Supreme Court to Hear DC Case

[DonP]

From SCOTUS Blog as of about 2 minutes ago ...

Court agrees to rule on gun case
Tuesday, November 20th, 2007 1:02 pm | Lyle Denniston | Comments (0) |

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 it, in the end, 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 question(s) 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?”

 

[Noxx]

Gah, beat me by a minute.

 

[mcooper]

Yay!

 

[dc2wheel]

Any idea when it will be heard?

 

[ArcherandShooter]

Right in the middle of the Presidential election season!

Hang on, tight. It's gonna be a wild ride.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Do attorneys in the forum see any implications in the way that the Supreme Court phrased the issue? Can you interpret for laypeople?

Here, by the way, is the announcement by Heller's attorney, Alan Gura: http://dcguncase.com/blog/.

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Second Amendment Challenge to D.C. Gun Ban
November 20th, 2007 by Alan Gura

Washington, D.C.—Today, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will hear the case of Heller v. District of Columbia, and decide whether the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the right to own guns. At issue is a 31-year-old Washington, D.C. law banning handguns and requiring that all shotguns and rifles be kept unloaded and either trigger-locked or disassembled at all times. There is no exception for self-defense.

Alan Gura, lead counsel for the Heller plaintiffs said, “The Bill of Rights does not end at the District of Columbia’s borders, and it includes the right to keep and bear arms. After three decades of failure trying to control firearms in the District, it’s time for law-abiding city residents to be able to defend themselves in their homes. We are confident the Supreme Court will vindicate that right in Washington, D.C., and across the nation.”

Dick Heller, a District resident who works as an armed security guard protecting the lives of various government officials during the day but is forbidden by District law from keeping a handgun at home to protect himself, explained, “I want to be able to defend myself and my wife from violent criminals, and the Constitution says I have a right to do that by keeping a gun in my home. The police can’t be everywhere, and they can’t protect everyone all the time. Responsible gun ownership is a basic right we have as American citizens.”

The Supreme Court has not heard a Second Amendment case since 1939, when it issued a confusing and inconclusive decision in a case involving the interstate transportation of a sawed-off shotgun. The case ended before the defendant had the opportunity to establish whether sawed-off shotguns are covered by the word “arms” in the text of the Amendment. But regular shotguns, along with rifles and handguns, are precisely the kind of “arms” the Framers had in mind in drafting the Second Amendment. The District’s functional firearms ban defies the Framers’ obvious intent to ensure that the government could never disarm citizens in America, as other governments have done elsewhere.

Clark Neily, a public interest lawyer specializing in constitutional law cases and co-counsel to the Heller plaintiffs said, “The Second Amendment is every bit as much a part of the Bill of Rights as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. The framers of our Constitution made clear that the government has no more business disarming citizens than it has censoring them or telling them what values to hold sacred.”

“The citizens of Washington, D.C. − indeed, all Americans − deserve a clear pronouncement from the nation’s highest court on the real meaning of the Second Amendment,” stated Robert Levy, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and co-counsel to the Heller plaintiffs. Levy added, “Later cases will decide what gun regulations are constitutional, but an outright ban on all functional firearms clearly is not constitutional.”

Heller will likely be the highest-profile case on the Court’s docket this term, and it promises to be among the most closely watched constitutional law cases in decades. At stake is not just the question of whether people have a constitutional right to own guns, but also the Court’s willingness to stand up for rights that are clearly expressed in the Constitution, even when those rights are strongly opposed by a vocal minority.

Oral argument will most likely be scheduled for March or April, with a decision expected by June 2008.

 

[RobXD9]

Affirming the lower court ruling would be a devistating blow to all those gun-control advocates out there.

Any ruling which affirms the 2A as an individual right will soon lead to other lawsuits - the whole "shall not be infringed" may be about get grow teeth.

About time.

Robert

 

[Noxx]

The way the court phrased, makes it seem forgone, to me. Heller will be upheld, and municipal bans around the country will go *poof*

 

[GTSteve03]

“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?”

I thought the 2nd Amendment was referring to "well-regulated" militias, not state-regulated ones.

Something seems a bit fishy with that to me.

 

[foghornl]

works For Me! ! !

 

[JBadgley]

It's about time this issue gets resolved and even if its ruled against us gun owners, the gov only knows about 3 of mine and i aint giving them the others. Each one has its own story and history that i refuse to give up because some gun hating liberal thinks its dangerous

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

Someone told me that they were in a law class and this subject came up yesterday.

The teacher, whom is a lawyer, and from what I know is a very good one, said it had to be decided as a "collective" right, because of the punctuation.

However, I guess this teacher sounds pretty biased towards people not having guns.

What do you think about the punctuation? Could decide it?

