Supreme Court grants cert on D.C. Second Amendment case; Update: Electoral repercussions? Update: A federalist solution?
posted at 1:30 pm on November 20, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Quite possibly the first time we’ve had to run the nuke thumbnail twice in the same day. But richly deserved in both cases.
Two hundred seventeen years after ratification, we finally get to find out what “well regulated militia” means.
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 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.
It was a foregone conclusion that they’d agree to hear the case. These are the best odds we could hope for: Two new conservative Bush appointees on the Court joining the two Reagan appointees and Clarence Thomas. Why, I haven’t felt as confident in victory since eight Republican appointees heard the, erm, Casey case.
Fearless prediction: Get ready to give up those guns, kids, because this one’s going the other way. And you know damned well whom you’ll have to thank. The Gipper!
Update: No matter how it turns out next June, it’s going to be a thunderbolt in the middle of the campaign. Ironically, the GOP losing this case would be a huge boon to gun-grabber Rudy, assuming he’s the nominee, since it would sharpen the focus on his promise to appoint conservatives like Scalia and Thomas, who share Rudy’s own, ahem, originalist philosophy. If you’ve got a bunch of social cons thinking of sitting home on grounds that there’s no difference between him and Hillary, this will do wonders to galvanize them. Of course, if the case comes out our way, it’ll work the same magic for the left. Which means this will be the second election in eight years which the Court may play a significant role in deciding.
Update: You never know how broadly or narrowly the Court’s going to address an issue when it comes before them, but it sounds like they’re going to hit this one squarely. According to SCOTUSblog, the question the Court has set for itself is as follows:
“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?”
Update: Some of our commenters are despondent that if my prediction is right, it’ll open the way for federal handgun bans. This is out of my area of expertise but there’s a separate question of whether Congress has the power to regulate weapons, at least under the Commerce Clause. Given the political sensitivity of the issue and the prospect for a backlash among independents the Democrats need to win, I’m guessing if the Court does declare the Second Amendment a collective right you’ll be seeing both parties’ nominees take the federalist approach of letting the states regulate it.
Update: In fact, now that I think of it, it’s not out of the question that Kennedy would join the conservatives if they interpret the provision in a federalist manner. The reasoning would go something like this: Since militias are a tool used by the states to defend themselves from aggression by the federal government, it’s up to the states themselves to decide how “well regulated” they want their militias to be. If Texas wants every man to have the right to own a gun in his home, so be it; if D.C. wants to make it a collective right, so be it. The obvious attraction of that model would be that it lets rural areas be rural and urban areas be urban and is also true in spirit to the Court’s jurisprudence over the last 10-12 years expanding the scope of states’ rights. Significantly, Kennedy joined the majority in most (or possibly all) of those decisions. Roberts may see the federalist solution as a way to bring him onboard for this one too.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 3 »
Can they send Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg on a cruise for a month or so? I’m afraid we’re in for more emanations and penumbras.
pistolero on November 20, 2007 at 1:33 PM
What’s your fearless prediction on how this will affect the ‘08 landscape should your other fearless prediction be realized?
thirteen28 on November 20, 2007 at 1:33 PM
Civil War v2.0……..
doriangrey on November 20, 2007 at 1:34 PM
What about all those State Constitutional Provisions? Ohio’s says:
“sec 20. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State; and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to the civil power.”
Laserlawyer on November 20, 2007 at 1:37 PM
From my cold dead fingers comes immediately to mind. Once the 2nd amendment is gone the entire constitution is just toilet paper.
Buzzy on November 20, 2007 at 1:37 PM
Hillary winning and the guns taken away?
Bad Bad Mojo Batman……
bbz123 on November 20, 2007 at 1:38 PM
Fearless prediction;
AP you scared the hell outta me this summer with some gun-grabbing tread (at my age what exact thread is a blur)…so between that thread and now I’ve gone from one .380 auto to add two .45s, two 9mm, one .357, one .40, (all handguns of course), and gone from one 12 guage, to add one .556, and two 7.62s.
