High Court to Take D.C. Gun Ban Case

RightinNYC · 11-20-07, 08:23 PM

Quote:

The Supreme Court announced today that it will decide whether the District of Columbia's ban on handguns violates the Constitution, a choice that will put the justices at the center of the controversy over the meaning of the Second Amendment for the first time in nearly 70 years.

The court's decision could have broad implications for gun-control measures locally and across the country and will raise a hotly contested political issue just in time for the 2008 elections.

The court will likely hear the case in March, with a decision coming before justices adjourn at the end of June.

For years, legal scholars, historians and grammarians have debated the meaning of the amendment because of its enigmatic wording and odd punctuation:

"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."

Gun rights proponents say the words guarantee the right of an individual to possess firearms. Gun-control supporters say it conveys only a civic or "collective" right to own guns as part of service in an organized military organization.

Quote:

The court's last examination of the amendment was in 1939, when it ruled in United States v. Miller that a sawed-off shotgun transported across state lines by a bootlegger was not what the amendment's authors had in mind when they were protecting arms needed for military service.

Since then, almost all of the nation's courts of appeal have read the ruling to mean the amendment conveys only a collective right to gun ownership. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit broke ranks last spring, becoming the first to strike down a gun-control law on Second Amendment grounds.

galenrox · 11-20-07, 08:27 PM

I've been hearing about this recently, and it sounds interesting. I had no idea that up until now there has been no legal recognition of individual rights to bear arms, (that's how it is now, right? Common law sees the right as being communal for the militia, right?). It's a statement to how effective the NRA has been.

Either way, I want this issue to be a major one in the presidential election, namely because it's one of the few where I'm on the side of the majority and so I win by it being a major issue.

I hope for a pro-individual rights ruling, but I could see it going either way.

RightinNYC · 11-20-07, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by galenrox

I've been hearing about this recently, and it sounds interesting. I had no idea that up until now there has been no legal recognition of individual rights to bear arms, (that's how it is now, right? Common law sees the right as being communal for the militia, right?). It's a statement to how effective the NRA has been.

A lot of state constitutions specifically protect an individual right, and even in those that don't, states haven't generally placed such strong restrictions on guns that it would rise to the level of a constitutional challenge.

And yea, I'm looking forward to it as well, though I'm thinking it's going to be 5-4 in favor of the individual right.

RightinNYC · 11-20-07, 08:40 PM

Oh, and for anyone who wants to see the authoritative list of sources dealing with the Second Amendment, go here:

Sources on the Second Amendment and Rights to Keep and Bear Arms in State Constitutions

Bleeding Head Ken · 11-20-07, 09:38 PM

Madison's original draft was: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country."

The second clause is dependent on the first, and the first is independent of the second. While the order of the reading was reversed, the militia clause still remains a weak dependent upon the right of the people clause.

The first phrase (...Militia...) of the current amendment does not limit the second phrase. It's participle "being" simply emphasizes the reason for the amendment to be in the BoR. Imagine if the Constitution were to say "The car tires being flat, the right of the people to walk shall not be infringed". Would it make sense then that if the car tires were filled, Congress could infringe upon the right to walk? No one denies that the people have the right to walk, but if the car tires are flat, then people are just going to have to walk. Similarly, the people have the right to keep and bear arms, and if the militia needs to be called out, the people will need their arms.

danarhea · 11-21-07, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bleeding Head Ken

Madison's original draft was: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country."

The second clause is dependent on the first, and the first is independent of the second. While the order of the reading was reversed, the militia clause still remains a weak dependent upon the right of the people clause.

The first phrase (...Militia...) of the current amendment does not limit the second phrase. It's participle "being" simply emphasizes the reason for the amendment to be in the BoR. Imagine if the Constitution were to say "The car tires being flat, the right of the people to walk shall not be infringed". Would it make sense then that if the car tires were filled, Congress could infringe upon the right to walk? No one denies that the people have the right to walk, but if the car tires are flat, then people are just going to have to walk. Similarly, the people have the right to keep and bear arms, and if the militia needs to be called out, the people will need their arms.

Excellent analogy, and BTW, Welcome to Debate Politics.

DeeJayH · 11-21-07, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bleeding Head Ken

Madison's original draft was: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country."

The second clause is dependent on the first, and the first is independent of the second. While the order of the reading was reversed, the militia clause still remains a weak dependent upon the right of the people clause.

The first phrase (...Militia...) of the current amendment does not limit the second phrase. It's participle "being" simply emphasizes the reason for the amendment to be in the BoR. Imagine if the Constitution were to say "The car tires being flat, the right of the people to walk shall not be infringed". Would it make sense then that if the car tires were filled, Congress could infringe upon the right to walk? No one denies that the people have the right to walk, but if the car tires are flat, then people are just going to have to walk. Similarly, the people have the right to keep and bear arms, and if the militia needs to be called out, the people will need their arms.

damn, even i understood that

jamesrage · 11-21-07, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightinNYC

A lot of state constitutions specifically protect an individual right, and even in those that don't, states haven't generally placed such strong restrictions on guns that it would rise to the level of a constitutional challenge.

And yea, I'm looking forward to it as well, though I'm thinking it's going to be 5-4 in favor of the individual right.

If they do rule in favor of it being a individual right this will be one of the few times I am glad I voted for Bush.