RSS Feed
This is going to be a landmark decision:
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…
The government of Washington, D.C., is asking the court to uphold its 31-year ban on handgun ownership in the face of a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban as incompatible with the Second Amendment. Tuesday’s announcement was widely expected, especially after both the District and the man who challenged the handgun ban asked for the high court review.
Rudy Giuliani’s campaign has issued this statement about the SCOTUS’ decision to hear this case:
“I strongly believe that Judge Silberman’s decision deserves to be upheld by the Supreme Court. The Parker decision is an excellent example of a judge looking to find the meaning of the words in the Constitution, not what he would like them to mean.”
These are the best odds we could hope for: Two new conservative Bush appointees on the Court joining the two Reagan appointees and Clarence Thomas. Why, I haven’t felt as confident in victory since eight Republican appointees heard the, erm, Casey case.
Fearless prediction: Get ready to give up those guns, kids, because this one’s going the other way. And you know damned well whom you’ll have to thank. The Gipper!
Yes. After waiting a week on pins and needles, the Supreme Court has decided to take up the D.C. handgun case
The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290, and it is the first time the Supreme Court is tackling a Second Amendment case in 68 years.
While I think Roberts might try to get a unanimous ruling, precisely because of the right at stake, I expect a 5-4 ruling - and the swing vote would likely be Kennedy.
Macsmind :
Well, as Charleston Heston said, “When you can rip it from my cold dead hands”. Better yet, as John Lennon said, “You say you want a revolution?”
Regardless of how the Supremes rule, after 200 plus years private gun ownership will not cease and while I’m not for toppling the governement, I’ll make my own fearless prediction. Don’t try us.
Even a profoundly anti-gun constitutional scholar, Jonathan Turley, has recognized that the Second Amendment is meant to be an individual right. But you can expect the anti-gun zealots to pull out all the stops on this one. A ruling that favors the right of the individual will be a major setback for them and will put many of the more extreme gun control laws in jeopardy. Keep in mind that a ruling the other way would be a disaster for gun owners.
Wizbang :
This case will cast a large shadow over the presidential election as well. Regarding the GOP primary, Rudy Giuliani has routinely been an advocate for gun control as mayor of New York, which is one of the reasons why conservatives are leery of him. But with this issue now on the front burner, he’s going to have to address it, and in a way that will make conservatives comfortable. Now that Rudy’s earning some acceptance from more conservatives because of his toughness on national security and in spite of his stance on abortion, he’s got to be very careful to not blow it completely regarding this issue.
Washington D.C.’s gun laws are some of the most restrictive in the country, banning handguns, and requiring long guns to be kept disassembled, or at least trigger locked, which defeats the whole purpose of having an individual firearm for self and home protection. Some had expected the Surpemem Court to only address the “individual right” aspect of the case, but from their announcement today it appears they are going to look into the whole thing, and consider the constitutionality of the “disassembled” part of the law as well.
Stop The ACLU :
I don’t think I need to weigh in on where we stand on this issue. It is the exact opposite of the ACLU. However, two presidential candidates are taking advantage of the moment.
In an attempt to prop up his tarnished record on guns, Rudy G weighs in…Fred Thompson weighs in as well
8 Responses to “SCOTUS To Decide On What “well regulated militia” Means”
TrackBack URL
If the privlaged articrats from WASHINGTON D.C.(DISTRICT of CRINMALS)cant understand what the 2nd amendment means and why the founding father realy ment when they wrote it in then its time they moved somewhere else far away
In the parlance of the time of the writing of the Constitution, “well regulated” meant armed with weapons suitable for military use, aka WELL ARMED. Likewise, at the time of the writing of the Constitution, “Militia” was regarded as every law abiding, able bodied adult male of sound mind. Hence, at the time of its writing, the phrase “A well regulated militia” would’ve meant a well armed body consisting of every law abiding able bodied adult male of sound mind. An example of this would be the SWISS model. Another model to look at for the basis of this interpretation would be the old English law requiring that all males above the age of nine practice with a longbow of suitable size for two hours every Sunday following church. This practice was to require that men over the age of (if I remember correctly) twenty shoot at targets no less than 200 paces. (For those who don’t shoot archery, that is one hell of a long shot with a bow. This gives new meaning to the scene in “Robin Hood” where Errol Flynn asks if the target can be moved to a fit distance for men to shoot at.) This law was in effect during the reign of Henry the VIIIth and was instituted as a means to insure that every male could be called upon to provide service in a time of war with only minimal equipment provided by the government. i.e. They had to provide their own weapons.
With the historical precedence of not only the English Longbow, but also the Continental Army of soldiers providing their own weapons (a precedent that isn’t entirely unheard of to this very day), it would be hard to imagine that the framers of the Constitution would ever consider anything other than the Second Amendment being an individual right.
FAO, What is the NRA planning to do about this..I thought the airwaves would be flooded with their people, but I haven’t seen any..
They are filing a friend of the court brief in support of upholding the circuit court decision. Unfortunately, the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance reform bill, as is the case with every bill that McCain decides to partner with a Dem on, restricts the NRA and other NGOs from truthful running ads that would help Republicans just prior to an election, while allowing George Soros funded 527s to run all of the slanderous lies whenever they want. Of course, McCain/Feingold stops the NGOs from even airing rebuttal ads.
IMO this is the lynch pin Constitutional law decision of our generation because this will mark just how much the Supreme Court will allow the Constitution to be eroded.
It’s more than that Ted, it could be the spark that leads to another Revolutionary War. George Soros and crowd have been pushing for massive gun confiscation plans around the world. If this decision comes in the wrong way, we could be looking at Democratic administrations across the country enacting all forms of gun bans and using the police swat teams to enforce them like Mayor Dinkins did in New York. The difference is that unlike New York where the population was completely bamboozled by the liberal media and barely armed, there are cities in this country where a large percentage of the population is legally armed. The police won’t be able to run around confiscating guns when there are millions of them in the city. It’s a lot easier when there are only a few hundred. I wouldn’t hesitate to guess that the Metro Phoenix area has over a million gun owners, most with multiple weapons. BTW for those who saw the big gun buy back on TV last week. Most of the guns I saw being turned in, weren’t worth the $100 worth of groceries they were receiving. Some of them had retail values under $100 NEW. I did see one that I’d have offered the guy $200 for. It was a Colt Detective model with a value of around $400 in the condition it was in.
I’ll put it this way, anyone comes for my dad’s Belgian Browning is going to get a sabot through the head.
Also, If I have to shoot a cop, I’m going to not think twice about Liberal Democrats.
Hey PCD, why not just shoot the liberals and not have to worry about shooting the policeman? That way we could kill one bad bird with one shot and not have to kill a good one.