Supreme Court agreeds to rule on the meaning of the Second Amendment

[SemiAutoSam]

Excellent news.

Maybe if they have some time after they are done with this one they can investigate the legality of the 16th.

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/boxer/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/
Tuesday, November 20th, 2007 1:02 pm | Lyle Denniston | Comments (0) | Print This Post
Email this • Share on Facebook • Digg This!

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?”

This pic comes to mind when ever I think about the 2nd.

The anti's are looking to gather $$$$$ from their flock has the NRA been passing the hat to see that this goes the way we want it to ?

http://www.bradynetwork.org/site/Me...id=24361&JServSessionIdr012=5pzkvvzup2.app27a

 

[depicts]

Way Kewl. I was afraid after their delay last week that they wouldn't take on this case.

Cross your fingers and pray.... this could be the break we've all waited for. Let's hope it's gets done in our favor before the makeup of the court changes to a more liberal bent.

 

[Mikey]

Yup and this why it is so important to not waste our votes on presidential candidate who can't win, if Gore or Kerry was in power the past two terms our chances would be much graver.

 

[pdm]

I expect a 5-4 ruling on very narrow grounds that does not incorporate the 2nd Amendment against the States. It's my hope that they find it an individual right, but if they go with the majority of the circuits, we'll be stuck with a collective right.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

They could also sidestep ruling on any "state" issue by dealing only with issues specific to DC.

 

[Admin]

They could also sidestep ruling on any "state" issue by dealing only with issues specific to DC.

This is true. I would imagine they would want to put this to bed once and for all across the board and not just DC.

 

[MarkM]

Good news!

However it looks like they will be ruling on a limited interpretation of the Second as an individual right:

The Justices chose to write out for themselves the constitutional question they will undertake to answer in Heller. 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?”

 

[depicts]

Of course we in Massachusetts might still get screwed. As far as I know, Mass has never ratified the 2d amendment, so I'm not sure even a good court decision would help... until down the line and the issue was pressed in Massachussetts courts. IANAL. (Obviously)

 

[dwarven1]

Note the key phrase: "in their homes". Sort of like Connecticut - you can keep a gun in your house, but you can't take it anywhere without a carry permit.

 

[matt1956]

Note the key phrase: "in their homes". Sort of like Connecticut - you can keep a gun in your house, but you can't take it anywhere without a carry permit.

and that very specific wording may have no effect on states like MA what-so-ever...

My guess is that this can go one of three ways;

They rule in favor that it is unconstitutional to make a law preventing anyone from keeping a handgun/firearm "In the home" - thus having no positive effect on anywhere but DC.

They rule in favor that it is unconstitutional to make a law that prevents the "keeping and baring of arms" and that it IS an individual right - sending a massive wave of law suits and from coast to coast against gun laws across the nation. Something I am pretty sure they don't have the sack for as i think that the US SC is too afraid to rule on anything this big.

They rule against - saying it is not an individual right, in which case we are all f***ed as MA will be one of the first states to rip what little rights we have left right from our hands.

So... hope and pray, personally, I am not confident that this will ultimately positively effect us here in MA.

 

[Ripach]

Well I guess We just keep our fingers crossed and pray for a favorable outcome, IMHO No sense in over analyzing it until they actually hand down a decision.

 

[jar]

Note the key phrase: "in their homes". Sort of like Connecticut - you can keep a gun in your house, but you can't take it anywhere without a carry permit.

That's better than what we have now in MA. (In CT where permits are pretty much shall issue, as I understand it.) Also, I think any supreme court ruling that affirms the 2nd as an individual right is a huge win for us.

 

[digitech]

I think any supreme court ruling that affirms the 2nd as an individual right is a huge win for us.

+1 IT IS THE FIRST THING THAT THE ANTIS TRY TO USE AGAINST OUR SIDE OF THE ISSUE

 

[KMaurer]

Note the key phrase: "in their homes". Sort of like Connecticut - you can keep a gun in your house, but you can't take it anywhere without a carry permit.

Not at all surprising, since that's what the Heller decision was all about. There never was anything about carry in either the original case or the appeal.

Ken

 

[MetalgodZ]

Glad to hear that they've agreed to hear it, but I'm a bit worried about the outcome...A little less so, after remembering the several year old DOJ "official unofficial position" document. (http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf ...WOW that's painful to read, and yes I know it has no REAL legal standing.)

There are a number of possible good outcomes from this, and probably an equal number of bad ones, and they'll both depend on the actual ruling and the public's reaction to it.

If they declare it not to be an individual right, we face the reality of increasingly tight firearms restrictions, and the public outcry in the time of an increasingly unpopular war (and President, and Congress, and....etc.) Maybe some people will actually get off their asses and do something about the situation, although I'm not sure whether that'll be a good thing or a bad thing.

Best case, we have it declared an individual right, and it clears the way for easier legal challenges to some of the laws that we see as unConstitutional. Worst case, it contributes to the already-too-loud cries that all guns should be banned...and we get to see a debate over whether we should have one of our Constitionally protected freedoms dropped from the Constitution.

Scary.

 

[JAMMIN]

Regardless of what the out come we still will not be able to buy what we already can't buy.

