DC vs Heller

[mbw]

The Supreme Court is accepting the Heller case. Now we will see what happens- From Fox News-

WASHINGTON — 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.

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?�

[Greybeard]

Announcement by Heller's attorney, Alan Gura: http://dcguncase.com/blog/.

Quote:
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Second Amendment Challenge to D.C. Gun Ban
November 20th, 2007 by Alan Gura

Washington, D.C.—Today, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will hear the case of Heller v. District of Columbia, and decide whether the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the right to own guns. At issue is a 31-year-old Washington, D.C. law banning handguns and requiring that all shotguns and rifles be kept unloaded and either trigger-locked or disassembled at all times. There is no exception for self-defense.

Alan Gura, lead counsel for the Heller plaintiffs said, “The Bill of Rights does not end at the District of Columbia’s borders, and it includes the right to keep and bear arms. After three decades of failure trying to control firearms in the District, it’s time for law-abiding city residents to be able to defend themselves in their homes. We are confident the Supreme Court will vindicate that right in Washington, D.C., and across the nation.�

Dick Heller, a District resident who works as an armed security guard protecting the lives of various government officials during the day but is forbidden by District law from keeping a handgun at home to protect himself, explained, “I want to be able to defend myself and my wife from violent criminals, and the Constitution says I have a right to do that by keeping a gun in my home. The police can’t be everywhere, and they can’t protect everyone all the time. Responsible gun ownership is a basic right we have as American citizens.�

The Supreme Court has not heard a Second Amendment case since 1939, when it issued a confusing and inconclusive decision in a case involving the interstate transportation of a sawed-off shotgun. The case ended before the defendant had the opportunity to establish whether sawed-off shotguns are covered by the word “arms� in the text of the Amendment. But regular shotguns, along with rifles and handguns, are precisely the kind of “arms� the Framers had in mind in drafting the Second Amendment. The District’s functional firearms ban defies the Framers’ obvious intent to ensure that the government could never disarm citizens in America, as other governments have done elsewhere.

Clark Neily, a public interest lawyer specializing in constitutional law cases and co-counsel to the Heller plaintiffs said, “The Second Amendment is every bit as much a part of the Bill of Rights as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. The framers of our Constitution made clear that the government has no more business disarming citizens than it has censoring them or telling them what values to hold sacred.�

“The citizens of Washington, D.C. − indeed, all Americans − deserve a clear pronouncement from the nation’s highest court on the real meaning of the Second Amendment,â€? stated Robert Levy, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and co-counsel to the Heller plaintiffs. Levy added, “Later cases will decide what gun regulations are constitutional, but an outright ban on all functional firearms clearly is not constitutional.â€?

Heller will likely be the highest-profile case on the Court’s docket this term, and it promises to be among the most closely watched constitutional law cases in decades. At stake is not just the question of whether people have a constitutional right to own guns, but also the Court’s willingness to stand up for rights that are clearly expressed in the Constitution, even when those rights are strongly opposed by a vocal minority.

Oral argument will most likely be scheduled for March or April, with a decision expected by June 2008.

[DoubleActionCHL]

This should prove interesting. Keep your fingers crossed. Common sense has little or nothing to do with the law.

[Kalrog]

Check the Federal forum. We already have a thread or three on this topic.

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... highlight=
http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... highlight=

[DoubleActionCHL]

The discussions are all very interesting. I have to agree with the person on the SCOTUS blog who pointed out that if the court rules in favor of a "collective rights" interpretation, they then must re-examine the interpretations of the remaining Amendments of the Bill of Rights. The left-wing anti-gunners will have to deal with THAT double-edged sword, because there's nothing a liberal cherishes more than his freedom of speech.

I also find it interesting and sad that we can somewhat predict the position each Justice will likely take. This tells me that that decisions are prejudiced and there is no objectivity or justice at any level.

[stevie_d_64]

“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?�

I was looking at the other thread "jbirds" posted and tried to figure out what question they were going to review...Thanks for finding this...

But, there is something bugging me about how this is worded here...

-- Does the "code" violate the 2A rights of individuals not affiliated with any state-regulated militia???

