What is the Supreme Court Date?

[Titan6]

I'll have to side with Mr. Levy, who says the NRA DID try to kill it.

Okay, arguements in "oh yeah" vein annoy me a little. So, let us look at some of the "inaccuarcies" in the article first.

April 4, 2007

Should Congress or the Courts Decide D.C. Gun Ban's Fate?
by Robert A. Levy

Robert A. Levy is senior fellow in constitutional studies and served as co-counsel to the plaintiffs in Parker v. District of Columbia.

PRINT PAGE E-MAIL PAGE TEXT SIZE
Could the National Rifle Association and its allies in Congress be undermining the best pro-gun case ever likely to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court?

More than four years ago, three attorneys and I filed Parker v. District of Columbia, a Second Amendment case on behalf of six local residents who want to defend themselves in their own homes.

For reasons that remain unclear, we faced repeated attempts by the NRA to derail the litigation.

If you are going to make a statement you should at least explain what you mean by that.... but the article does not. So let us look at the issue at hand currently (then).

Enter Congress and the NRA. First, Reps. Mike Ross, D-Ark., and Mark Souder, R-Ind., introduced the D.C. Personal Protection Act. Then, on March 28, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, followed suit in the Senate. Both bills, pushed hard by the NRA, would repeal the D.C. gun ban.

Again this is the same bill that they could not get passed for 25 years. Surely the NRA knew they had no chance yet again? You might ask well "Why push it?". While I can't answer for the NRA I would have pushed it anyway myself.

Ordinarily, that might be a good thing. But passage of the bills would kill the Parker litigation. It isn't possible to challenge a law that has been repealed. Yet, Sen. Hutchison claims in her press release that she favors "both a legislative and judicial remedy. I hope the Parker case goes before the Supreme Court and that the court asserts that the right to bear arms is an individual, and not a collective, right. ..."

Yes and losing the court case would be a disaster of untold proportions.

When asked to clarify the NRA's position, CEO Wayne LaPierre told us in a private meeting, "You can take it to the bank. The NRA will not do anything to prevent the Supreme Court from reviewing Parker."

Maybe so, but actions speak louder than words. The NRA's aggressive promotion of the D.C. Personal Protection Act is baffling at best.

Why is something they do like clockwork every year baffling? Did he say he would not push the bill?

Parker is a much better vehicle to vindicate Second Amendment rights than an act of Congress. First, legislative repeal of the D.C. gun ban will not stop criminal defense attorneys and Public Defenders from citing the Second Amendment when they challenge "felon in possession" charges. Thus, if Parker is derailed, the next Second Amendment case to reach the Supreme Court could feature a murderer or drug dealer instead of six law-abiding citizens.

Yeah. Umm... cause it was so easy to get Parker to SCOTUS on 2A grounds. I am sure that some public defender will bring in a pimp with a gun that needs it to keep his stable in line and take it straight to the Supreme Court.

Second, a bill aimed at D.C. does only part of the job. It could be repealed by a more liberal Congress.

True. But it would do the job for the people of DC.

And it will have no effect on state law outside of D.C. In effect, those who support the D.C. Personal Protection Act will be opposing an unambiguous Supreme Court proclamation on the Second Amendment, applicable across the nation.

Which would be nice if we win.

Third, the Supreme Court is more conservative today than it's been for some time, and probably more conservative than it's going to be. In the unlikely event that five current justices decide to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by upholding a total ban on handguns, that would be the time for Congress to act. Until then, the D.C. Personal Protection Act is premature and counter-productive.

The likelyhood of that is still up for debate. We should know for sure by this time next year. Reading the SCOTUS is a hazardous profession at best. So what you are really saying is that;

- If the NRA had succeeded in passing a bill that had failed 25 time previously
- Than the case would have been lost with little gains

 

[Jeff White]

If the Supreme Court grants cert, which I personally doubt will happen and if they rule an individual right, those of us in the RKBA community are going to be locked in legal battles for decades. The ruling is not likely to be the sweeping ruling most people here think it will be. Antigun legislation will still be introduced at all levels, local, state and federal, some of it will be passed and then we will be in court filing injunctions to keep it from taking effect and having it declared unconstitutional.

All you have to do is look at the fight over abortion to get an idea of what we have in front of us, if they grant cert and if they make a narrow ruling. The war for our gun rights will open a second front in the courts. It's going to take an even larger financial commitment then we're making now.

Jeff

 

[Titan6]

^^^^^

That I think is the worst case scenario. Maybe this has something to do with it:

Alma Illinois

You may see what you are talking about in the vapidly anti states but everywhere else you will likely see the opposite or neutrality. That it why I am convinced that the tenth ammendment is about to become the next major battleground.

 

[Kim]

Well the NRA (or other civil liberty group) should be able to collect large attorney fees like the ACLU. Congress can throw some funding our way like they do the ACLU. Gun rights can have a Comission on Civil Rights to see our rights are PROTECTED or they can just finally add the 2nd amendment protection to the current Civil Rights Comission --cough, cough. Yea I can just see it now............

 

[Jeff White]

You may see what you are talking about in the vapidly anti states but everywhere else you will likely see the opposite or neutrality.

