Icky
11-20-2007, 04:15 PM
Justices to Hear Gun Control Case
By DAVID STOUT ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Published: November 20, 2007
WASHINGTON, Nov. 20 — The Supreme Court ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) agreed today to consider an issue that has divided politicians, constitutional scholars and ordinary citizens for decades: whether the Second Amendment to the Constitution protects an individual right to “keep and bear arms.”
Skip to next paragraph ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) Related
Case Touches a 2nd Amendment Nerve ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (November 13, 2007)
The justices agreed to hear an appeal from the District of Columbia, whose gun-control law — one of the strictest in the nation — was struck down by the lower federal courts earlier this year. The case will probably be argued in the spring.
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down sections of the Washington gun law that make it exceedingly difficult to legally own a handgun, that prohibit carrying guns without a license even from one room to another, and that require lawfully owned firearms to be kept unloaded.
The Second Amendment, surely one of the most disputed passages in the United States Constitution and one whose punctuation is not always rendered consistently, states this in its entirety: “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.”
The Supreme Court has never directly addressed the basic meaning of that passage. When it last considered a Second Amendment case, in 1939, it addressed a somewhat peripheral question, holding that a sawed-off shotgun was not one of the “arms” that the Founding Fathers had in mind.
Today’s announcement that the justices would take the District of Columbia case was no surprise, given that the District of Columbia Circuit’s interpretation of the Second Amendment conflicts with the interpretation of nine other federal appeals courts, and differences between the circuits often steer issues to the high court.
But the argument, and the outcome, will be among the most eagerly awaited in years, with the stakes potentially very high for lawmakers and gun enthusiasts alike. Whichever way the justices rule, gun control is likely to remain a hot political issue, in the 2008 campaigns and beyond.
The mayor of Washington, Adrian M. Fenty ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), whose city was sometimes called the “murder capital” of the country at the height of the crack epidemic and the accompanying bloodshed, vowed earlier this year to seek reinstatement of the city’s gun law. “We have made the determination that this law can and should be defended, and we are willing to take our case to the highest court in the land,” he said.
The willingness, indeed eagerness, to have the case heard by the Supreme Court is one thing the opponents of the District of Columbia’s gun law agree with. “The Bill of Rights does not end at the District of Columbia’s borders, and it includes the right to keep and bear arms,” said Alan Gura, lead counsel for those challenging the law.
“After three decades of failure trying to control firearms in the District, it’s time for law-abiding city residents to be able to defend themselves in their homes,” Mr. Gura said in a statement. “We are confident the Supreme Court will vindicate that right in Washington, D.C., and across the nation.”
The plaintiffs complain that the 31-year-old Washington, D.C., law — which virtually bans handguns and requires that all shotguns and rifles be kept unloaded and either trigger-locked or disassembled at all times — makes no exception for legitimate self-defense considerations.
Given the fact that the District law affects shoulder weapons as well as pistols and revolvers, there would appear to be a wide range of findings for the justices to consider. The case accepted today is “not about machine guns or so-called assault weapons or concealed carry,” Robert A. Levy, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a prominent libertarian research organization, said in a statement today. “It’s about the right to possess ordinary, garden-variety handguns in the home for self-defense.”
The title of the case is Heller v. District of Columbia, after Dick Heller, a District of Columbia resident who works as an armed security guard and is one of six plaintiffs recruited by Mr. Levy. None of the plaintiffs has asserted a right to carry their weapons outside their homes.
“I want to be able to defend myself and my wife from violent criminals, and the Constitution says I have a right to do that by keeping a gun in my home,” Mr. Heller said in a statement. “The police can’t be everywhere, and they can’t protect everyone all the time. Responsible gun ownership is a basic right we have as American citizens.”
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) said during his Senate confirmation hearing that the 1939 Second Amendment decision left “very open” the question of whether the Second Amendment protected an individual or a collective right to bear arms. The current lineup of justices is considered relatively conservative, which might give hope to opponents of gun control. But lawyers and other court-watchers who try to predict outcomes in advance do so at their peril.
