The Greatest Gun Battle in History Begins This Tuesday

[SIG220]

_____________________________ _________________

Who will prevail in this epic battle over the rights of United States citizens???

See:


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,338282,00.html


_____________________________ _________________

[lasersailor184]

I'm excited.

[AquaShrimp]

I thought this was already decided under the Clinton administration that the second amendment applied to State National Guards. 

[SteveBailey]

This is important stuff. I hope the Supreme court does not remand back to a lower court.

[Toad]

Could go either way. Kennedy is the swing vote. I'm betting it'll be a 5-4 split but I don't know which way, it's too close to call with at least 4 judges that will not accept the plain language of the 2nd for what it is. I'm sure the amicus briefs, excellent though they are and loaded with historical fact as they are, will not sway the liberal end of the bench.

It rides on Kennedy.

[NUKE]

Is it possible the SC will look view DC as being excluded in some way or is this going to be a blanket ruling for all of the US?

The city’s second argument is that the Second Amendment does not apply to District-specific legislation. It is a curious argument, at least politically, for a government keen on seeking equal representation in Congress.

“The Framers created a federal enclave to ensure federal protection of federal interests. They could not have intended the Second Amendment to prevent Congress from establishing such gun-control measures as it deemed necessary to protect itself, the president and this court.”

[lasersailor184]

This is important stuff. I hope the Supreme court does not remand back to a lower court.

If so, doesn't this become a Pro-2nd amendment ruling then as per the appeals court already ruling against the ban?

[Toad]

Nuke, read this for a good understanding of the flaws in all the arguments. ALL the arguments on both sides.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/wm1851.cfm

In addition to its main argument, D.C. defends its statutes on two alternative and independent grounds. First, the city argues that the Second Amendment's purpose is to protect the states from the federal government so that it has no application in a federal enclave like the District of Columbia. This argument assumes that the term "the people" in the Second Amendment really means "the state governments," which is both implausible and bereft of historical support.

It's highly unlikely that the SC will accept the idea that the 2nd has no application in a federal enclave like the District of Columbia. It's pretty obvious that that would open the door to the other amendments having no application in DC. No free speech for DC residents? Nah, the SC won't open that door and it was pretty stupid of DC to even try to play that card IMO.

[Toad]

BTW, they may hear the case this week but a decision in the case is not expected until June.

[SIG220]

I thought this was already decided under the Clinton administration that the second amendment applied to State National Guards. 

Only the Supreme Court can interpret the United States Constitution.   The views of President Clinton were irrelevant.


_____________________________ _________

[DREDIOCK]

Only the Supreme Court can interpret the United States Constitution.   The views of President Clinton were irrelevant.


_____________________________ _________

thing I'd like to know is how many of them are actually consitutional scholars as opposed to glorified ambulance chasers handed a judgeship

[Holden McGroin]

In its pre-argument briefs to the Supreme Court the parties to this case seem to have been writing to convince today’s nine foremost grammarians or historians. Much of the presentations to the Supreme Court focus on the grammatical meaning of the 27-word amendment.

The agitator at the center of this case is Dick Heller, a police officer for the federal government who in his job patrolling federal buildings carries a handgun. But D.C. law prohibits him and nearly every other resident from registering a handgun for personal use.

Heller contends the handgun is necessary to defend himself at his home. The city’s law, on the books for more than three decades and one of the most stringent in the country, was passed to prevent violent and accidental gun violence. It’s a law the city and its supporters say is necessary and successful.

What about non-violent gun violence?  No one cares about that?  What about the effects that non-violent gun violence has on our children?

[AquaShrimp]

Only the Supreme Court can interpret the United States Constitution.   The views of President Clinton were irrelevant.


_____________________________ _________

It was a supreme court judge that ruled that.  I'm not making this stuff up.  Surely someone else here remembers it.

[Toad]

I don't remember that and I doubt it. Heller is the first time the SC has directly addressed the 2nd since Miller.

As for "It’s a law the city and its supporters say is necessary and successful."

Successful? 

On July 11, 2006, Metropolitan Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey declared a crime emergency in the city in response to a rising homicide rate (the city had logged 13 murders since July 1, most notably the killing of a prominent British political activist in Georgetown). The declaration, which allows for more flexible and increased policing in high-crime neighborhoods, has been extended indefinitely beyond its original 30-day period.[18] The declaration also set an earlier, 10 p.m. curfew for youths.[19] From July, when the declaration was made, to October, violent crime rates fell by 18%.[19] The 90-day emergency bill expired in October, with the youth curfew reverting to 11 p.m. On October 18, 2006, the D.C. Council passed a revised crime bill that provided funds for police overtime and to implement a youth development strategy.[20]

[Bingolong]

I don't remember that and I doubt it. Heller is the first time the SC has directly addressed the 2nd since Miller.

As for "It’s a law the city and its supporters say is necessary and successful."

Successful? 

Yeah successful here's the same wiki could you at least put your source  when you cut and paste.

"Since 1993, crime rates in Washington dropped consistently for over ten years. Along with this trend, gentrification has occurred in many neighborhoods across the District, including Adams Morgan, Logan Circle, Columbia Heights, and the East End of Downtown (Chinatown) and is trending eastward. In the past ten years, the number of homicides has been halved—from 399 in 1994 to 195 in 2005. It is believed by many that the gentrification of these neighborhoods was spurred in part by the extension of Metrorail's Green Line to the Shaw, U Street, Columbia Heights, and Petworth neighborhoods during the late 1990s. The revitalization efforts began first in the Adams Morgan and Logan Circle areas and more recently in Columbia Heights.

In 2005, gentrification began to reach Shaw, Columbia Heights, Le Droit Park, Petworth, Bloomingdale, Eckington, and Trinidad. The transformation of the East End of Downtown/Chinatown into clean, safe areas was aided by the construction of the MCI Center, now Verizon Center, which opened in 1997, and the new Washington Convention Center that opened in 2004 at Mount Vernon Square. As a result, hundreds of brand-new condominiums and apartments were constructed, and many new upscale restaurants, bars, shops, theaters, museums, galleries, and other attractions opened. Prior to around 2000, this was an area of local small businesses, both upscale (including Woodward and Lothrop) and downscale (like the original Sunny's Surplus). Local business in the neighborhood has been replaced by national chain retailers. As a result of gentrification, as well as broader economic forces, home and condo values in Washington, D.C., have skyrocketed. The same is true in nearby Baltimore."