Jump to content

2nd Amendment to go to Supreme Court...


T Rex

Recommended Posts

I am amazed that they even took the case. It still wouldn't surprise me if they did everything possible to duck out of making a ruling that means anything.

 

Besides, I thought the point of all of this was whether or not DC has to follow the same laws and guidelines as the states. When DC enacted the ban, they did so acting as if the constitution was optional for them, since they aren't actually a state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides, I thought the point of all of this was whether or not DC has to follow the same laws and guidelines as the states. When DC enacted the ban, they did so acting as if the constitution was optional for them, since they aren't actually a state.

 

True to a point. The Supreme Court of Washington DC deemed the ban on HANDGUNS constitutional, under the grounds that handguns were not even around in the time the constitution was made.

 

The Circuit Courts deemed the law unconstitutional. So now the appeal has reached the supreme court.

 

Im with you Mike, I doubt they will come to a desicion that means jack shit. They will probably say something to the affect "Its the States job to regulate firearms however they feel nec." Which if that happens look for some new gun control laws to vote for or against next year!

 

Its interesting though, this is the only amendment in the constitution that has NOT been poked, proded and disassembled to find out the true meaning of the amendment. I do hope the Supreme Court makes a decent desicion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They get mine out of my cold dead fingers. The NRA and too many other citizens wouldn't allow it to happen, or atleast I pray to God it will never happen in this country.

 

You would like to think that the tenticles of any organization cant reach the Supreme Court to sway their desicion. Not just the NRA but people for gun bans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought this was an interesting read:

 

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/10/a-liberals-lame.html

 

A liberal's lament: The NRA might be right after all

 

By Jonathan Turley

 

This term, the Supreme Court may finally take up the Voldemort Amendment, the part of the Bill of Rights that shall not be named by liberals. For more than 200 years, progressives and polite people have avoided acknowledging that following the rights of free speech, free exercise of religion and free assembly, there is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Of course, the very idea of finding a new individual right after more than two centuries is like discovering an eighth continent in constitutional law, but it is hardly the cause of celebration among civil liberties groups.

 

Like many academics, I was happy to blissfully ignore the Second Amendment. It did not fit neatly into my socially liberal agenda. Yet, two related cases could now force liberals into a crisis of conscience. The Supreme Court is expected to accept review of District of Columbia v. Heller and Parker v. District of Columbia, involving constitutional challenges to the gun-control laws in Washington.

 

The D.C. law effectively bars the ownership of handguns for most citizens and places restrictions on other firearms. The District's decision to file these appeals after losing in the D.C. appellate court was driven more by political than legal priorities. By taking the appeal, D.C. politicians have put gun-control laws across the country at risk with a court more likely to uphold the rulings than to reverse them. It has also put the rest of us in the uncomfortable position of giving the right to gun ownership the same fair reading as more favored rights of free press or free speech.

 

The Framers' intent

 

Principle is a terrible thing, because it demands not what is convenient but what is right. It is hard to read the Second Amendment and not honestly conclude that the Framers intended gun ownership to be an individual right. It is true that the amendment begins with a reference to militias: "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." Accordingly, it is argued, this amendment protects the right of the militia to bear arms, not the individual.

 

Yet, if true, the Second Amendment would be effectively declared a defunct provision. The National Guard is not a true militia in the sense of the Second Amendment and, since the District and others believe governments can ban guns entirely, the Second Amendment would be read out of existence.

 

Another individual right

 

More important, the mere reference to a purpose of the Second Amendment does not alter the fact that an individual right is created. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is stated in the same way as the right to free speech or free press. The statement of a purpose was intended to reaffirm the power of the states and the people against the central government. At the time, many feared the federal government and its national army. Gun ownership was viewed as a deterrent against abuse by the government, which would be less likely to mess with a well-armed populace.

 

Considering the Framers and their own traditions of hunting and self-defense, it is clear that they would have viewed such ownership as an individual right — consistent with the plain meaning of the amendment.

 

None of this is easy for someone raised to believe that the Second Amendment was the dividing line between the enlightenment and the dark ages of American culture. Yet, it is time to honestly reconsider this amendment and admit that ... here's the really hard part ... the NRA may have been right. This does not mean that Charlton Heston is the new Rosa Parks or that no restrictions can be placed on gun ownership. But it does appear that gun ownership was made a protected right by the Framers and, while we might not celebrate it, it is time that we recognize it.

 

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...