Less than one hour ago, the United States Supreme Court accepted the petition for writ of certiorari in District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290. The court will schedule to hear this case hinging upon the individual right to keep and bear arms. This dispute has raged for most of the 20th century and will now reach a climax with the ruling due next year. The New York Times reports here and here.
Filed Under Uncategorized · · · · 
Print This Post
··
Comments
50 Responses to “Landmark Decisions & Your Guns”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...
Madness! Everyone has a right to own firearms.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
The leftists will never quit…
I will be watching this intently… oh, and firsties on my first post!
Guns don’t kill, people kill. If they didn’t have guns they would use knives, cars, rocks or any other object or substance that can kill. If you outlaw guns, that won’t keep the criminal from possessing one. He would rather know you didn’t have one. Better the criminal think that his victim MIGHT have a gun and MIGHT use it to defend himself.
DRAT! Second Amendment seconds on my first post!
#1 T-Hawkk
This is a great day for conservatives. For the first time since 1939, the SCOTUS has taken a clear-cut decisive case for review addressing the individual, rather than a collective or militia, right to keep and bear arms. The right to defend one’s home is squarely on the block for evaluation. This is a time for celebration because this suit was filed originally for the express purpose of reaching the SCOTUS and resolving this once and for all.
#2 & #4
Welcome to the party, five-by-five.
Didn’t we have an LST reader that supposedly “argued before the Supreme Court”?
Thankfully, there are no Gore/Kerry appointees sitting on that court.
7
You mean the Doha Derelict??
Thanks Pat, this desicion is going to be big for every decent, law abiding United States of America citizen. If we get our way and laws restricting our “right to keep and bear arms” are deemed unlawful there will be less criminals roaming our streets and more of them still willing to commit crimes lying six feet under.
http://politicsoffthegrid.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/cometakeit.jpg
This should be a slam dunk kind of ruling shouldn’t it?
#5 texpat
I’m afraid they’ll vote against the gun owners.
As dissatisfied as the American people are our leaders may fear an armed population.
Welcome aboard, five by.
KRAUT #12
The Government should fear an armed population. That is why the second ammendment was written, to protect the PEOPLE from an overbearing and unresponsive government.
Even in Iraq, residents are allowed to keep a firearm.
Not so in DC, Not so in New Orleans during Katrina, and not so when the government declares martial law, which the executive branch can do will little justification or debate.
*with little justification…
#12
I think they should fear unarming this population.
dis…oops
#17 , they should? THEY BETTER FEAR DISARMING THIS CITIZEN!
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.
If they can read the part that says “the right of the People” and interpret it in the same manner that they do in the first amendment (”the right of the people peaceably to assemble”) and the fourth amendment (”The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects…”) then they should make a decent ruling. Otherwise the words “The People” mean two different things within the same document. I don’t know about you, but I highly doubt the framers were talking out of both sides of their mouths like a weasel of a politician of today would!
…and I don’t even have a law degree, maybe it’s too nuanced?
The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it. — Thomas Jefferson
This is an example of how important it is to pick a candidate for president who will appoint judges who honor the constitution, and not their desire to improve on it. It’s worrisome, but hopefully the supreme court will rule for the people.
20. Folks have been arguing over punctuation and prior versions of that sentence for a long time, so the ruling should be interesting.
My take on the origin and intent is simply this:
Granted, a handgun or “legal” rifle is of limited contemporary use against a government that doesn’t hesitate to employ military tactics and equipment in domestic law enforcement, but it’s better than a pea-shooter.
Nice on hamous.
Guns don’t kill people, overbearing gun-control laws do.
I am cautiously optimistic about this ruling. However, I warn this won’t be the end of litigation on the Second Amendment. If the SCOTUS rules as it should, there will be numerous filings and counter actions concerning the extent to which local and state authorities may restrict the individual right. The important thing is we will own the ship - further decisions will just be about arranging the deck chairs.
Once again we must rely on the unelected court to “make law” where our duly elected wussified representatives refuse to take any action. Out with the lot of them next November.
As we approach another Presidential election, and with several SC justices up there in age, it is worth repeating what Shannon said in #8.
#26 Rastus
There are endless examples of the legislative branch avoiding difficult questions, but this particular situation is not one of them. Actually, the historical SC itself can be largely blamed for avoiding this issue for so long. Although, one of the things most often misunderstood about the Supreme Court is they often must wait years, or even decades, for the right case to reach them in order to be able to settle a broad question decisively and clearly. They cannot just arbitrarily issue rulings willy-nilly like philosopher kings. It requires a legal case that has worked its way through the appellate system before they can issue a ruling no matter how confused the matter may be. There are always, and always will be, unsettled constitutional and legal questions, but our system mandates an appropriate legal case upon which to settle the question.
Rastus, how do you figure? This is not a case of the Supreme Court making law, it is a case of the Supreme Court ruling whether a law is Constitutional.