Glad I bought them on sale. :)
Limerick on November 20, 2007 at 1:40 PM
We better all join a “well regulated Militia” very soon…
gmoonster on November 20, 2007 at 1:40 PM
My own fearless prediction is that if the court guts the 2nd amendment in this case, the NRA is not going to sit on the sidelines and just take it. I would imagine they would push for an amendment to the constitution which would codify the right as an individual right - and they’d have a majority of the electorate in support thereof.
thirteen28 on November 20, 2007 at 1:40 PM
I think this is not out of the realm of possibility. Man, it could get ugly.
peski on November 20, 2007 at 1:43 PM
There would be blowback, of immense proportions. Gun sales will skyrocket, legally and illegally. The population will be more armed than ever.
JiangxiDad on November 20, 2007 at 1:44 PM
Exit Question 1: What happens if the court rules against the Second Amendment?
amerpundit on November 20, 2007 at 1:45 PM
Never thought I’d have to say this but: Just try to take my weapons from me…. it won’t be pretty. No, I don’t drink, smoke and I am educated.
MNDavenotPC on November 20, 2007 at 1:45 PM
I predict you’re wrong, but either way … they’re not getting my guns without suffering miserably in the battle.
That’s a fact.
Gregor on November 20, 2007 at 1:45 PM
Unfortunately, that doesn’t help get an amendment. 2/3 of Congress, and 3/4 of States legislatures? Good luck.
peski on November 20, 2007 at 1:46 PM
Hey wait a minute, I’m a member of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps……… Hmmmmmmm.
MNDavenotPC on November 20, 2007 at 1:47 PM
I’m a middle of the road, faceless, upper middle class suburban Dad and huband, but I promise you this…
“You can pry my gun out of my cold dead hand AFTER I’ve taken quite a few gun confiscators with me!
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Thomas Jefferson
If this is the Second Revolutionary War, I signing up and read to shed some of that blood.
ursa5000 on November 20, 2007 at 1:47 PM
If the justices use the nuclear option, they’ll reap what they sow.
JiangxiDad on November 20, 2007 at 1:47 PM
Go out TODAY…..prices will double by Xmas.
As far as ‘organized’ resistance…ain’t gonna happen. We love our guns but hate anarchy more. Say hello to the pacified world.
Limerick on November 20, 2007 at 1:47 PM
Very possible.
I think the court, especially those that are more prone to voting their own agendas instead of the plain meaning of the constitution, should very, very carefully consider what kind of Pandora’s Box they would be opening should the ruling go against the 2nd amendment.
Another fearless prediction: It will get ugly.
thirteen28 on November 20, 2007 at 1:48 PM
AP, you should re-post the link to the HA film thread on “in search of the second amendment.”
I purchased it, it’s a great documentary.
TexasDan on November 20, 2007 at 1:49 PM
My Predictions:
7-2 in support of finding an individual right to bear arms under the 2nd amendment (Stevens and Breyer dissenting)
5-4 (Kennedy with the libs) in overturning the lower court’s finding that the DC statute violates that right when it comes to the carrying and storage.
6-3 (Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg dissenting) in support of the lower court’s finding that the total ban on new registrations violates the individual right.
So, in summary, it will be a pyrrhic victory for gun right supporters. The most powerful political issue, the possibility that the government will take our guns, will be nominally taken out of the debate. But in return we are stuck with the fact that governments will be free to regulate firearms into uselessness.
Nessuno on November 20, 2007 at 1:51 PM
We will see. Most of congress wanted amnesty too, but when we, the people made it clear that there were serious electoral repurcussions for granting amnesty, they came around to our way of thinking.
That being said, I think it would be easier to get 2/3 of congress than 3/4 of the state legislatures at this point.
thirteen28 on November 20, 2007 at 1:51 PM
Better buy your ammo now because it will only get harder to find as this case nears Finding certain ammo has been tough in many areas of the country and there is a reason. WE ALL need to watch this closely.
bones47 on November 20, 2007 at 1:52 PM
Thank God I just bought my .45 last weekend. I’ll need it for the revolution if things go badly.
xardoz on November 20, 2007 at 1:55 PM
My prediction:……You can own a gun but you can’t possess it unless on-duty with a militia. Fee permit to check it out of the arms room. Fee permit to get some government flunky to give you one round at a time to practice at the range. Fee permit to turn the gun into government storage. Fee permit to file sanity proof every 12 months. Fee permit for the fee permit.