More Articles in Washington » ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
By DAVID STOUT ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Published: November 20, 2007
WASHINGTON, Nov. 20 — The Supreme Court ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) agreed today to consider an issue that has divided politicians, constitutional scholars and ordinary citizens for decades: whether the Second Amendment to the Constitution protects an individual right to “keep and bear arms.”
Skip to next paragraph ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) Related
Case Touches a 2nd Amendment Nerve ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (November 13, 2007)
The justices agreed to hear an appeal from the District of Columbia, whose gun-control law — one of the strictest in the nation — was struck down by the lower federal courts earlier this year. The case will probably be argued in the spring.
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down sections of the Washington gun law that make it exceedingly difficult to legally own a handgun, that prohibit carrying guns without a license even from one room to another, and that require lawfully owned firearms to be kept unloaded.
The Second Amendment, surely one of the most disputed passages in the United States Constitution and one whose punctuation is not always rendered consistently, states this in its entirety: “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.”
The Supreme Court has never directly addressed the basic meaning of that passage. When it last considered a Second Amendment case, in 1939, it addressed a somewhat peripheral question, holding that a sawed-off shotgun was not one of the “arms” that the Founding Fathers had in mind.
Today’s announcement that the justices would take the District of Columbia case was no surprise, given that the District of Columbia Circuit’s interpretation of the Second Amendment conflicts with the interpretation of nine other federal appeals courts, and differences between the circuits often steer issues to the high court.
But the argument, and the outcome, will be among the most eagerly awaited in years, with the stakes potentially very high for lawmakers and gun enthusiasts alike. Whichever way the justices rule, gun control is likely to remain a hot political issue, in the 2008 campaigns and beyond.
The mayor of Washington, Adrian M. Fenty ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), whose city was sometimes called the “murder capital” of the country at the height of the crack epidemic and the accompanying bloodshed, vowed earlier this year to seek reinstatement of the city’s gun law. “We have made the determination that this law can and should be defended, and we are willing to take our case to the highest court in the land,” he said.
The willingness, indeed eagerness, to have the case heard by the Supreme Court is one thing the opponents of the District of Columbia’s gun law agree with. “The Bill of Rights does not end at the District of Columbia’s borders, and it includes the right to keep and bear arms,” said Alan Gura, lead counsel for those challenging the law.
“After three decades of failure trying to control firearms in the District, it’s time for law-abiding city residents to be able to defend themselves in their homes,” Mr. Gura said in a statement. “We are confident the Supreme Court will vindicate that right in Washington, D.C., and across the nation.”
The plaintiffs complain that the 31-year-old Washington, D.C., law — which virtually bans handguns and requires that all shotguns and rifles be kept unloaded and either trigger-locked or disassembled at all times — makes no exception for legitimate self-defense considerations.
Given the fact that the District law affects shoulder weapons as well as pistols and revolvers, there would appear to be a wide range of findings for the justices to consider. The case accepted today is “not about machine guns or so-called assault weapons or concealed carry,” Robert A. Levy, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a prominent libertarian research organization, said in a statement today. “It’s about the right to possess ordinary, garden-variety handguns in the home for self-defense.”
The title of the case is Heller v. District of Columbia, after Dick Heller, a District of Columbia resident who works as an armed security guard and is one of six plaintiffs recruited by Mr. Levy. None of the plaintiffs has asserted a right to carry their weapons outside their homes.
“I want to be able to defend myself and my wife from violent criminals, and the Constitution says I have a right to do that by keeping a gun in my home,” Mr. Heller said in a statement. “The police can’t be everywhere, and they can’t protect everyone all the time. Responsible gun ownership is a basic right we have as American citizens.”
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) said during his Senate confirmation hearing that the 1939 Second Amendment decision left “very open” the question of whether the Second Amendment protected an individual or a collective right to bear arms. The current lineup of justices is considered relatively conservative, which might give hope to opponents of gun control. But lawyers and other court-watchers who try to predict outcomes in advance do so at their peril.
More Articles in Washington » ([Only registered and activated users can see links])