Guns don’t kill people.. The government does!
This subject and this case is ripe for much more writing. I will do more in-depth reporting and analysis in the near future. One of the most important things to remember is that recently more than one prominent legal scholar on the Left has changed their opinion on this constitutional question to a conservative position. They do have influence on the thinking of the Court.
It’s interesting to read the comments on Kos about this today. There’s a very strong split among the entirely anti-gun liberal, and the liberal that is strongly in favor of the entire Bill of Rights. I’m really surprised by the number of people defending the right to arms. With some notable nut-jobs (obviously at that site) on all sides…
Five x five, welcome to the LST zoo. Are you by chance a ham?
Texpat, in your analysis of this case before SCOTUS, would you kindly include a brief discussion of the types of cases the court must take (original jurisdiction) vs. the types it may take? I am too long past Con Law class to recall in sufficient detail. Thank you.
the biggest problem with the scotus is their are several liberal judges that don’t care what the constitution says, they make decisions based on their own liberal ideas and then find a way to justify it in legal terms.
#33 Adee
I’ll be glad to include any stare decisis decisions I think will hold sway in this ruling. This will be exciting to watch and is shaping up to be a momentous decision.
Sometimes, after re-reading my posts, I think I should hire you as my editor. It pays quite well; in fact, I’ll pass along all the money Benzion pays me.
#34 trl3
The nice thing is we only need 5 votes out of 9. At that point, it doesn’t really matter what smelly, little orthodoxies the other 4 are fawning over.
My only worry is that we will see a decision that says something like “the second ammendment guarantees the individual the right to own a firearm…but the government can put ‘reasonable restrictions’ on how and where they can keep their firearms”. All DC would have to do is say “ok, you can own a handgun…as long as you keep it in the DC police locker when you aren’t out shooting it at the range.”
I know we can probably count on Alito, Roberts, and Scalia…Thomas will probably stand by the constitution…but I just don’t have a good feel for how the others will rule. Ginsberg is almost certainly a lost cause, but Souter may actually stand up for the constitution on this one. I am sure if Ginsberg could find a way to say the 2nd ammendment was a forgery and guaranteed nothing, she would…
Justice Anthony Kennedy is the pivot guy on this issue and believe me, he’s going to milk it for all it’s worth. He’s got an ego a mile wide and just as deep.
Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas are solid. And no, there won’t be “locker” restrictions on this one. It is an up or down, yes or no, type of question. Arguments, debates and litigation on restrictions will come in later battles. This is a decision on the theoretical constitutional right of the individual citizen to either own personal weapons - or not. You have to understand, we have never had a clear, definitive ruling on this in 218 years.
I understand that very well. We have had 218 years of cowardice in the judiciary. I would just like for anybody who thinks that the 2nd ammendment is a collective right for the state guard to show me any other example in the bill of rights that guarantees a collective right and not an individual right. “The people” always means “the people”. You can’t suddenly decide that “the people” really means “the (insert state name here) militia”. If they wanted to grant the right to keep arms to the state, they would have enumerated it in the state’s powers within the constitution itself. By putting it in the Bill of Rights, the intent was clearly to make it an individual right.
#39 Bill F
I agree. Sometimes, despite their numerous failings, SCOTUS does the right thing. Also, it is important to wait and offer up the right case, to the right Supreme Court, at the right time. Patience does have its rewards.
Back later…I’m out.
Wow, Texpat #35, what a thought: sharing the munificent fee David bestows upon you for your labors on behalf of LST in swap for editorial assistance.
Well, the case actually does’nt have to do with the right to bear arms, it has t do with the right to have a certain type of concealable firearm in your home.
You can still own rifles, shotguns and they are supposed to be kept under trigger guard which is becoming a more common requirement
The Supreme court will remand it back to the states and to the district.
I hope Texapt is right, and we’ll get an unequivocal (hopefully pro-individual-right) decision.
Alas, I suspect BillF is right, and we’ll get a milquetoast decision with ambiguous “reasonable restriction” strings attached.
Of course, I’m not a lawyer.
#45
You are absolutely right and he is absolutely wrong.
#43 Matt
There is a very distinct and unambiguous question to be answered by the ruling in Heller vs D.C. The Court is not ruling on restrictions, safety requirements, time and place allowances, concealment or other conditions. The question to be answered by the Court’s ruling is thus:
Does the U.S. Constitution, in the Second Amendment, state an individual American citizen has an inalienable, self-evident right to keep and bear arms ? Nothing more, nothing less.
Hamous
SCOTUS is ruling on whether states have the right to restrict and control the use of firearms
Trigger locks was an example not the reason for the ruling
Sorry for the confusion but the Supreme Court is not going to allow unlimited unrestricted gun and weapon ownership.
This is not what the 2nd has been interpreted to mean
Texpat
no they are ruling whether a state can infring on the rights (ie restriction set by states) to keep and bear arms