Limerick on November 20, 2007 at 1:55 PM
I’m with you on the 2/3 of Congress being easier than 3/4 of state legislatures. We have to also remember that many of the “new” Democrats in Congress come from usually red regions. Voting against the Second Amendment wouldn’t fly, to say the least.
amerpundit on November 20, 2007 at 1:55 PM
So does this mean we can have our own RED STATE sanctuary cities now?
Limerick on November 20, 2007 at 1:58 PM
I’d be interested to know which of the Justices voted to hear the case. If it was the four libs and Kennedy, then we’re in big trouble. If Roberts voted to hear it, it might mean he knows they’ve got the votes to protect the 2nd Amendment. Only way we can know if through a leak, however.
Jim-Rose on November 20, 2007 at 1:59 PM
That all depends. Are you:
A) An illegal alien who entered the country illegally, takes advantage of the social system, takes American jobs, doesn’t pay taxes, then demands more “rights”.
OR
B)A legal, hard-working, tax-paying American who loves your country, looking to protect your actual rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
If it’s the first, then yes. If it’s the latter, then no.
amerpundit on November 20, 2007 at 2:03 PM
First off, the court isn’t going to make any broad, sweeping decision- it’ll be narrow in that it’ll either allow or disallow city/state restrictions such as those in DC.
Second, how a decision upholding the ban would help Rudy is beyond me; no matter what his rhetoric about appointing constructionist judges, he’s been about anti-gun as you can get. Putting the 2nd Amendment on the front page would hurt Rudy, not help him. He’s the guy who joined the Brady Bunch in lawsuits against gun manufacturers and advocated national gun control at the time- remember?
Trust me- Rudy wants to keep the 2nd Amendment debate as buried as he possibly can, because it’s a loser for him.
Hollowpoint on November 20, 2007 at 2:04 PM
Small correction to my comment…it’s the Rule of Four.
The question is, which four?
Jim-Rose on November 20, 2007 at 2:04 PM
Bad things will happen. I pitty the fool that trys to take away my guns. That’s walking on the fighting side of me. At my age, I will gop out with a bang over it. Anyone that trys to negate the constitution is a traitor as far as I’m concerned and they diserve what Benidict Arnold got.
saiga on November 20, 2007 at 2:04 PM
“cold dead fingers….” is sounding like more of a reality with each passing democractic controlled congress.
Please remind people that the next president will appoint 3 to 5 justices.
I don’t own hand guns and have never been a collector other then the 12 or so I have been handed down though the family — but I think the time may be right for a new purchase or two.
jimwesty on November 20, 2007 at 2:04 PM
What about the 200+ years of judical rulings? Hasn’t the court always upheld the individual’s right to own and bear arms?
gmoonster on November 20, 2007 at 2:07 PM
Sorry to be the anarchist here. I am NOT spouting revolution…but that said bottom line is that the firearm is the only check and balance against tyranny. Your vote won’t mean squat without 140grains of powder to back it up.
Limerick on November 20, 2007 at 2:08 PM
Goes right back to my original post….you will be allowed to own, but not possess. Fees, taxes, controls…..that is what a nuance decision will bring. They won’t rip it from your cold dead fingers, they will coerce it out with fines and taxes.
Limerick on November 20, 2007 at 2:10 PM
140 grain of powder? For what- an elephant gun? ;)
Hollowpoint on November 20, 2007 at 2:12 PM
This is very bad news because most people don’t understand the Constitution in regard to federal enclaves, which Washington DC is. Washington DC is not a “state” and of course that is the venue the case was based on. Most people don’t understand that the federal government is granted plenary jurisdiction in all federal areas such as Washington DC. Other examples would be the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico ( possessions and/or territories of the federal government and NOT a “state”)or any federal building or military installation. Plenary jurisdiction means…. believe it or not, that they can ignore the Constitution in areas they deem necessary. This authority is from the Constitution itself.