Titan6,
Would you like me to do a search and post the proposed legislation in many of the so called free states? If you think the anti gunners are just going to accept a narrow ruling and shrug their shoulders and say: "Well boys, it was a good fight, but we lost..." then you greatly underestimate them.

Did the passage of the Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act stop them from suing the gun manufacturers? Until the Supreme Court rules that the second amendment is as sacred as the first, we will be fighting this battle.

I'm sure you aren't foolish enough to underestimate the enemy that much.

Jeff

 

[Gunnerpalace]

Well tomorrow is the big day, I am waiting for a news report and the obvious spin the media will put on it. Cert or none it will affect laws nation wide and we will get a good chance at winning back RKBA.

 

[Titan6]

the proposed legislation in many of the so called free states? If you think the anti gunners are just going to accept a narrow ruling and shrug their shoulders and say: "Well boys, it was a good fight, but we lost..." then you greatly underestimate them.

Not at all. But just as the gun ban was never going to be lifted in DC through congress some states will never, ever abide strict gun control. The people won't stand for it.

Will we ever be truly free? Well that is a matter of perspective I suppose. As you pointed out even the SCOTUS ruling the second ammendment sacred in our favor will certainly not be without challenges. But in many states those challenges will be as futile as they are now.

But I ask you this; Do you see a President Guliani (or Clinton) ordering Federal troops to NYC to enforce the people's RKBA's? I don't think so. But will he send the ATF to MT to shut down a full auto gun maker selling to the public? That one is up in the air.... So I think the real question will likely become one of the tenth.

 

[Jeff White]

Not at all. But just as the gun ban was never going to be lifted in DC through congress some states will never, ever abide strict gun control. The people won't stand for it.

When the demographics of the state change to where most of the population is in urban areas, which is happening everywhere, then you'll see states where the people won't stand for gun control, voting it in. Ask any Texan about the attitude towards guns in Houston, Dallas or Austin.

But I ask you this; Do you see a President Guliani (or Clinton) ordering Federal troops to NYC to enforce the people's RKBA's? I don't think so.

No, I don't see any president of either party doing that. We've had gun control of some form or another since the 1800s. Yet I can't think of one law that was ever struck down on 2d amendment grounds.

But will he send the ATF to MT to shut down a full auto gun maker selling to the public?

In a heartbeat. Until there is a ruling striking down the 1986 closure of the machine gun registry, the feds will gleefully enforce it.

So I think the real question will likely become one of the tenth.

The 10th Amendment is deader then the 2d. I wouldn't look for this court or any court you're likely to see in your lifetime to put the federal genie back in the bottle.

Jeff

 

[Titan6]

No, I don't see any president of either party doing that. We've had gun control of some form or another since the 1800s. Yet I can't think of one law that was ever struck down on 2d amendment grounds.

At least not yet anyway......

When the demographics of the state change to where most of the population is in urban areas, which is happening everywhere, then you'll see states where the people won't stand for gun control, voting it in. Ask any Texan about the attitude towards guns in Houston, Dallas or Austin.

Let me ask myself.... or my rep... When I last spoke FTF with my state rep Leo Berman last July (who makes no secret of the fact that he carries) he seemed pretty hopeful about Houston and most of the rest of Texas (he didn't have anything to say about Austin... but what can you say?). When put in perspective that Houston is the same size as Chicago and the nonsense they you all have to put up with there Houston is really miles ahead of all of it's neighbors of similar size.

Every year, despite the rapidly changing demographic in Texas (or maybe because of?) there has been an expansion of RKBA for the last five years at least, to include this year the now legal "no lic required concealed carry in your vehicle" law. I also like getting the CCL for free (we just need to make it free for everyone now).

Now I know that the price freedom is an eternal vigil. Complaceny is as certain a path to dictatorship as any other but I do see hopeful signs. Most states have expanded rights and few gotten more restrictive. Seems to me mostly the bad have gotten worse and the good have gotten better and those in the middle are slowly drifting our way. But we can't ever let up or it will be straight back to 1994.

What concerns me is that any grab at the top of the chain (fed) could set us back many years. Most of the candidates running for the presidency are either downright anti or neutral at best. People don't see the gun control as a natonal issue anymore so it isn't on the radar in the average voter's decision making process.

In a heartbeat. Until there is a ruling striking down the 1986 closure of the machine gun registry, the feds will gleefully enforce it.

Certainly a President Guilliani/ Clinton would send the ATF, Federal Troops and NYPD to put the heel on the neck of the upstarts but someone else might not. I am speculating of course but there are more reasonable candidates in the race.

The 10th Amendment is deader then the 2d. I wouldn't look for this court or any court you're likely to see in your lifetime to put the federal genie back in the bottle.

Well I hope the 2A isn't dead. Certainly most of us never expected to see a serious SCOTUS challenge in our lifetime. But we shall know soon enough.

 

[k_dawg]

The XIII/XIV/XV amendments were ratified in 1865-70.

It was not until a century later, that most laws were finally changed to reflect these amendments, with the civil rights act.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Today is the day the Supreme Court decides whether to grant cert on Heller, though we won't know the decision until Tuesday likely!

