Supreme Court to Look at 2nd Amendment

The other day I heard on the radio that the Supreme Court is going to be hearing a case on the 2nd Amendment. I got curious and looked it up and found various articles about what it's all about. This article is biased, as even the author freely admits, but it provides a good overview of what the case is about, so it serves its purposes.

Townhall.com::Why You Should Care About Parker v. District of Columbia::By Sandy Froman

Quote:

There is a case working its way to the Supreme Court that might settle one of the biggest unanswered questions in constitutional law: Does the Second Amendment guarantee an individual right to own a gun? Whether or not you own a gun, this is a case you should care about.

I’m not just saying that because I’m the immediate past president of the National Rifle Association. (Last month I completed my two-year term as president and nine years as an officer of the NRA.) I’m also saying it as an attorney who’s been arguing cases in federal court for more than 30 years, and who understands how a clear precedent on a constitutional question can determine the outcome of a case.

There is a case moving towards the High Court that will likely give us such a precedent on your right to own a gun – a precedent that is either good or bad, depending on your point of view. That case is Parker v. District of Columbia.

I often get asked why there is such a passionate debate on whether the right to own a firearm is a civil right. Everyone agrees that the Constitution speaks about firearms. The Second Amendment speaks of, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

The disagreement is over what those words mean. Most people believe what is called the individual rights view of the Second Amendment, meaning that all law-abiding, peaceable citizens have the individual right to own firearms. The opposing interpretation is called the collective rights view, meaning that the Second Amendment is only a right of state governments to arm their National Guard units.

Polls show that more than 70% of Americans (correctly) believe that they have a civil right under the Constitution to own a gun. But in America we don’t decide constitutional controversies by taking a poll.

Only federal courts—and ultimately the Supreme Court—have the power to interpret the Constitution in a binding way. The Supreme Court has never spoken definitively on the scope or meaning of the Second Amendment. And the Court’s silence has allowed cities and states to enact broad, sweeping laws hostile to gun ownership.

The worst of these laws is the District of Columbia gun ban. If you live in our nation’s capital, you cannot have a handgun or a readily-usable rifle or shotgun in your own home for self-defense. No ifs, ands or buts. It is a near-blanket prohibition on firearms and self-defense.

That brings us to the Parker case. The named plaintiff, Shelly Parker, lives in the high crime area of DC and has been threatened by thugs and drug dealers. She wants to be able to protect herself and she sued the city government over the gun ban. It’s shocking to realize that in one of the most violent cities in America, a woman is denied the tool that might save her life.

But it’s the law in the District, so she took the District to court.

On March 9, in a landmark ruling the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down the DC gun ban as unconstitutional in a 2-1 decision. The DC Circuit Court held that the Second Amendment protects a citizen’s civil right to own firearms, adopting the individual rights view, and invalidated the DC law.

As you would expect, the DC government is appealing the ruling. Earlier this month DC petitioned for what is called an en banc rehearing. That means that all eleven eligible judges on the DC Circuit would hear the case, instead of the usual three-judge panel. As you read this we are waiting to see if the circuit court grants or denies that petition.

Regardless of whether the full DC Circuit Court hears the case en banc, the losing party will certainly appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. And without going into all the legal rules and reasons that help determine whether the Court takes a given case, let me just say the odds are good that the Court will take this one.

This case is monumental. Already the DC Circuit Court opinion—if left untouched—will totally change gun ownership rights in the District of Columbia. And the DC Circuit is one of the most respected and well-credentialed courts in America. Its opinions and rulings have a major impact on courts and lawmakers all over the country.

But as important as the DC Circuit is, it pales in comparison to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court takes this case, it could have a huge impact all across our land.

There’s so much more to be said regarding this case. I’ll have more to write on this once the DC Circuit decides whether to rehear en banc. In the meantime, this is a case you want to be watching. There’s a lot at stake, not just for gun owners but for all who believe in upholding the Constitution and enforcing our civil rights.

This is the first case since United States v. Miller (1939) for the Supreme Court to interpret the scope of the 2nd Amendment, so it should be interesting to see how this turns out. Although the Supreme Court's opinion is the only one that counts on this issue, what is everyone else's thoughts on the 2nd Amendment? Personally, because the 2nd Amendment refers specifically to "the people", I think the scope is beyond merely allowing states to arm a national guard, but of actually allowing the people of the US themselves to own guns, albeit with some limitations (e.g. machine guns).

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

The Second Amendment speaks of, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

The disagreement is over what those words mean

Can't be that hard to understand.

Letter: "People can own guns."
People: "Well, what does that mean?"

There's nowhere I can't reach.

The DC handgun ban in itself is complete idiocy. DC has one of the highest crime rates in the nation as a result of this ban. Throughout history, anywhere that has undergone rigorous gun ownership legislation changes (restricting ownership) or banning results in crime rates increasing.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Gechmir

The DC handgun ban in itself is complete idiocy. DC has one of the highest crime rates in the nation as a result of this ban. Throughout history, anywhere that has undergone rigorous gun ownership legislation changes (restricting ownership) or banning results in crime rates increasing.

