

[R. Toker]

Clint Smith:

"They call me paranoid because I choose to carry a gun. I have a gun what do I need to be paranoid about? I'm prepared.:) :)