Loading ...
DC Gun Ban on the Big Stage
- Filed under: Supreme Court
- Date: Mar 17,2008
Major happenings at the Supreme Court tomorrow.
(Update: Recap of today's hearing).
Washington Post: Despite mountains of scholarly research, enough books to fill a library shelf and decades of political battles about gun control, the Supreme Court will have an opportunity this week that is almost unique for a modern court when it examines whether the District's handgun ban violates the Second Amendment.
The nine justices, none of whom has ever ruled directly on the amendment's meaning, will consider a part of the Bill of Rights that has existed without a definitive interpretation for more than 200 years.
This decision will be the biggest of the year from the Supreme Court and will have a direct impact on the 2008 race between McCain and whomever. The Roberts Court basically has a chance to set precedence on this subject which is constantly being debated with no official answer. Because of the high interest in this hearing, the audio will be rebroadcast on C-SPAN shortly afterwards. See the case preview from the great SCOTUS Blog here. We are here at this point because on March 9th of last year, the D.C. Circuit Court ruled in a 2-1 decision that plaintiff Dick Heller indeed does have a Second Amendment right to keep his gun in his home for personal usage. It was the first time a federal appeals court used the Second Amendment in conjunction with an individual's right to strike down a gun control ban.
In 1976, the District stopped registering guns. So no one who hadn't registered by that point then can now have a gun in their home - thus the ban. D.C.'s law also bars residents from keeping other sorts of firearms loaded or in working fashion in their own home. Whether or not the gun ban is to blame, the District of Columbia annually has one of the highest murder rates of any city in America. D.C.'s lawyers argue that the Second Amendment does not provide an individual right to own a gun - and that the amendment is not implicated by legislation that concerns only the District of Columbia, which is a whole different issue (because D.C. is not a state). There is a chance the Supremes could skirt the issue on this ground, but apparently the case has been formed so it will be difficult for them to do so. (Heller was originally one of six people who sued; his is the only case which remains).
One reason (among many) that I could never be president is because of my weak stance on guns. Average people don't need to be buying assault weapons - I don't think you have a right to do that. I have never held or shot anything more than a BB gun. Never been hunting; it sounds like one of the least fun things possible ever to do. Why would I want to just shoot some defenseless animal in the woods while it is eating grass or something? Why should I have a right to own a gun to do that? Anyways, I think the Second Amendment can be read in more than one way. In full, it reads: "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." Most people - and really pro-gun activists - commonly just say the amendment is "the right to bear arms." When I read it, I see all 27 words and it is very murky. But would the Constitution have even been agreed upon if the Founders thought that in 1976 citizens in our nation's capital would not be allowed to keep a gun in their own house? I doubt that very much.
How do you think a potential decision impacts the 2008 race? I think McCain wins either way by being against the ban.
Also, happy St. Patrick's Day to all. Why does Target sell so many greeting cards for this "holiday?" Who is sending these St. Patrick's Day cards in the mail?
14 Responses for "DC Gun Ban on the Big Stage"
Gun control is an issue where I tend to break ranks with my friends on the left. When I look at the D.C. gun ban, I don't understand how restricting the gun rights of law abiding citizens helps control the murder rate. I would expect the supreme court to overturn the circuit court decision and declare the ban unconstitutional. I look forward to their reasoning.
Great post.
Similar sentiments to Kyle. I am particulalry interested because the ruling will likely help to overtunr the San Francisco gun ban as well.
I was fully opposed to gun ownership of any form until I moved to Arizona. It is a way of life to so many law-bidding citizens, it is hard to imagine banning the guns.
That said, guns are killing machines and that is that. I am sure some lives have been saved by them, but many more have been lost.
and I do think the general "right to bear arms" reading is BS. There is a right to have an armed militia.
Well, a militia is an army of ordinary citizens, presumably used to overturn any tyranny. If a President decided he was suspending elections in November, I could see a militia coming in handy.
"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."
Ben includes this in a well written post…
"When I read it, I see all 27 words and it is very murky."
How is it murky? Really…how is it murky?
I never expect gun bans to be accepted by Americans. I'm resigned to that reality.
But murky, the amendment is not. Rights to bear arms is, at least according to the Founders, intricately tied to " a well regulated militia" and the "security of a free state."
Nothing in the amendment speaks to individual security rights or a right to bear arms outside of "a well regulated militia".
The alleged "strict constructionism" of the Roberts Court will be under my microscope. I am quite interested in how the strict language of the amendment will be heeded…or not.
I have carried a card in my wallet for more than 40 years that says this about the argument: "When a Government can no longer trust its citizens with firearms The Citizens can no longer trust the Government." I feel that once the Government starts banning guns in one city, it will soon ban guns in others. When the police go around collecting up the guns, that will be a terrible day in the United States.