 

[WayneWong]

The Massachusetts Constitution clearly defines this as a collective right. It will give us a lot of traction in tearing down all the bullshit gun laws of this state, because the whole state premise will be found to be faulty. It will give us openings for legal challenges, and we, GOAL, and hopefully the NRA can mount some good ones.

If your restricted license doesn't authorize all lawful purposes within the home, then I would argue your individual rights are violated.

If the SCOTUS finds it to be a collective right, then we will be no worse off, at least for the time being because the local status quo will be unchallenged.

Just as an aside, we all pretty much believe in taking personal responsibility for own own safety as well as our own success, failures, and wealth. We are active, outdoors sportsmen and such. If we really want to live this way, Massachusetts isn't the place to do it.

 

[dwarven1]

If your restricted license doesn't authorize all lawful purposes within the home, then I would argue your individual rights are violated.

Hey, excellent point, WayneWong!

Part of the DC gunban, IIRC, prohibits you from having the gun ready to go in your home. I have to wonder if a favorable ruling will help us challenge the "always keep your gun locked up" BS in this state. I mean, ok, keep it out of the range of kids, sure... but I don't have kids. And my CAT never tries to get at my guns.

 

[WayneWong]

Hey, excellent point, WayneWong!

Part of the DC gunban, IIRC, prohibits you from having the gun ready to go in your home. I have to wonder if a favorable ruling will help us challenge the "always keep your gun locked up" BS in this state. I mean, ok, keep it out of the range of kids, sure... but I don't have kids. And my CAT never tries to get at my guns.

Thanks,

I think the DC law requires it remain disabled, locked up, disassembled, and/or trigger guarded. Plus, even if needed for self defense, you are not allowed to use it. I think you can basically just "own it" like a paperweight.

I know the justices are limiting the scope of the case to the home, but again, who knows where the arguments will lead. Perhaps they will define terms that will open up all kinds of doors for us.

 

[pdm]

A good overview of 2A laws & court decisions here: http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm

 

[fubar]

Of course we in Massachusetts might still get screwed. As far as I know, Mass has never ratified the 2d amendment, so I'm not sure even a good court decision would help... until down the line and the issue was pressed in Massachussetts courts. IANAL. (Obviously)

Again : Name ONE other example of the Constitutional ammendments that does not apply to ONE other state.

Can women vote in Alabama ?
Is there an official state religion in New Hampshire ?
Can the army quarter it's soldiers in your home in Nebraska ?

Spare me the long legalese , please. I'm not that smart. But someone give one example like the above nonsense I listed so I can stop calling this "ratification" talk nonsense , BS and shenanigans.

And what about the 9th A. ? Far as I am concerned my right to life & liberty are seriously constraned if I can't posess the tools to exercise these rights.

 

[digitech]

I received this email from Fred Thompson's campaign today. I t looks like they are going to make it a major issue as part of the presidential election.

Here's another reason why it's important that we appoint judges who use the Constitution as more than a set of suggestions. Today, the Supreme Court decided to hear the case of District of Columbia v. Heller.

Six plaintiffs from Washington, D.C. challenged the provisions of the D.C. Code that prohibited them from owning or carrying a handgun. They argued that the rules were an unconstitutional abridgment of their Second Amendment rights. The Second Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, provides, "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."

The District argued, as many gun-control advocates do, that these words only guarantee a collective "right" to bear arms while serving the government. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected this approach and instead adopted an "individual rights" view of the Second Amendment. The D.C. Circuit is far from alone. The Fifth Circuit and many leading legal scholars, including the self-acknowledged liberal Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, have also come to adopt such an individual rights view.

I've always understood the Second Amendment to mean what it says - it guarantees a citizen the right to "keep and bear" firearms, and that's why I've been supportive of the National Rifle Association's efforts to have the DC law overturned.

In general, lawful gun ownership is a pretty simple matter. The Founders established gun-owner rights so that citizens would possess and be able to exercise the universal right of self-defense. Guns enable their owners to protect themselves from robbery and assault more successfully and more safely than they otherwise would be able to. The danger of laws like the D.C. handgun ban is that they limit the availability of legal guns to people who want to use them for legitimate reasons, such as self-defense (let alone hunting, sport shooting, collecting), while doing nothing to prevent criminals from acquiring guns.

The D.C. handgun ban, like all handgun bans is necessarily ineffectual. It takes the guns that would be used for self protection out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, while doing practically nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining guns to use to commit crimes. Even the federal judges in the D.C. case knew about the flourishing black market for guns in our nation's capital that leaves the criminals armed and the law-abiding defenseless. This is unacceptable.

The Second Amendment does more than guarantee to all Americans an unalienable right to defend one's self. William Blackstone, the 18th century English legal commentator whose works were well-read and relied on by the Framers of our Constitution, observed that the right to keep and bear firearms arises from "the natural right of resistance and self-preservation." This view, reflected in the Second Amendment, promotes both self-defense and liberty. It is not surprising then that the generation that had thrown off the yoke of British tyranny less than a decade earlier included the Second Amendment in the Constitution and meant for it to enable the people to protect themselves and their liberties.

