Gun Control Advocates, Opponents Prepare for Supreme Court Argument

Gun Control Advocates, Opponents Prepare for Supreme Court Argument

www.foxnews.com

WASHINGTON — The nine justices of the highest court in the land will meet Tuesday to hear arguments on who the Founding Fathers intended when they called for the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms: a well regulated militia or all individuals.

Tuesday's arguments in front of the Supreme Court — the focal point for gun rights advocates and foes alike — will be the first significant Second Amendment case in front of the high court since 1939. Supporters and opponents are equally excited and concerned by the prospect of what the court’s ruling — expected by June — could mean for individuals seeking clearer laws on the right to bear arms.

(visit the link for the full news article)

The basis for this hearing is Washington, D.C.'s ban on handguns. The catalyst for this case is a DC policeman who was denied a permit to carry for personal use. His appeal was denied, but then was overturned by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. So, it is the city government that is bringing this case to the SCOTUS.

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Edit: The policeman actually wanted to possess a handgun for protection of his home. Minor clarification.

[edit on 18-3-2008 by jsobecky]

Yesterday in CT there was a public hearing about microstamping. I found a live video feed to the hearing.

I haven't yet found a live video or audio feed to this SCOTUS hearing today but I found a SCOTUS blog that claims it will be updated real-time.

www.scotusblog.com...

I suppose that's the closest thing to a live feed we'll get for this.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

I haven't yet found a live video or audio feed to this SCOTUS hearing today but I found a SCOTUS blog that claims it will be updated real-time.

www.scotusblog.com...

I suppose that's the closest thing to a live feed we'll get for this.

Actually, CSPAN is scheduled to broadcast it from 11:30 till 1PM.

[edit on 18-3-2008 by jsobecky]

At a time when the goverment are seemingly doing all they can to take control away from US citizens, i fear there will be some kind of intervention from the powers that be to stop this appeal being successfull.

Either way it will be a big day for gunowners over there.

Excuse my lack of knowledge on the subject, but what do they deem ok as an "organised malitia"? Are there actually groups of gunowners out there that the goverment are happy about?

I just found this on the web, please correct me if this is not factual.

Or if you would rather, take a look at the actual legal definition of the militia as set forth in the United States Code:

Section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, "Militia: composition and classes" in its entirety:

"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are —

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

Going by this, am i right in saying that unless you are National Guard, Naval Militia and the likes, you are not classed as an organised militia.....therefore this ruling will be unlikely to pass today?

Then again, could'nt they use this definition of militia to start stripping the guns from many of you?

Like i said, i know very little about this so please correct me on any of the mistakes in my post.

CX.

[edit on 18/3/08 by CX]

reply to post by CX


It doesn't matter what a militia is. The Amendment says because we need militias the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The whole "what is a militia" argument is a distraction.

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.

reply to post by jsobecky


Oh cool. But doesn't the hearing begin at 10? Is CSPAN dropping the first hour? Id the first hour just formalities?

reply to post by CX


I think that several members of the SCOTUS are very pro-second amendment, including Roberts and Scalia. I don't want to predict the decision for fear of jinxing it, but I feel confident that Heller (policeman, defendant) will prevail.

Just think if it is ruled that municipalities have the right to ban handguns. That would be a precedent that would spread across the nation like wildfire.

If they can ban ownership of handguns, then what's different about longarms? If a city can ban them, why not a state or a national gov't? Very worrisome.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Don't know. The channel guide shows normal programming (US H of R) from 10 - 11:30.

Edit: CSPAN is showing a preview discussion of the case by the American Constitution Society, taped last week

[edit on 18-3-2008 by jsobecky]

Interesting to see the future of America being shaped today. From what Ive read here, it seems to me that the consitution addresses the peoples right to bear arms, and not just the militia. With that in mind, I hope the SCOTUS rules in favor of the defendant.


(and that came from a "liberal"!)

