DC Gun Ban Goes to SCOTUS
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Joined
·
3,180 Posts
Quote:
“Whether the following provisions â€" D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 â€" 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 would tend to agree with you on this. I also read a brief statement last week which got me thinking. We have all seen the commercials by the armed forces/army which advertises for an army of ONE; Wouldn't it follow suit then, that if the army is going to advertise like this, that we could also consider a militia to be a militia of ONE?
Just a little thought to get our thinking caps on--makes for interesting theory
at the least. Kind of like, if the military can use 18" shotguns why can't civilians? OOOPs, wasn't that case decided (erroneously) in 1938? Interesting since every army we ever had uses these weapons, but the Volsted (I know--spelling, sorry) Act said that these couldn't be considered of use to military--therefore to militia? Ahhhh--I digress too
much.
The important thing is that hopefully the Supreme Court makes the right decision based upon facts & the Constitution and not like they did on the Eminent Domain issue--that is a terror in and of itself.
Anyway, just my thoughts.
“Whether the following provisions â€" D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 â€" 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 would tend to agree with you on this. I also read a brief statement last week which got me thinking. We have all seen the commercials by the armed forces/army which advertises for an army of ONE; Wouldn't it follow suit then, that if the army is going to advertise like this, that we could also consider a militia to be a militia of ONE?
Just a little thought to get our thinking caps on--makes for interesting theory
at the least. Kind of like, if the military can use 18" shotguns why can't civilians? OOOPs, wasn't that case decided (erroneously) in 1938? Interesting since every army we ever had uses these weapons, but the Volsted (I know--spelling, sorry) Act said that these couldn't be considered of use to military--therefore to militia? Ahhhh--I digress too
much.
The important thing is that hopefully the Supreme Court makes the right decision based upon facts & the Constitution and not like they did on the Eminent Domain issue--that is a terror in and of itself.
Anyway, just my thoughts.
G
Guest
·As I have shouted from the rooftops on a thousand occasions and will copy as I am sick of typing it:Cinhil said:
It doesn't mater whether we are or are not members of the militia, army, cheesecake foundry, or frogman patrol.
It (the second amendment) states clearly the right of the people to keep and bear arms......It says NOTHING about the militias right to do so. It says nothing about us being in a militia. A militia has nothing to do with the second amendment at all. The preamble, if that is an acceptable term, that addresses the militia is there to demonstrate why it is critical that the people be armed.
This position annoys me; and as the question as written:
“Whether the following provisions â€" D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 â€" 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?"
Your position is not relevant. Although the question is a bit wonky. It comes very close to declaring individual rights as a priori in the question itself. Removing the possibility of deliberation on whether or not it is an individual right. The question gun control advocates want the court to take up would be whether or not in individual right exists based on their deliberate obfuscation of the clear text of the amendment.
The question before the court is not whether or not the right exists (it is declared a right within the question itself) but whether or not the DC gun ban violates that right. As it most clearly does I think it is a strong indication of where the court will fall in this matter.
Why they chose to include "who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia" in the question is a question in itself. You, me, and SCOTUS all know that considering membership in the army would change the nature of the question and it would cease being one of violation of individual rights and become a question of violation of collective and or government rights. But they have already stated they are considering the individual right. By reasoning "who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia" is superfluous to the question. Something I am certain of which the court is aware.
So again why include "who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia". I think the answer is clear; they mean to stamp out the whole collective rights bull**** once and for all as part of their position.
Needless to say I am optimistic.
Joined
·
650 Posts
The D.C. Office of the Attorney General met its deadline for filing its Petitioner's Merits Brief today. The brief is the District's best argument for keeping its ban of all "functional" firearms.
http://www.dcguncase.com/
Upcoming deadlines include:
Feb. 4: Publishing of Respondent's Merits Brief
March 5: Publishing of Petitioner's Reply Brief
March 19: Scheduling of Oral Arguments
June 23: Publishing of Opinion
David Nelson
http://stonewallshootingsportsutah.org/
Salt Lake City
http://www.dcguncase.com/
Upcoming deadlines include:
Feb. 4: Publishing of Respondent's Merits Brief
March 5: Publishing of Petitioner's Reply Brief
March 19: Scheduling of Oral Arguments
June 23: Publishing of Opinion
David Nelson
http://stonewallshootingsportsutah.org/
Salt Lake City
Joined
·
5,591 Posts
Thanks for the update, David.
This is a pivotal case to follow!
This is a pivotal case to follow!
Well, I am not so sure it is a pivotal case. It would be nice to win, if we win., but that will not be the end of gun control by any means. Chicago and other cities will all say "yes, but our laws are differentt". I am sure Washington D.C. will pass a new law with different wording that will try to accomplish the same thing. It seems to me we have much to lose here but little to win. That said, I expect the court to find inour favor, the argument aghinst seems very weak, eh,,,what do I know?
G
Guest
·You may be right but let me convey some observations I have:
This will be the first time since 1939 (U.S. v. Miller) that the court has heard a gun control case. Not only did the court get it wrong in '39 they didn't address the individual vs collective rights lie propagated by liars. It is possible the court will take up this challenge and, God willing, state definitively that the second amendment addresses an individuals right to keep and bear arms.
If the court upholds the honest interpretation of the second amendment it could have a national effect on many already existing illegal firearms laws as well as offer protection from future laws.
Franky I suspect their opinion will be written as such that it will uphold the individual right while limiting the scope of their decision to Washington D.C. only; so as to not create too large a can o' worms. Thus it will still be very valuable to us in the future but not likely to ease restrictions already in place (I doubt I will be able to buy an m249 at the convenience store any time soon).
Joined
·
124 Posts
thats to bad those are great fun to shootEukatae said:
G
Guest
·Sadly I will probably never get the chance.tap-rack-bang said:
Joined
·
2,117 Posts
Heller v DC is on the SCOTUS docket for March 18.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_argu ... ch2008.htm
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_argu ... ch2008.htm
Joined
·
650 Posts
U.S. President Bush [email protected]
U.S. Vice President Cheney [email protected]
U.S. Acting Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey S. Bucholtz [email protected]
U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
U.S. Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher [email protected]
U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Gregory G. Garre [email protected]
U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Chief Counsel Stephen R. Rubenstein [email protected]
U.S. Assistant to the Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart [email protected], [email protected]
U.S. Vice President Cheney [email protected]
U.S. Acting Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey S. Bucholtz [email protected]
U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
U.S. Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher [email protected]
U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Gregory G. Garre [email protected]
U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Chief Counsel Stephen R. Rubenstein [email protected]
U.S. Assistant to the Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart [email protected], [email protected]
Joined
·
1,191 Posts
Thanks for the list.David Nelson said:
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