The Supremes will probably reverse the appeals court and that ruling will be totally within the bounds of the Constitution. But unfortunately most citizens will not understand that fact, they will not understand that Washington DC is a federal enclave and the feds have total control there and that this IS in accordance with the Constitution and that such a ruling has NO impact on the fifty states whatsoever !!
Think about it, military bases are federal enclaves as well. If you live on base you can be search without warrant and that is indeed Constitutional because your inside a federal enclave where the feds make all “needful” rules. The Constitution itself gives them that authority.
So what I’m saying is, even if the appeals court is reversed in this case, and I think it will be, this case has no impact on non-federal enclaves such as any of the 50 states. But of course the media will play it as if such a decision impacts the entire country. But that is simply not true.
Maxx on November 20, 2007 at 2:13 PM
Shouldn’t all guns be banned? Then no one could use a gun to hurt anyone, right? It’s so simple, duh! Just look how successful it’s been in Australia:
http://www.gunowners.org/hlr-au.htm
Someone earlier wrote “when they pry it from my dead, cold fingers.” I concur.
JustTruth101 on November 20, 2007 at 2:13 PM
I can see that…ever since they argued that “keep” meant up keep of weapons and not ownership, the right has been in doubt.
But, do they really want the rise of militia outside the national gaurd? That is an uprising waiting to happen.
sunny on November 20, 2007 at 2:14 PM
They would have to re-write the Amendment to get to the outcome you suggest.
Gregor on November 20, 2007 at 2:14 PM
Key phrase: assuming he’s the nominee. If this case goes against the GOP during the primary season, it could sink Rudy’s chances to get the nomination due to his gun grabbing past. He’s already on the wrong side of the abortion issue for most of the GOP, and if there is a SC ruling that brings up his past positions regarding the 2nd amendment to boot he’s going to have another strike against him.
thirteen28 on November 20, 2007 at 2:17 PM
Emphasis on ‘keep’ as well.
thirteen28 on November 20, 2007 at 2:18 PM
Where do they think that they recruited the militiamen from? An armed-for-personal-use citizenry.
The 2nd Amendment was intended to give the citizenry the right to keep and bear arms. If the SCOTUS decides differently, we’re in for a real fight this time.
Tennman on November 20, 2007 at 2:18 PM
Sad. It’s great that all legal gun owners are registered so they’ll know exactly where to go. Illegal gun owners, you know, the one’s committing the crimes, will be utterly unaffected.
So, I guess they are forcing me to go out and buy a set up back up handguns on “the street”, just in case Uncle Sammy comes knocking. It was bad enough I had to go an personally speak to my local chief of police here in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts, in order to obtain his permission in the first damn place, along with 3 letters of referral as to why I am qualified to exercise my constitutional rights.
It’s funny you mention that, I was thinking about that. I’m surprised some weasel anti-gun lawyer hasnt’t figured out a way to institute a back-door gun ban by banning lethal ammo.
reaganaut on November 20, 2007 at 2:19 PM
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/court-agrees-to-rule-on-gun-case/
bnelson44 on November 20, 2007 at 2:20 PM
Yada yada yada……..if the black robes say no what are you gonna do? Keep and bear….the black robes say ‘keep’ means keep in a state militia armory, and ‘bear’ means bear in a state militia organization. Black robes win.
Limerick on November 20, 2007 at 2:21 PM
Oops…. that needs corrected, it should have read.
Plenary jurisdiction means…. believe it or not, that they can ignore the Constitution in federal areas as they deem necessary. This authority is from the Constitution itself.
Maxx on November 20, 2007 at 2:21 PM
You can’t simply ignore the second part, lol. Like I said … to accomplish that you would have to actually re-write it without the “and bear” part.
Gregor on November 20, 2007 at 2:21 PM
They can have my gun…bullets first.
