DC Ban on handguns in front of US Supreme Court

[Angry Bill]

There is a case currently infront of the United States Supreme Court, which may have impact around the US. It is in regards to the ownership of handguns within the District of Columbia.

Some interesting reading on the opinions of the Justices so far! It is a true test on the Second Amendment


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23688073?GT1=43001

 

[RigilKent]

very interesting

 

[Jwrussell]

Will be waiting on baited breath on this one.

 

[TexaSmoke]

Didn't they rule on this today?

 

[Angry Bill]

Nope, ruling will not be until June. They are hearing the facts and pondering over the numerous legal briefs submitted in this case! Will be very interesting, which could have some political reprecussions in the upcoming presidential and other elected races.

 

[TBone]

DC is a dangerous place....I always carry when I'm there. Legal or not.

 

[blessednxs65]

The sooner all States move to right to carry states we will see a drop in violent crime. For intially there will be a slight uptick based on over zealous prosecutors attempting and in some cases succeeding, to punish law-abiding citizens trying to protect what's theirs.

This indeed is interesting for my motto is... I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

 

[Wasch_24]

This is going to be a landmark decision.

 

[Dogwatch Dale]

I've got a good feeling about this one! Can't wait for June.

 

[Superduff]

I listened to the audio of the arguments. The case id DC v. Heller, by the way. It was pretty easy to see which side each justice favored based on their questioning of the attorneys and General Clement. It seems like the court will probably uphold the lower court's ruling that the ban is unconstitutional, but I think that the question is how broad the holding of the court will be.

It will be an interesting opinion to read as it's the first time the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue in quite some time. I'm looking forward to it!

 

[Jwrussell]

My guess is that the rule on this as narrowly as possible, but we'll see.

 

[Superduff]

My guess is that the rule on this as narrowly as possible, but we'll see.

I would tend to agree with that. It seems that the majority may be pretty slim with the conservative justices making up that majority.

I wouldn't imagine, however, that the court will not be able to reason their way around holding that citizens have the right to keep functional firearms in their house. My question is whether they will include handguns in that right or just rifles/shotguns. The court seems to be focusing on this unworkable distinction between firearms that are descendents of military firearms. I don't know what will happen with that theory.

That said, the court is pretty good at coming up with some interesting arguments involving, among other things, penumbras of the Constitution. Does any reasonable person have any idea what a penumbra is?

 

[Jwrussell]

No, but webster does:

Main Entry: pen·um·bra
Pronunciation: pə-ˈnəm-brə
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural pen·um·brae -(&#716brē, -ˌbrī or pen·um·bras
Etymology: New Latin, from Latin paene almost + umbra shadow — more at umbrage
Date: 1666
1 a: a space of partial illumination (as in an eclipse) between the perfect shadow on all sides and the full light b: a shaded region surrounding the dark central portion of a sunspot
2: a surrounding or adjoining region in which something exists in a lesser degree : fringe
3: a body of rights held to be guaranteed by implication in a civil constitution
4: something that covers, surrounds, or obscures : shroud <a penumbra of secrecy> <a penumbra of somber dignity has descended over his reputation &#8212; James Atlas>
&#8212; pen&#183;um&#183;bral -br&#601;l adjective

lol. Yeah, as I said before, I'm holding my breath. I'm currently taking a class on business law and ethics and we are having to read a bunch of different Supreme Court cases. It can blow your mind the little bits and pieces of cases they decide to focus on. I also heard vaguely about the "descendent" distinction that was being discussed and couldn't figure out what the hell they were after there. That just seems a very poor concept to utilize or focus on.

 

[Ratbert]

I think that the important thing to focus on is that the ruling affirms that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, and not a collective right.

They will uphold restrictions as they see fit regarding public safety, etc. but as long as they rule that the 2A is about an individual's rights, then gun owners can breathe a sigh of relief. Very, very important case and I cannot wait to see how they rule.

 

[Angry Bill]

The whole issue will come to this. Does the 2nd amendment guarantee an individuals right to possess a firearm to protect himself or does it only give the right to possess in terms of being a militia. This one is going to be a landmark case, as was stated above.

My gut feeling is the court will hold with the lower courts decision. Time will tell.

 

[joshua]

The whole issue will come to this. Does the 2nd amendment guarantee an individuals right to possess a firearm to protect himself or does it only give the right to possess in terms of being a militia. This one is going to be a landmark case, as was stated above.

My gut feeling is the court will hold with the lower courts decision. Time will tell.

I don't think it was ever written to protect oneself per se, but protect against a government which gets out of hand. Seeing as when it was written the colonies were under control by the British. Without being able to arm themselves against their oppressors we wouldn't be living in America right now. (Anyone else been watching John Adams?) Thing is these days a militia could never be as powerful as an army created by the government, and back then it was the other way around.

I think its really annoying that people want to make this a conservative vs liberal thing. This is about our rights as citizens and determining if those rights have been violated. A supreme court justice is supposed to be impartial.

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.

 

[Angry Bill]

Good points. I just want our constitutional rights protected from those that feel they can determine was is right or wrong in this country. Whether it is color, creed race, right to free speech, the right to reamin secure in yoru house, the right to bear arms, the right to smoke or not, etc.. I agree with the conservative/liberal issue.

 

[Jwrussell]

I don't think it was ever written to protect oneself per se, but protect against a government which gets out of hand. Seeing as when it was written the colonies were under control by the British. Without being able to arm themselves against their oppressors we wouldn't be living in America right now. (Anyone else been watching John Adams?) Thing is these days a militia could never be as powerful as an army created by the government, and back then it was the other way around.

Unfortunately, there are many that see this as a reason to obsolete the right the 2nd guarantees.

I think its really annoying that people want to make this a conservative vs liberal thing. This is about our rights as citizens and determining if those rights have been violated. A supreme court justice is supposed to be impartial.

Here, here Joshua! :thumbsup:

Unfortunatley, if you took a fairly comprehensive poll, you'd fine a pretty easily defined split between liberals and conservatives on this issue.

 

[Hendy]

Looks like I won't be traveling there. I won't leave home without it.

 

[Clinton]

The sooner all States move to right to carry states we will see a drop in violent crime.

Pro gun people like to make that claim, but states that have enacted concealed carry laws have seen no drop in crime. Gun nuts always cite a book (written by another gun nut) that backs up the claim, but impartial studies have shown otherwise.

The right to own and carry a gun should not be prohibited, but it should be very tightly regulated.