I am extremely against guns, but a ban is not the proper way to control against gun abuse. I dont think the ban is unconstitutional, it just doesnt work.
This might be a first…….Kyle and I both split with our parties in opposite directions and I agree w/ Chuck on the reading of the 2nd Amendment. This will never happen again.
Agreement w/ K Cook - while I am against guns, the ban has proven to be a total failure and I am not sure it is way to solve the problem.
Chuck's second post hits the heart of the matter for the Second Amendment. It was never about hunting, but about the ability of an armed populace to overthrow an unjust government. The founders of this nation realised that an armed populace (in 1776. limited to white men of age, although this has been corrected) was the best hope for an oppressed people to rise up and overthrow the government or give them a run for their money.
It is not a coincidence the some of the worst dictatorships over the past 130 years have banned firearms for all of their citizens or those the deemed to be inferior: blacks in the post-Reconstruction era, "subhumans" and later on everyone else in Nazi Germany, blacks in Apartheid South Africa, the Soviet Union, Communist China, and the current regime in North Korea. Now, does banning guns automatically lead to oppression? No, the citizens of Japan would not likely say they are oppressed. Of note, the every Swiss male owns an HK battle rifle, issued after 16 or so month compulsory service.
Alaska has a strong gun culture. There are no laws pertaining to concealed carry, as long as one is not a felon, IIRC. Guns up here are a part of everyday life. People commonly use their firearms to hunt, both for sport and basic subsistence, especially out in the bush. Personally, I keep a 12 ga. shotgun in my room. I'm not concerned about break-ins by humans in these parts, but rather by bears. A locked door isn't a deterrent to a determined bear. In my daily rounds, I see shotguns and rifles in many peoples' mud rooms or entry ways. Not that I am the type, but I'd be really hesitant to break into a house around here given the high rate of firearm ownership.
I have no problem with background checks for people purchasing firearms, or people who take training and qualify for a concealed carry permit. I do have a problem with registration of firearms (Canada's disaster of a gun registry comes to mind) and the government telling me I can't be armed to defend my person and property.
The quickest way for a government to fall, of any stripe, would be a call for confiscation of private firearms. There's too many otherwise law-abiding people who would refuse.
Kennedy will probably swing it and he was very clearly on with the conservatives today.
I recently heard of a new automatic shotgun that fires about 6 rounds and another that can fire a grenade-like bullet that explodes on impact. I wouldn't feel comfortable knowing my neighbor is the proud owner of one of these weapons, but that's just me…..
We can broadly interpret the constitution to legalized abortion but we ignore the actual text of the Constitution that specifically states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
Those who are likely to commit murder or rob and rape with the threat of the use of a firearm are not likely to pay much mind to a ban on said firearms.
Bans do nothing but place absolute power in the hands of the government and the criminals. I don't completely trust the former and definately do not trust the latter. Yet you want to force me to live or die at their mercy.
Who knows… someday a well regulated state militia may be necessary if we continue to elect to Congress those who wish to stip us of our constitutional rights. We fought the Revolutionary War to free ourselves from tyranny. Whose to say that that day will never come again.
Oh, and if I were John McCain, I'd be campaigning in certain parts of OH, PA, WV, and in every southern state with Wayne LaPierre by my side.
Ben….The St. Patrick Day cards are so us Micks can send one another beer and Irish whiskey money because I think it's illegal to send said items through the mail or transport across state lines.
Well written Alaskan Independent, I think you raised the key issue here as to what the Founding Fathers intended.
The ideal’s of a gun ban? ….Who in their right minds can justify taking away other persons rights as an individual? Now I understand that the 2nd amendment is a bit vague in its explanation but having the right to bear arms is not the same as using the weapon in an act of violence.
I agree with Kyle when he says that “I don’t understand how restricting the gun right of law abiding citizens helps control the murder rate.” Perhaps firearm education to our nation’s youth would be a positive step to slowing the murder rate but not enraging those who have grown up with the right to bear personal firearms.
And perhaps Mr. Alaskan is right, if everyone was in possession of a firearm maybe the crime rates would go down because the criminals would have to think twice for their own personal safety?…And as far hunting?
It’s obvious Mr. Keeler that you have never been hunting because there is extensive research and time in preparation that goes into familiarizing yourself with terrain, the animal’s nature, environment, and their tendencies. Defenseless? Take a look at my home state of Colorado’s hunter success rate….it has gone done nearly 5% in the last year alone. The department of Wildlife is concerned about over population of the defenseless animals…. I do however agree with you that the 2nd amendment can be interpreted in two ways. But as for the 2008 race….I don’t believe that we can make a clear judgment without knowing who is going to be in the race!
Leave a comment