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?
Loading ...