You can't always predict what the Supreme Court will do, but in the case of Heller and Washington, DC's gun ban, officials in the District of Columbia would have been better off expending their efforts and resources in pursuit of those who commit crimes against innocent people rather than in seeking to keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens who would use them only to protect themselves and their families. And that is why appointing judges who apply the text of the Constitution and not their own policy preferences is so important.

 

[depicts]

fubar, I'm not educated enough to answer all your questions, but I believe that as a "COMMONWEALTH", Massachusetts has never ratified all the amendments of the bill of rights.

I'm sure there are others here who can cite chapter and verse. I know in New Hampshire there is a declarative statement guaranteeing the right to private ownership of firearms. That's in the STATE constitution. Massachusetts has no such provision, and it doesn't have anything to do with women voting, blue laws or any of the other things you mention.

 

[Pilgrim]

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

I don't see anything that says WHERE you cannot bear arms....in your home or out of it.

If they uphold the 2A as an individual right, then it's all or nothing as I see it.

 

[depicts]

Dennis, case law has previously stated that the right to "reasonable control" is allowed even under a pro-gun interpretation of the 2d amendment. Like no machine guns without a tax stamp and permit.

 

[jcr]

The Massachusetts Constitution clearly defines this as a collective right.

This is not so -- at least in the sense of being clear.

What is clear is that Art. 17 of the Declaration of Rights in the MA Constitution says, "The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence...". I say this article extends the right to arms, not a limit to only the purpose of the commen defense.

This is my position because Art. 1 (now updated to 106) says, "... the right of ... defending their lives and liberties; that of ... protecting property; ... that of seeking and obtaining their safety ...". You can look it to fill in the ellipses, but I didn't "Dowdify" it, I just included the parts that emphasis my position.

John Adams, the author of our constitution, couldn't have written that and not assumed that it was unthinkable to take away the very arms that allowed all those things in Art. 1.

Then he goes beyond that in Art. 17 and says, that they can even have those arms to join together (no doubt in the militia) for the commen defense -- a much bigger threat to a tyrannical government.

Sadly, it is also clear that the idiot, anti-gun SJC of 1976, ruled the way the previous post said was what our constition "clearly" said.

See:
http://home.tiac.mindspring.com/~rickers/davismnu.htm
for more on the 1976 decision.

 

[JonJ]

Commonwealth v Davis

 

[Pilgrim]

Dennis, case law has previously stated that the right to "reasonable control" is allowed even under a pro-gun interpretation of the 2d amendment. Like no machine guns without a tax stamp and permit.

But that was before a clean. precise definition of the 2A. Such decision would put all previous case law under scrutiny.

 

[RKG]

But that was before a clean. precise definition of the 2A. Such decision would put all previous case law under scrutiny.

I doubt that the issue of whether, even if the Court of Appeals' interpretation of the Second Amendment is to be affirmed, the individual right to bear arms is subject to reasonable regulation is alive in, or will be addressed by any holding in, Heller v. D.C. I seem to recall that even the D.C. Circuit opined that such regulation, short of a complete ban, is permissible.

As a consequence, even if affirmed, Heller:

Says nothing about carrying;

Does not permit statutory exclusion of classes of persons from the right to keep arms in the home, such as convicted felons; and

Would likely not prevent the District of Columbia from enacting subsequent legislation requiring some form of license or permit for home possession.

Heller (Parker below) was a marvellously focussed set of facts: a complete ban of simple possession in the home. In some respects, this made the decision of the Court of Appeals rather easy, and if the Supreme Court agrees with the "individual right" analysis, makes affirmance a foregone conclusion.

A happy conclusion. But, as I observed in an earlier thread, a simple affirmance in Heller, as welcome and refreshing as it would be, is but the first step (and, arguably a baby step) toward any goal of finding a federal constitution bar to such things as the discretionary licensing to carry as non-disqualified folks suffer in Massachusetts.

 

[WayneWong]

This is not so -- at least in the sense of being clear.

What is clear is that Art. 17 of the Declaration of Rights in the MA Constitution says, "The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence...". I say this article extends the right to arms, not a limit to only the purpose of the commen defense.

This is my position because Art. 1 (now updated to 106) says, "... the right of ... defending their lives and liberties; that of ... protecting property; ... that of seeking and obtaining their safety ...". You can look it to fill in the ellipses, but I didn't "Dowdify" it, I just included the parts that emphasis my position.

John Adams, the author of our constitution, couldn't have written that and not assumed that it was unthinkable to take away the very arms that allowed all those things in Art. 1.

Then he goes beyond that in Art. 17 and says, that they can even have those arms to join together (no doubt in the militia) for the commen defense -- a much bigger threat to a tyrannical government.

Sadly, it is also clear that the idiot, anti-gun SJC of 1976, ruled the way the previous post said was what our constition "clearly" said.

See:
http://home.tiac.mindspring.com/~rickers/davismnu.htm
for more on the 1976 decision.

I agree that if you look at the writings of this time, the history leading to the writing of the constitution, and the actual daily activities of living in our nation, there is nothing...NOTHING...that would justify the prohibitions that Massachusetts has legislated.