Supreme Court will Hear DC Gun Case
[Guest post by DRJ]
ScotusBlog reports the Supreme Court agreed to hear a DC Circuit case that has been closely watched because of its Second Amendment ramifications:
“After a hiatus of 68 years, the Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to rule on the meaning of the Second Amendment — the hotly contested part of the Constitution that guarantees “a right to keep and bear arms.” Not since 1939 has the Court heard a case directly testing the Amendment’s scope — and there is a debate about whether it actually decided anything in that earlier ruling. In a sense, the Court may well be writing on a clean slate if, in the end, it decides the ultimate question: does the Second Amendment guarantee an individual right to have a gun for private use, or does it only guarantee a collective right to have guns in an organized military force such as a state National Guard unit?
The city of Washington’s appeal (District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290) seeking to revive its flat ban on private possession of handguns is expected to be heard in March — slightly more than a year after the D.C. Circuit Court ruled that the Second Amendment right is a personal one, at least to have a gun for self-defense in one’s own home.”
The Volokh Conspiracy also has several posts on this subject.
— DRJ
Even liberals like Lawrence Tribe contend the 2nd Amendment guarantees individual possession rights, not just a “militia’s.”
Regardless of the outcome, the gun ruling will be a smokin’ campaign issue from June when the Court publishes its ruling.
steve (fbf00d) — 11/20/2007 @ 5:08 pmGun-Rights and Immigration: Now that’s a campaign to draw to.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 11/20/2007 @ 7:53 pmSome have speculated that the LONG time between this and the last 2nd amendment case that the SC heard (which I’m told didn’t render much of a decision) was because even liberal Justices were afraid of how they would have to vote.
I think DC’s ban is in serious trouble, and I look forward to reading these Questions…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 11/20/2007 @ 9:46 pmThis case is going to be a firecracker. If nothing else, it will be the most intelligent, best informed and most comprehensive discussion on the Second Amendment ever had in one place since the original Constitutional Convention.
As for the outcome, I am wary of the Justices who endorsed Justice O’Connor’s test in Planned Parenthood v. Casey — “oh yes, there’s a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms but it’s not being unduly burdened by DC’s or Chicago’s or Morton Grove’s, etc. bans”.
nk (09a321) — 11/21/2007 @ 6:11 amThis is encouraging, but at the same time, I thought the Supremes would drop the hammer on McCain Feingold once and for all.
JD (33beff) — 11/21/2007 @ 4:40 pmFred Thompson, John McCain and Huckabee all have full “standing” on the 2nd amendment and related issues. Rudy Guiliani is on a lifeboat on this issue, but is SEEMINGLY trying to row in the right direction. Clinton, Obama and Edwards are very weak and sinking on this now-campaign issue, despite their “always” having supported the 2nd amendment, but just control the heck out of anything that goes bang and federally legislate it out of existence by hook or crook. Biden had drowned on this issue and his head is already under the water. A lot of people really believe and read the U.S. Constitution and see the possible tyranny of the government over its citizens. Just ask anyone in D.C. for the past 31 years and see how the crime rate is doing in the District and what they use for self-defense in their homes. Fireplace pokers, golf clubs, baseball bats, 2 x 4 lumber, you know, just what we should all have according to the anti-gun zealots, who replace the constitution with their own agenda to register, confiscate and destroy all firearms in the U.S. except for police and military. I don’t think that is what Jefferson and the other good old boys had in mind. THEY were not stupid.
redstate41 (c6bfc0) — 11/22/2007 @ 10:23 am