I just got my gun, and I will not be giving it up for ANYONE, much less the gubment.
tickleddragon on November 20, 2007 at 2:23 PM
Nah, they have also argued the actual meaning of “bear arms.” It is widely accepted that “bear arms” is or was the proper language and/or slang for military service. They don’t need to change the language, they just need to apply the meaning.
sunny on November 20, 2007 at 2:23 PM
Nah. The constitution has been dead ever since the Supreme Court just sort of completely forgot that there ever was a Tenth Amendment.
Feel free to shoot as many stormtroopers as you want when they come for your cache, but don’t kid yourself; that won’t bring the Constitution back from the grave.
logis on November 20, 2007 at 2:24 PM
Throughout the Constitution, the “People” have “rights” and the government has “powers.” Article 1 [Section 1] refers to “legislative Powers” … [Section 4] “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all impeachments” … [Section 8] “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes.” Article II speaks of the “executive Power” [Section 1] and Article III speaks of the “judicial Power” [Section 1]. Whereas the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Ninth Amendment all specifically use “rights” only in conjunction with “the people.” Moreover, the Fifteenth, Nineteeth, Twenty-fourth and Twenty-sixth Amendments mention the “right of citizens.” Whereas, the Tenth, Eleventh, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Sixteenth, Twenty-third, Twenty-fourth and Twenty-sixth Amendments use “Judicial” and “Congress” only in conjunction with “power.”
The Second Amendment specifically states that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Had the Founding Fathers intended to limit the possession and use of firearms, only in conjunction with a “militia,” it could’ve easily stated that “The State shall have the power to maintain and regulate a Militia, and shall control the use of firearms by any designated Militia members.”
It’s black and white … the People have Rights, the State has Powers … the Second Amendment enumerates a Right to bear Arms, not a Power. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is a political body that makes rulings according to its politics. It finds what it wants to find, and rules accordingly. As such, the Second Amendment is in peril.
OhEssYouCowboys on November 20, 2007 at 2:24 PM
1. The National Guard isn’t a milita. While states have the ability to use them, they’re still under control of the federal government as a part of the armed forces.
2. “Militia” does not imply an organized militia force; traditionally it also includes anyone capable of serving in an organized militia; no arms, no militia.
Hollowpoint on November 20, 2007 at 2:25 PM
…And the “Bill of Rights” officially becomes the “Bill of Obligations.”
Once the Supreme Court decided that words have no fixed meaning, the very idea of a written constitution became a fantasy.
logis on November 20, 2007 at 2:28 PM
Kentucky Constitution:
By virtue of my status as a citizen of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, I am a member of the Kentucky Militia. Unless they want to start Reconstruction again, I’m feelin’ pretty good about my chances of legally keeping my weapons.
Should they choose to attempt to take my weapons life will get interesting really fast.
Pilgrim on November 20, 2007 at 2:28 PM
The only way the SCOTUS can reverse the finding of the lower court is to disregard all of the most recent scholarship (much of it conducted by self professed anti-gun lawyers) that has determined that the 2A indeed guarantees an individual right.
Beyond that, the voluminous writings of the founders leave no question as to their intent. To disregard that is an absolute assault on the Constitution.
Alamo on November 20, 2007 at 2:28 PM
These are the arguements of the anti-gun crowd:
“Keep” = actually means the upkeep of weapons not ownership.
“bear arms” = refers to military service(some history behind this definition)
“people” = refers to the State (yes really)
Can you imagine every other reference in the bill of rights to “people” actually meaning the state? Would the bill of rights mean anything?
sunny on November 20, 2007 at 2:28 PM
You make a good point about the militia, but the Militia Act of 1903 organized the state militias into the National Guard system.
amerpundit on November 20, 2007 at 2:30 PM
Of course, my interpretation is, you know, how the Constitution was actually, ya know, intended.
amerpundit on November 20, 2007 at 2:31 PM
So, if I was a Kentucky citizen, and am a extra long decade past 45 am I then outside the militia and an illegal gun owner?
Limerick on November 20, 2007 at 2:31 PM
The Second Amendment refers specifically to a “well-organized militia.”