 

[NickEllis]

Wow, big day.

 

[K-Romulus]

Georgetown Univ. school paper editorial (anti)

No real surprise, but here is one local whine:

http://www.georgetownvoice.com/2007-11-08/editorial/keep-the-district-s-gun-ban-alive

Editorial
November 8, 2007
Keep the District’s gun ban alive

This Friday, the Supreme Court will decide whether or not to hear Mayor Adrian Fenty’s (D) appeal to overturn a March ruling that declared D.C.’s handgun ban unconstitutional. If the Court chooses not to take the case, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ March decision will stand, and the gun ban will be dead. The Supreme Court should take Fenty’s case and uphold the constitutionality of the District’s gun ban.

The March ruling “marked the first time that a federal appeals court has struck down a gun regulation on the grounds that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s rights to bear arms,” according to a press release from the Mayor’s Office. The 1939 case United States v. Miller, the Court decided unanimously that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that a militia is properly armed. Because the 1939 ruling tied the right to bear arms to their use in a militia, it did not explicitly guarantee an individual right to bear arms.

According to Georgetown Law Professor Michael Seidman, “the issue mostly turns on how strongly to take the first clause of the amendment which talks about the well-regulated militia and whether or that operates on the following clause [regarding the right of the people to bear arms].” Rather than focusing on the intricacies of the Second Amendment, though, Fenty’s appeal relies on the argument that the Second Amendment should not apply to the District at all, as the 1886 Supreme Court case Presser v. Illinois ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply to the state regulation of gun possession and use.

The D.C. Circuit Court’s decision on the handgun ban not only contradicts the precedent set by United States v. Miller, it endangers the lives of the District’s citizens.

The District City Council has banned handguns since 1976, and Fenty’s appeal states that the city has been regulating handguns since 1858, when Congress still had to legislate D.C.’s laws.

“Although only a third of the nation’s firearms are handguns,” Fenty and D.C. Attorney General Linda Singer wrote in The Washington Post, “these easily concealable weapons are used in far more killings, woundings and crimes than all other types of firearms combined.”

The New England Journal of Medicine has reported that handgun possession positively correlates with increased homicide risk. The self-defense argument cannot override the fact that guns create more danger than they prevent. Given the grave danger that handguns pose, along with the fact that the Second Amendment should not guarantee a blanket right to bear arms, the Supreme Court would do a great disservice to the District by refusing to hear this case.

The self-considered mental giants should have consulted with the pro-2A Georgetown Law School prof Randy Barnett before making erroneous statements about Miller's holdng. Barnett could also have pointed out that Presser held that assemblies were only constitutionally protected if they were for the purpose of petitioning the government for redress, not private concerns. I bet they wouldn't be so keen on Presser after that.

 

[scout26]

Tell you what. Let's try an experiment.

For the next, let's say, five years anyone in DC that can pass a NICS check gets a concealed carry permit. If crime goes down then that's the new law. If crime goes up, then you can go back to the Gun Ban. Fair enough ???

 

[ilbob]

The tenth is a nice amendment, the 9th even more so.

But since the feds violate nine of the ten amendments on an almost daily basis, its hard to see much traction there.

Can't see as how they have violated the 3rd amendment recently.

 

[Titan6]

The D.C. Circuit Court’s decision on the handgun ban not only contradicts the precedent set by United States v. Miller, it endangers the lives of the District’s citizens.

The New England Journal of Medicine has reported that handgun possession positively correlates with increased homicide risk. The self-defense argument cannot override the fact that guns create more danger than they prevent. Given the grave danger that handguns pose, along with the fact that the Second Amendment should not guarantee a blanket right to bear arms, the Supreme Court would do a great disservice to the District by refusing to hear this case.

Same strategy as usual I see. Tell some half truths to back the big lies. Get a gun and you are certain to die young in a horrible way.

 

[rdhood]

For the next, let's say, five years anyone in DC that can pass a NICS check gets a concealed carry permit. If crime goes down then that's the new law. If crime goes up, then you can go back to the Gun Ban. Fair enough ???

No, not fair enough. the people getting concealed carry permits are law abiding. The people committing crime are not. That is one of the points of Heller... it does not matter what the criminals do. That has no bearing on second amendment rights of the law abiding. I am not to be punished because some gangbanger wants to use a handgun like mine. Outlawing the gun only takes it away from me.... not the gangbanger.

 

[El Tejon]

ilbob, have you heard of a place called New Orleans?

 

[ctdonath]

Now if I can only get lawyers of the caliber of Levy and Gura to take the case on for free I should be good to go.

Have you asked?

They're not stopping with just Heller/Parker. Rumor is they're targeting Chicago next for handguns and had to find willing plaintiffs there; I wouldn't be surprised if 922(o) is in their sights farther down the line, and they'll need plaintiffs for that too. Even if they're not, they have to be actively accounting for the fact that SOMEONE is going to take on 922(o) the moment SCOTUS renders a verdict in Heller, and work with them to make sure it doesn't somehow derail their plans.

 

[ilbob]

ilbob, have you heard of a place called New Orleans?

I have. Not real sure what you are trying to refer to though.