 

[v35]

Yay! No I can stop prefacing everything I say with IF the supreme court hears the case...

The Justices chose to write out for themselves the question(s) they will undertake to answer. Both sides ... had disagreed over how to frame the Second Amendment issue.

Interesting rewording. As such, the case seems fairly well stacked in our favor, unless I'm missing something...

 

[Mr. Designer]

I hope they make the right decision.

 

[Gene_WI]

I am cautious about the wording. The ruling will be very narrow.

Does the phrasing SCOTUS use imply that individuals have second amendment rights.?

 

[v35]

The teacher, whom is a lawyer, and from what I know is a very good one, said it had to be decided as a "collective" right, because of the punctuation.

Hah! Told you so!

You're not helping my paranoia at all.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

“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?”

Well, if the answer is YES, then you can keep an weapon in your home. However, it doesn't say anything about "Bearing arms", or anything outside the home.

Right?

 

[Standing Wolf]

As such, the case seems fairly well stacked in our favor, unless I'm missing something...

My fear, which I hope is soon proved groundless, is twofold: 1.) government will once again look after the interests of government, and 2.) lawyers will find a way to concoct something—anything—to "prove" the Second Amendment means the exact opposite of what it says.

Entrusting the nation's civil rights to the care of lawyers is like asking the coyotes to guard the hen house.

 

[romma]

It's on!! Battle suits on!

 

[Cosmoline]

They could affirm it on very narrow grounds, but even if all they do is acknowledge the existence of the Second as an individual right it will be a major victory. Of course, if they uphold the old "collective" view it will be a major defeat. I don't see any way this case can be minor, even if they try hard to keep it narrow. They let this whole thing stew for too many generations without voicing any solid opinions on the matter.

 

[SDC]

Someone told me that they were in a law class and this subject came up yesterday.

The teacher, whom is a lawyer, and from what I know is a very good one, said it had to be decided as a "collective" right, because of the punctuation.

However, I guess this teacher sounds pretty biased towards people not having guns.

What do you think about the punctuation? Could decide it?

Ask them if the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights (obviously yes), and then ask them if any OTHER part of the Bill of Rights grants purely "collective" rights (again obviously, no). The "collective rights" argument makes NO SENSE AT ALL to anyone who appreciates the environment that the Bill of Rights was written and passed in.

 

[cyclist]

I'm going to stay prudent and cautious over this one, especially with the rewritten wording, in particular the part about "for private use in their own homes". And I still think Heller's occupation will become a further issue.

As re-written, this will do little for us within Wisconsin. I will have to see how it turns out and how the final judgement is stated. It almost reads like the rewrite was done to allow a very narrow specific and focused ruling without causing a nationwide impact.

Go ahead and party if you want to, but for me I'll keep the fire going low and warm and keep an eye on the horizon.

 

[everallm]

Nice to see they ARE going to hear, my concern is the specificity and narrowness of the question.

It talks to 3 specific DC statutes, specifically

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.

I particularily like the second one.....CCW anyone..

However the questions are very narrow and may not have particular relevance to anywhere other than possibly Chicago and NY City.

My concern would be that the Supremes say

"Though will allow the masses access to a pistol so long as it is reasonably regulated"

Without putting bounds on what is reasonable or not overly burdensome.

It doesn't also appear to address a real issue for DC residents, even if they are allowed pistols, how are they going to get one. I seem to remember somone saying that there are no FFL's in DC itself ergo no NICS, therefore no weapon.

Maybe I need to sup some more anti-paranoia potion......

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Here was D.C.'s proposed question:

Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning private possession of handguns while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns.

Here was Heller's proposed question:

Whether the Second Amendment guarantees law-abiding, adult individuals a right to keep ordinary, functional firearms, including handguns, in their homes.

Looking at the Court's version, the first thing that pops to mind is that D.C. wanted the issue limited to handguns and clearly the Court is broadening the issue to include "handguns and other firearms." So that looks positive. The "affiliated with a state-regulated militia" language seems to just be in there to make it clear we are discussing an individual right. They are keeping the decision as narrow as possible - which makes sense.

It also looks like the are including the unloaded/locked part of D.C. code (Sec. 7-2507.02) in the question as well, so it looks like the Court will address whether an unloaded and locked firearm deprives you of your Second Amendment rights as well. Should be interesting; but I'll wait to read more informed commentary before I opine more.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

Ask them if the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights (obviously yes), and then ask them if any OTHER part of the Bill of Rights grants purely "collective" rights (again obviously, no). The "collective rights" argument makes NO SENSE AT ALL to anyone who appreciates the environment that the Bill of Rights was written and passed in.

He talked about "Incorporation", and that not ALL of the rights had been Incorporated.