This has nothing to do with the definition of any words. It’s all in how you look at the Constitution itself. You see, the extra wording in the Amendment wasn’t put there to LIMIT the right; it was put there to intentionally and greatly EXPAND it.
Of course it was never meant to say you could have a gun ONLY if you were under government control; it says that you can have weapons EVEN when you intend to form up into irregular units with your neighbors.
logis on November 20, 2007 at 2:35 PM
So, amerpundit: I’m a member of the unorganized militia. Good to know I can keep my arms!
That said, what about state self-defense forces? If the Supremes decide against us, each state can do a self-defense force–which isn’t under the control of the Feds, right?
Vanceone on November 20, 2007 at 2:37 PM
I’ve read it several times but I still can’t comprehend the above statement; the contradiction is too stark. You admit that Rudy is a gun grabber but think he’ll benefit because of a political promise he’s made to further his quest for power? The only way I’ve been able to make sense of it is by assuming that you’re actually gullible enough to believe a promise made by a politician, especially one who’s not even trusted by his own family.
But maybe I’m missing something.
FloatingRock on November 20, 2007 at 2:38 PM
Without reading all the preceding comments, here’s my thought on “well-regulated milita” - it refers to the U.S. armed forces.
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state… Translation: We just overthrew the British, so we’re going to need our own armed forces to defend ourselves and remain free.
…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed Translation: And since it was the British armed forces that oppressed us, we’re going to make sure that the armed forces of this new country can’t take away guns from its people.
The entire purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that the U.S. armed forces (and equivalent local law enforcement agencies) would never be able to disarm the average American citizen.
At least that’s my interpretation of it, and I never even bothered to read any of the vast 2nd Amendment scholarship that’s available. I just saw an espisode of Penn and Teller’s Bullsh*t.
Enrique on November 20, 2007 at 2:40 PM
But here’s the thing. You’re a member of an unorganized militia. The Second Amendment states:
Is unorganized unregulated?
amerpundit on November 20, 2007 at 2:41 PM
Won’t work. A person living in a state that bans abortion, can drive to another state to get one. You can’t go to another state to use your gun. People won’t give up their homes or their guns. Blue states will ban guns. There will be mass migration, or civil disobedience.
JiangxiDad on November 20, 2007 at 2:41 PM
Hell, if the gov’t would regulate criminals, as well as they regulate firearms, we wouldn’t even be talking about this.
franksalterego on November 20, 2007 at 2:42 PM
His point, if I understood it correctly, is that it would get the right behind Rudy (assuming he’s the nominee) because he’ll still be better on the issue than Clinton or any Democrat. By next June, we’ll already have our nominee.
amerpundit on November 20, 2007 at 2:42 PM
And a politician who has a history of going back on his word when appointing judges.
Gregor on November 20, 2007 at 2:43 PM
State constitutions have no bearing here, as DC is not in any state… this is a nice purely Federal issue.
shirgall on November 20, 2007 at 2:44 PM
I should’ve rephrased that. AP wrote:
Assuming Rudy’s the nominee, it would bring social conservatives thinking of sitting out, to vote for him. Why? Because he’s promised to nominate originalists, with him actually being accountable to Republicans. Hillary? Not so much.
amerpundit on November 20, 2007 at 2:45 PM
Shoulda bought a gun shop last year. By this time next year I’d be giving ol’Billy Gates a run for his money.
Limerick on November 20, 2007 at 2:45 PM
This case will not turn on what the Second Amendment “means” but upon whether the federal government has plenary jurisdiction in Washington DC or not, and it does.
But Citizens should also realize that State Constitutions can grant your MORE rights than the federal Constitution but they cannot grant LESS.
Therefore, putting the plenary jurisdiction issue aside, even if the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment provided no individual right to bear arms, that does not impact the State Constitutions that acknowledge such an individual right exist.
Maxx on November 20, 2007 at 2:47 PM
The word “regulated” has more than one meaning, and the one that would imply “government controlled” doesn’t make a lot of sense here- why write an amendment giving the government the rights in the Bill of Rights?
The definition that does make sense is “well functioning”. Without private firearms ownership, a well equipped and functioning militia becomes difficult.