That's only because people want to own guns. Hence the 2nd Amendment.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Funny you say that Gechmir because the murder rate in Australia has dropped significantly since the Port Arthur Massacre.

I was speaking idiomatically.

The murder rate in Australia was dropping before the Port Arthur Massacre, and now you have tons of illegal firearms circulating among true patriots. :salute:

Other interesting fact: Finland is the third most armed nation per capita in the world, but the vast majority of their homicides are committed with knives since they're more easily concealable. Those guys are hardcore.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I feel this goes deeper than the what the 2nd amendment specifically says, but rather nitpicking to the point where either the constitution can say anything the reader wants it to say OR "breaking the ice" so-to-speak allowing the actual removal of pesky things like the right to bear arms or, hell, while we're at it, why not get rid of free speech too? People are always in a huff about that, why, I dare say we would live more peaceful lives that way! I'm all for it.

Most amazing jew boots

Although I'm not in favour of it, I have to admit that the wording of the 2nd amendment is pretty clear. It does talk about people's rights, not the rights of the government as some superior body to arm its forces.

So it will be no surprise if the Supreme Court confirms that, no matter what we may think about it. I have little hope that they will change it.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

The murder rate in Australia was dropping before the Port Arthur Massacre, and now you have tons of illegal firearms circulating among true patriots. :salute:

That's true. And tehre are plenty of illegal weapons floating around. But the vast majority of all illegal firearms in the county are owned by organised crime syndicates, wethor they me the Japanese mafia in melbourne of the motorcycle gangs of Perth and Sydney. None of these groups shoot normal people, they jsut shoot each other, it's ace.

How ya doing, buddy?

gang violence doesn't count cause its black people lol

There's nowhere I can't reach.

keyword was organised crime lol

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Is it an explicit purpose of gun control legislation to reduce crime rates, though? I thought they were generally introduced as one measure to ward against future escalations.

Spose what I'm saying is: just how far can you fault gun control legislation for 'failing' to reduce crime?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

You can't really fault it, perhaps because what drives crime rates has nothing to do with gun laws.

Crime rates going down because of gun laws or bans is as unmeasurable as crime rates going down because of the availability of guns.

If there's no effective means of measuring the impact of a policy on crime then we're left considering its social implications. Is it ok to restrict freedoms in order to avoid a marginal amount of accidental death and suicide? What if we're also talking about a fundamental right?

Quote:

keyword was organised crime lol

Gangs are organized.

Most amazing jew boots

What I don't quite understand is why the possibility of initiating an act of violence is to be equated with "freedom", a freedom which is restricted through laws in any case.

Most amazing jew boots

I do not see how we're any more free to shoot somebody in the face. There are laws against that, you know.

FELIPE NO

Exactly, so how does the right to own a weapon give you freedom, if you can't really execute this freedom? "Here's a gun, but don't shoot"?

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Traveller87

Exactly, so how does the right to own a weapon give you freedom, if you can't really execute this freedom? "Here's a gun, but don't shoot"?

Well, you can use the gun to shoot at targets, or shoot at animals with the proper licensing and seasons. You can also use it for home and personal defense, but if you discharge a weapon and injure or kill somebody you have to be able to demonstrate that they presented a believable threat to your person. It isn't like you can just invite somebody over for dinner, shoot them on the patio and then claim they were tresspassing.

In a more abstract sense, having guns gives us the ability to have an armed resistance in the event that the government ever went tyrannical on us, or if we were ever invaded somehow by somebody.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Traveller87

Exactly, so how does the right to own a weapon give you freedom, if you can't really execute this freedom? "Here's a gun, but don't shoot"?

The purpose of the second amendment was to ensure individual rights for physical protection, not individual rights to go on a killing spree.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

In a more abstract sense, having guns gives us the ability to have an armed resistance in the event that the government ever went tyrannical on us, or if we were ever invaded somehow by somebody.

In theory that's true, but in practice, were that to happen, I don't think citizens would stand a chance against the military nor could they provide much help against an invading force that the military alone couldn't handle.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Ridan Krad

In theory that's true, but in practice, were that to happen, I don't think citizens would stand a chance against the military nor could they provide much help against an invading force that the military alone couldn't handle.

Iraqi insurgents don't seem to have too much of a problem.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by xiaowei

Iraqi insurgents don't seem to have too much of a problem.

Iraqi insurgents are also more likely to be armed with military grade weaponry. In the United States, ownership of such weaponry can range from restricted to illegal, depending on what just it is.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

Iraqi insurgents are also more likely to be armed with military grade weaponry. In the United States, ownership of such weaponry can range from restricted to illegal, depending on what just it is.

That isn't necessarily accurate. We are fighting against AK variant rifles and crude but effective explosives. Besides what do you consider "military grade weaponry"?

Regardless of what the courts rule on this case I will not give up my firearms.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Soviet kit is military grade, as crappy as it is.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Gechmir

Terrifying!

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

It was really "beer arms". Someone just misread it.

Jam it back in, in the dark.