When no news is news, but neither good news nor bad news
SCOTUS has not yet decided whether to hear DC vs Heller or Parker vs DC
This is sad that the vile, un-American people have figured out ways to subvert, shred and virtually destroy the American Constitution.
Hopefully, saner heads prevail in this SCOTUS and the correct thing will be done. Which as I am also not a Lawyer - really does not make any sense to me - so I’m not sure what is right, other than my gut which says the DC laws are unConstitutional.
But, hey that’s just me (and oh btw, exactly howdo they verify that your gun is dismantled? Does that not smack of a real example of Government invasion of privacy? And of course another violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments?
Of course I must be so dumb as to not be able to grasp this Living Constitution and how the 2nd, 4th and 5th are ‘defined’ by it. . .let us just hope that the SCOTUS does do the right thing.
It’s sort of strange, the amount of debate that we’re seeing. We have a fairly simple phrase that states rather unambiguously (to most of us) that we, the People, have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Alone, it does carry a reason for its existence, but even that is pretty straight forward, if you are at all familiar with 18th Century English.
In the first case, I spent some time looking at the use of capital “P” and small “p” in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, when referring to “the People” either collectively or individually. I always recommend doing your own research, but I’m thoroughly convinced that it is an individual right, just as much as Free Speech or Religion (try to imagine those as collective rights!).
In the second case, if you look at even a few 18th Century literary works, you will discover that “regulated” easily refers to well practiced, serviced or maintained. In other words you not only have the right to own a gun, you’re supposed to practice and be good with it!
As far as I’m concerned, its case closed. Now enter the attorneys who seem to think that the Jesuits were much to straightforward. God help us.
WRT the two cases, not exactly. Heller is just Parker with the five plaintiffs that were dropped for lack of standing removed. The Parker appeal to SCOTUS is to have these five plaintiffs restored to the suit because it was improper to deny them standing if the right really is an individual one. I expect SCOTUS to deny cert. on the Parker appeal, no matter what. The Parker case is the one where the D.C. Federal District Court of Appeals said that the D.C. handgun ban AND the restrictions on keeping long arms either disassembled or equipped with a trigger lock was unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds. The city’s appeal, renamed Heller v. D.C. asked the Court to only look at the handgun ban and ignore the long gun restrictions. Alan Gura’s (lead litigator for Heller et al.) response asks the court to simply rule on the basis of whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right, and to not ignore the long-gun restrictions. Read it. It’s a beautiful thing. (PDF file)
Posted by KBaker
11/13/2007 at 07:47 PM
AAAAGH! D.C. v. Heller, not the other way around. (Proofread, then post!)
Posted by KBaker
11/13/2007 at 07:49 PM
Thank you KBaker, that clears up a bit of my confusion. The question asked in DC v Heller is
“Whether the Second Amendment guarantees lawabiding,
adult individuals a right to keep ordinary,
functional firearms, including handguns, in their
homes.”So DC v Heller does not actually go far enough - it doesn’t ask about “and bear”.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but if SCOTUS does not hear this case, then the lower court’s decision - that a)DC’s laws are unconstitutional and b)2A is an individual right - then stand? Or would the lawyers still be able to twist things because that decision was only based in DC, which is not a state, so it doesn’t apply to the States?
I am beyond sick to death of this claptrap. I know what the Constitution says, and the only thing the Supremes can do is agree with me. Should they decide the other way, then they are just plain wrong ... and should be immediately disbarred. Of course, I thought they should have been canned for Kelo too, which was a contemptibly wrong decision.
Every day I find myself getting closer to joining the voices that say its time to push the Reset button.
And the confusion continues. The quote I put in above is from the first pages of the Heller document KBaker linked to, but now that I am reading it, reference is being constantly made to “keep and bear”. So either the question asked that I quoted is wrong, or Heller is trying to sneak an extra camel’s nose under the tent. Why can’t anyone ask a simple straightforward question??
Dear Supreme court:
Does the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights recognize the right of ordinary citizens to own and carry firearms, regardless of their affiliation with any militia, National Guard, or armed branch of the local, state or federal government?
If it does, then what right do the states have to limit or regulate such a Right for the law-abiding citizens? Was there another part in there written in invisible ink that said “unless the States, the city mayor, or the local Chief of Police says No”?
signed,
A. CitizenHeller (nee Parker) does not directly address the question of “bearing” arms. Alan Gura, the head litigator, has chosen his battleground with great care. One (major) step at a time. The question of primary importance: “Is the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment a right of individual citizens outside militia service?” The D.C. circuit says “Yes.” If SCOTUS denies cert. that decision will stand - presenting a circuit split: The D.C. circuit and the 5th circuit against everybody else. (Except the 2nd circuit which has not, I believe, decided a case on the subject.)
If the appeal is denied, I fully expect D.C. to very slightly (and very quickly) loosen its gun laws until it has “New York” type restrictions on possession and transport. It will not immediately affect any gun laws in any other jurisdictions.
Gura chose Washington D.C. because it is a Federal District, directly under the legal jurisdiction of the Constitution. Two earlier Supreme Court cases - immediately post-bellum - declared that the Second Amendment only protected the right to arms against infringement by the Federal government - not the states. The District of Columbia is not a state. In a word, the Second Amendment remains the only “right of the People” not “incorporated” against state infringement under the “privileges and immunities” or “equal protection” clauses of the 14th Amendment.
If you’ve got 45 minutes or so, I cover all of this in detail in this essay I wrote in 2003.
Posted by KBaker
11/13/2007 at 10:41 PM
All bad jokes and simplistic analysis aside, I suppose that we must be very precise in interpreting the law or we will have even more unintended consequences. I know that it’s too simplistic on my part, but I cannot help but feel that something is wrong when such hair splitting choice of words is used to judge and apply a basic governing principle. Speech, press and religion are all untouchable except in the most extreme cases, the right of self defense and the means to carry that out (no means = no right, H.L. Mencken: “Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one."), seem no less basic.
Odd thought I had recently: The First Amendment covers religion, speech and press. Property belonging to a church is not taxable. So, how come printing equipment, books, periodicals and newspapers are all taxable? Since the power to tax is the power to destroy, shouldn’t such a tax be unconstitutional?
Next entry: Licenses for Illegals?
Previous entry: The Time Bomb Below America.... Yellowstone