Originally posted by InSpiteOf

(and that came from a "liberal"!)

Shouldn't it have though? I still don't get when "liberal" changed to mean restriction and control.

Liberal is supposed to be free, liberty. Imagine my surprise the first time I had a "liberal" try to take something away from me.

If the Court by some ludicrous ruling states that a individual does NOT have the right to have a firearm, the crap will hit the fan! I just cannot imagine that people will sit around and let this happen.

Another point to remember is that the Supreme Court is not the last word and not gods like some like to portray them. Their rulings can be changed by Congress changing the wording of the law.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I still don't get when "liberal" changed to mean restriction and control.

Liberal is supposed to be free, liberty. Imagine my surprise the first time I had a "liberal" try to take something away from me.

It has always been this way. Way back when slavery was legal, it was the republican party which put an end to slavery. The liberal dems fought tooth & nail to prevent this. Anyway, my point is that liberals were always for restriction and control for the greater good.

When have liberals been for liberty and freedom?

The live blog is active now at:

www.scotusblog.com...

CSPAN's broadcast will be after the fact and more of a recap than a live feed according to the blog.

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
[
When have liberals been for liberty and freedom?

I suppose I figured the label for an ideology would be descriptive rather than prescriptive. I was about 12 when I figured it out. Just a child fooled by word-play. As a kid I associated "conservative" with parents/teachers always telling me what to do and "liberal" with essentially being left alone.

Experience changed the simple view of this kid some 20 years ago.

I just wonder if current "liberals" just haven't noticed the trend or if they really do want control and restriction driven by some sort of self-righteous "holier than thou" "we know best" motivation which would just make them a bunch of jerks that need to be smacked. Not unlike the religious right.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I just wonder if current "liberals" just haven't noticed the trend or if they really do want control and restriction driven by some sort of self-righteous "holier than thou" "we know best" motivation which would just make them a bunch of jerks that need to be smacked. Not unlike the religious right.

I'm watching the preview discussion that was taped last week, and it's interesting that some of the lawyers who are in favor of the ban are using pretty much that same argument that you speak of: that the gov't has the right to ban firearms for the good of the public safety.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Its hard to really say. There are so many shades of grey in both parties, so many different leanings on policy, i find it hard to really classify myself as liberal or conservative.

Further, I believe the definitions of both ideologies has undergone an evolution over the years. What I see in the media (Mainstream or alternative) is almost a fanatical representation of both sides; turning Conservatives into reactionaries; Liberals into Centerists or Marxists.

Should Liberals be pro-gun? Depends on who the liberal is. Myself, I believe in personal liberties, but I also believe that as a human, I have a responsiblity to my fellow man and will do what I feel I can to help him or her. I see no harm in owning a gun for personal protection and therefore see no reason why a responsible person should not be able to own one.

Originally posted by jsobecky
I'm watching the preview discussion that was taped last week, and it's interesting that some of the lawyers who are in favor of the ban are using pretty much that same argument that you speak of: that the gov't has the right to ban firearms for the good of the public safety.

They can't make the connection between all of their dislike for Patriot Act type measures limiting liberty for the sake of personal safety and their own crusade to limit liberty for the sake of personal safety? That's mind boggling.

I also wonder how a thinking being can still believe that any legislation attacking firearms creates an environment of safety. If it did then that guy in D.C. wouldn't be seeking a pistol in the first place because D.C. would be the safest area in the country.

Doesn't anybody think anymore?

reply to post by jsobecky


And I dont really concider such an argument to be founed in Liberalism. Totalitarianism with a smile maybe, but not liberalism.

Could just be me though.

Another con argument is based upon the theory that, if the purpose of the "well-armed militia" is to be the final line of defense for the people against gov't tyranny, then the people must be allowed to match the gov't in firepower. IOW, they must be allowed to possess every weapon, including nukes.

Many such arguments will be proposed; I wonder how many will be presented in the relatively short 90 minutes scheduled.