Hollowpoint on November 20, 2007 at 2:47 PM
The militia language just explains why the individual right was granted to the “people.” But the right is nevertheless vested in the people not the people affiliated with a militia.
That being said here is my prediction. The majority will find an individual right to keep and bear arms. However, that right will be subject to local and state regulations but only when said restrictions are necessary to protect a compelling state interest. If a compelling state interest is sufficient to take away your right to practice your religion, it will also be sufficient to restrict your right to keep and bear arms. In ruling on the case, the Court will determine that the federal act in the DC statute constitutes state action and goes too far in that it prevents an individual from owning a gun — too broad to protect any legitimate state interest.
Future courts will be required to address all gun control laws on a case by case basis to determine if the restrictions are reasonable and narrowly confined to protect a compelling state interest — and what is compelling would vary from state to state. Given circumstances evaluated on a state by state basis, a state could limit the type of firearm that could be possessed, could require registration, could require gun safety training and certification, and could narrowly limit where guns could be brought, creating certain narrowly defined gun free zones, etc. However, each restriction would be subject to being stricken down if it goes too far or not necessary to protect a compelling state interest. What the legislature cannot do without a constitutional amendment is totally take away an individual’s right to own a gun in their own home. The government can, however, make it very difficult — wait period, registration, training, etc.
tommylotto on November 20, 2007 at 2:48 PM
AP’s lost the plot. SCOTUS will uphold and confirm the individual right to keep & bear arms. DC’s ban will end. This ‘federal enclave’ nonsense does not empower the government to violate the rights of citizens. Military issues are entirely separate from civilian ones.
The arguments that will be presented to the SCOTUS from esteemed members of Cato etc are going to hit home like a .50 BMG
Happy days
Ochlan on November 20, 2007 at 2:49 PM
Since when has Rudy been stronger on the issue than Hillary? I’m not aware that Hillary was a party to the lawsuits against the gun manufacturers as Rudy was. Rudy is worse on the issue than Hillary—that is, unless one is inclined to trust politicians.
FloatingRock on November 20, 2007 at 2:49 PM
Someone would challenge a state right like that on the basis that the 2nd amendment prohibits individuals from owning weapons. The wrong court can see whatever it wants. You are too hopeful I fear.
JiangxiDad on November 20, 2007 at 2:50 PM
Isn’t it comical when the lefties accuse Bush of subverting the Constitution; yet cheer on Hugo Chavez when he actually does take dump on Venezuela’s?
The left complains endlessly about civil rights, yet would take away my right to own a gun in a heartbeat.
Hypocrisy anyone?
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on November 20, 2007 at 2:51 PM
Served cold, sickly sweet & slimy
Ochlan on November 20, 2007 at 2:53 PM
There is now a rqmt. for the candidates to explain their positions on this fully. If Rudy’s is like your prediction, I dont’ think he can get elected dog catcher.
JiangxiDad on November 20, 2007 at 2:54 PM
A) He’d be accountable to Republicans. Uh, I’m thinking he wants to serve more than one term.
B) He’s promised Constructionist judges, going out of his way to praise Scalia, etc. Incidentally, he worked with Scalia in the Justice department.
If you honestly don’t think a man who’s accountable to Republicans and promises Constructionist judges isn’t better than a woman accountable to no one and would appoint activist judges to the bench…
amerpundit on November 20, 2007 at 2:54 PM
I choose to be optimistic. (But I dont live in DC or Chicago)
infidel on November 20, 2007 at 2:55 PM
Your optimistic outlook on this whole issue is welcome….however I still have to worry about what does an adverse ruling have on gun manufacturers or ammunition manugacturers? Gun prices and availability? The inability to cross state lines with my legal firearm without becoming a Federal criminal.
This is a bonehead grab by the court. It is a forced play to dilute the gun ownership rights of Americans.
Call me a glass half full kinda guy. With 11 firearms now I plan on buying some additional insurance before Thanksgiving. You never know when you might run across a wild turkey.
Limerick on November 20, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Only one problem with that prediction:
You know? That whole “shall not be infringed” part.
