Surprised this has not been brought up.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/washington/20cnd-scotus.html?ex=1353301200&en=5dd82ea783574907&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

 

WASHINGTON, Nov. 20 — The Supreme Court announced today that it would l decide whether the Constitution grants individuals the right to keep guns in their homes for private use, plunging the justices headlong into a divisive and long-running debate over how to interpret the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the “right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

 

Supreme Court The court accepted a case on the District of Columbia’s 31-year-old prohibition on the ownership of handguns. In adding the case to its calendar, for argument in March with a decision likely in June, the court not only raised the temperature of its current term but inevitably injected the issue of gun control into the presidential campaign.

 

The federal appeals court here, breaking with the great majority of federal courts to have examined the issue over the decades, ruled last March that the Second Amendment right was an individual one, not tied to service in a militia, and that the District of Columbia’s categorical ban on handguns was therefore unconstitutional.

 

Both the District of Columbia government and the winning plaintiff, Dick Anthony Heller, a security officer, urged the justices to review the decision. Mr. Heller, who carries a gun while on duty guarding the federal building that houses the administrative offices of the federal court system, wants to be able to keep his gun at home for self-defense.

 

Mr. Heller was one of six plaintiffs recruited by a wealthy libertarian lawyer, Robert A. Levy, who created and financed the lawsuit for the purpose of getting a Second Amendment case before the Supreme Court. The appeals court threw out the other five plaintiffs for lack of standing; only Mr. Heller had actually applied for permission to keep a gun at home and been turned down.

This is a major, major potential blow to the NRA that the Supremes decided to grant cert. in this case. More on this later, but I agree with LBBC that I am surprised it has not been brought up earlier. The NYTimes certainly didn't jump on it until the ABA Journal did.

I am not an attorney, but I have trouble believing that the SC will find that the right to bear arms is an absolute private right. I'm with Heresay, I think the NRA will not like this decision. I fact, my guess is that they won't like it regardless of which way it turns out. If the SC holds that the second amendment protects an absolute individual right to bear arms (not guns, arms), it would seem that all laws regarding control of arms would be struck down and withit the NRAs number one fundraising scare tactic. Anyone want to own a Nuke? If they hold that the right to bear arms refers to state militias, existing law will not change. Some jurisdictions MAY elect to regulate firearms, but I think most places will leave existing law alone.

I personally have no problem with an individual having the right to own a gun, and though I am well trained in using many weapons, I do not keep a gun in my home.

 

The way I read the second amendment, especially the section: "A well regulated militia, being neccesary to the security of a free State..."; tells me that no individual is guaranteed a right to bear arms.

 

Guess we'll see who the strict constructionists really are.

I personally have no problem with an individual having the right to own a gun, and though I am well trained in using many weapons, I do not keep a gun in my home.

 

The way I read the second amendment, especially the section: "A well regulated militia, being neccesary to the security of a free State..."; tells me that no individual is guaranteed a right to bear arms.

 

Guess we'll see who the strict constructionists really are.

 

Since the well-regulate militia were the people who brought their own weapons, it would guarantee the right to bear arms.

Since the well-regulate militia were the people who brought their own weapons, it would guarantee the right to bear arms.

Guess the court will need to decide what well regulated means.

 

To me, those people who brought thier own weapons in the 1770's were well regulated because there was a structure of command when they came together. The chain of command is located in the US Military and the National Guard, but not between private citizens.

Since the well-regulate militia were the people who brought their own weapons, it would guarantee the right to bear arms.

 

You are not reading the language of the clause as a whole. First, it says "well-regulated," which implies government supervision. Second, the "militia" is necessary only to the end of the security of the state. Had the Founders intended a private right to be conferred, would they not have simply addressed that the militia was necessary to its own security?

You are not reading the language of the clause as a whole. First, it says "well-regulated," which implies government supervision. Second, the "militia" is necessary only to the end of the security of the state. Had the Founders intended a private right to be conferred, would they not have simply addressed that the militia was necessary to its own security?

 

There seems to be a lot of things that we say the Founding Fathers said in today's world that is not simply and clearly said by the Founding Fathers.

 

For example, the whole church and state separation issue. They could have made that simpler but didn't and left gray area in what they actually meant.

 

They made the statement in regards to their experiences of that day. And the thought of taken away the right of a private owner to not have a gun was probably not in their realm of thinkability.

 

Do you really think that with the idea of how important weapons were in putting food on the table through the hunting that went on at that time, they would have even considered not allowing individuals to own guns?

I believe that a SC Justice said that the constitution is not a suicide pact. The second amendment says "arms", not guns. An unfettered right to "arms" would result in no restrictions on weapons of any type.

I believe that a SC Justice said that the constitution is not a suicide pact. The second amendment says "arms", not guns. An unfettered right to "arms" would result in no restrictions on weapons of any type.

 

In today's world, arms has a different meaning. But what was the word arms for that time. It was not a nuclear warhead that was for sure.

 

Honestly, I don't know, but it would be interesting and I would think very important to understand what the term "arms" meant in that day.

 

That is IF that is the way you are going to rule on the case based on what the Founding Fathers meant.

 

Instead they could, I guess, chose to tweak what they are seeing is meant based upon what they think would work best in today's society.

In today's world, arms has a different meaning. But what was the word arms for that time. It was not a nuclear warhead that was for sure.

 

Honestly, I don't know, but it would be interesting and I would think very important to understand what the term "arms" meant in that day.

 

That is IF that is the way you are going to rule on the case based on what the Founding Fathers meant.

 

Instead they could, I guess, chose to tweak what they are seeing is meant based upon what they think would work best in today's society.

 

I expect the SC to rule that the government has the right to regulate arms.

I expect the SC to rule that the government has the right to regulate arms.

 

IF THEY DO, it might hand the election to the Republicans who could use this issue as a rallying issue as gay marriage was in 2004.

IF THEY DO, it might hand the election to the Republicans who could use this issue as a rallying issue as gay marriage was in 2004.

Interesting take on the issue. Good possibility it could happen.

As long as the SC throws it back to the states to determine their own gun laws, I think I'm ok with it. I don't see a whole lot of this being overturned at the state level with the exception of the West Coast and Northeast. If you want to own a gun inside the beltway, just move a few miles to Maryland or Virginia.

IF THEY DO, it might hand the election to the Republicans who could use this issue as a rallying issue as gay marriage was in 2004.

 

There is one big difference. With gay marrriage it was the courts saying you had to allow it. A SC ruling that the government has the right to regulate arms just throws it back to a local decision, which is pretty much the status quo.