My answer: Yes, and an individuals non-affiliation with any state-regulated agency has no bearing upon the individuals right to KEEP and BEAR arms in any capacity...

-- "...but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?"

My answer/analysis: I would have worded this differently...

...but those individuals who choose to KEEP handguns and other firearms in any functional condition in their homes, or in any other location, on or about their person, for self-defense or other lawful purposes, shall not be restricted or infringed in any manner."

Thank you, I'm here all week! (and the crowd goes wild!)

[dac1842]

With the current make up of the Supreme Court this will probably go 5-4 in favor of the right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

[rockhill]

With the current make up of the Supreme Court this will probably go 5-4 in favor of the right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I certainly hope you are correct, but I am far from confident about the outcome. When lawyers, and at their core that is what the justices are or were, start "wordsmithing" you begin to think you do not understand plain English as written.

edit: as there are several attorneys I believe on this forum, I do not mean to attack the profession. But good lawyers are VERY good at getting different meaning from something that would seem very straight forward.

[KBCraig]

With the current make up of the Supreme Court this will probably go 5-4 in favor of the right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I'm reasonably confident of that outcome, but that's not the only thing at stake. There are several possibilities:

Will they declare it a fundamental right, which would immediately void all gun control laws?

Will they declare it subject to "reasonable restrictions"?

Will they narrowly craft the decision to apply to only the DC ordinances?

As you can see, there's quite a range that the decision could cover. If they chose the last option, the only other jurisdiction that would be affected would be Chicago (DC and Chicago are the only places with total handgun bans).

There's also the problematic way in which they phrased the question:
“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?�

A "well-regulated militia" and a "state-regulated militia" mean wildly different things. The subtle shift in terminology could be very bad, or it could just be a sly way to address the real issue.

I guess we'll get a hint in April, when arguments are heard.

[hkshooter]

A "well-regulated militia" and a "state-regulated militia" mean wildly different things. The subtle shift in terminology could be very bad, or it could just be a sly way to address the real issue.

I'm guessing if it goes very bad there are going to be a lot of people in Texas willing to become criminals (myself included) and not give up their inalienable rights of life, including self-defense.

[ttorion]

NBC4 serving D.C. is running a question of the day poll:

"Would you like to see the Supreme Court uphold or overturn D.C.'s gun ban?"

Vote at http://www.nbc4.com/index.html

So far it's running 90% in favor of overturning the D.C. gun ban.

[jbirds1210]

The results of this poll so far are very interesting. The fact that 90% are voting to overturn speaks volumes.

[Charles L. Cotton]

With the current make up of the Supreme Court this will probably go 5-4 in favor of the right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I agree, with Ginsberg possibly voting with the majority in a 6-3 decision, based upon the very narrow question the Court will address.

Chas.

[Kalrog]

...based upon the very narrow question the Court will address.

Chas,

How do you figure it is a very narrow question? They broadened it from just handguns (relative to what DC wanted). They are only addressing the "people not in a state-regulated militia" aspect, but that is really the aspect we want addressed and it really is central to this case.

What would you have considered a broad question? Something like "Is the 2A an individual right"? I think that might just be in there with this question. But again - I don't follow them all this closely and I could be missing some Con Law minutia (probably am).

[Charles L. Cotton]

...based upon the very narrow question the Court will address.

Chas,

How do you figure it is a very narrow question? They broadened it from just handguns (relative to what DC wanted). They are only addressing the "people not in a state-regulated militia" aspect, but that is really the aspect we want addressed and it really is central to this case.

What would you have considered a broad question? Something like "Is the 2A an individual right"? I think that might just be in there with this question. But again - I don't follow them all this closely and I could be missing some Con Law minutia (probably am).

A broad view would be to address every argument set out in all of the briefing. If it's not directly related to the issue before the Court, then it would be what we refer to as dicta and not controlling in other cases. However, dicta from the U.S. Supreme Court is more than merely persuasive authority when it comes from a lower court; it is often outcome-determinative.

The best aspect is that the Court will have to address the individual right v. collective right issue to answer this case.

Chas.