Gregor on November 20, 2007 at 2:57 PM
Dude why do you have to be like that? That’s effed up. :(
Seriously though people will go bonkers if that has a severe impact nationally. Ironically that’d be a far bigger step towards totalitarianism than anything Bush ever thought to do and liberals would cheer it while smoking a celebratory blunt in their drum circle. Duuuude.
Dash on November 20, 2007 at 2:59 PM
According to Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog, those three sections of the D.C. law that are listed in the question the court has chosen to deliberate on are as follows:
“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’m thinking that the 2nd secition on prohibiting the carrying of an unlicensed pistol will be upheld by most (7 or more) of the justices. Some will apply the “no right is absolute” argument, some will apply federalism arguments (states rights), and the liberals will just leap at the opportunity to restrict gun ownership.
I predict that the 3rd section (mandating gun locks) will be upheld by a slim majority of the court (5-4) with Souter and Kennedy siding with the liberal justices.
The first section, however, an outright ban on owning handguns, is a more difficult read. I figure that Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia will definitely vote to strike down that section as unconstitutional without D.C. providing some provisions for legal ownership.
Souter and Kennedy can go either way. Souter leans toward permitting the gov’t (both state and federal) to exercise some control over firearm ownership, but I’m not sure he would support anything this sweeping, without just cause.
Kennedy ruled against using the Commerce Clause to a support a Federal Law regarding gun free school zones. Souter ruled for that (as did the liberals on the court).
I’m thinking that at least one–possibly both of the two swing justices (Kennedy and Souter) will see the first section as too far reaching, and will rule it unconstitutional. I’m thinking either 5-4 or 6-3 in striking down the first section.
It is important to note that current liberal constitutional scholars (such as Lawrence Tribe) have come out in support of the interpretation of “individual rights” rather than collective rights in reference to the 2nd Amendment. I believe they’re afraid of the spillover affect on other rights that they treasure. That may or may not influence the thinking of Ginzberg and Stevens, but definitely not Breyer. He’s completely in favor of gov’t running roughshod over individual freedoms he doesn’t care for–gun rights included.
kayawanee on November 20, 2007 at 3:01 PM
You read this?
JiangxiDad on November 20, 2007 at 3:02 PM
Somehow, the guy who- among other things- endorsed a liberal democrat for Governor over the Republican candidate doesn’t strike me as the type who’d feel terribly accountable to Republicans.
Besides, few outside the political junkie class will really remember what he promised come 14 months from now- especially when Rudy includes judges who’d uphold Roe v Wade as “constructionist”.
No matter what he’d do as President, he could still count on the “lesser of two evils” voters to re-elect him were he to win the Presidency.
Hollowpoint on November 20, 2007 at 3:04 PM
TommyLotto’s assessment? Not yet.
amerpundit on November 20, 2007 at 3:04 PM
Now we’re Federalizing the Bill of Rights?
Let’s just surrender to the leftists and get it over with.
petefrt on November 20, 2007 at 3:07 PM
I very much doubt anyone, anytime soon, who’s concerned about the types of judges appointed, are going to forget President’s promise on judges in just 14 months.
amerpundit on November 20, 2007 at 3:12 PM
Hell, if the gov’t would regulate criminals, as well as they regulate firearms, we wouldn’t even be talking about this.
franksalterego on November 20, 2007 at 2:42 PM
Make no mistake frank, gun control / confiscation attempts have NEVER been about criminality. Its about control of citizens. Unarmed citizens tend to be compliant ones- A lesson learned by tyrants over thousands of years.
Ever notice how the demographic that engages in drive-bys and car jackings and liquor store robberies are continually excused as “products of their environment” or “victims of society’s injustices”, while law abiding gun owners who vehemently and vocally defend their rights are vilified as “extremists” and “rednecks” by liberals and their MSM mouthpieces? That’s what this debate is all about.
Alamo on November 20, 2007 at 3:12 PM
Worked in a gun shop for a bunch of years and have seen a major decline in availability in certain ammo since 9/11
bones47 on November 20, 2007 at 3:13 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 3 »