Supreme Court Will Hear D.C. Guns Case

[phillyd2]

So, the games begin!

Supreme Court Will Hear D.C. Guns Case

Nov 20 02:09 PM US/Eastern
By MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the District of Columbia can ban handguns, a case that could produce the most in-depth examination of the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" in nearly 70 years.
The justices' decision to hear the case could make the divisive debate over guns an issue in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections.

The government of Washington, D.C., is asking the court to uphold its 31-year ban on handgun ownership in the face of a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban as incompatible with the Second Amendment. Tuesday's announcement was widely expected, especially after both the District and the man who challenged the handgun ban asked for the high court review.

[MarcS]

excellent.

[Shawn.L]

On this one I am optimistic.

[MarcS]

Originally Posted by Shawn.L

On this one I am optimistic.

Considering how badly DC botched their breif, yeah. I'm optimistic that the court won't rule against us, but i have no faith that they won't make a ruling so incredibly specific that it won't be applicable to, well, anything.

[NineseveN]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n3526489.shtml

Supreme Court To Decide D.C. Handgun Ban
Divisive Case Is First "Right To Bear Arms" Examination In Nearly 70 Years
WASHINGTON, Nov. 20 2007

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Supreme Court said Tuesday, Nov. 20, 2007 it will decide whether the District of Columbia can ban handguns. The government of Washington, D.C., is asking the court to uphold its 31-year ban on handgun ownership in the face of a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban as incompatible with the Second Amendment. (CBS/AP)


(CBS/AP) The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the District of Columbia can ban handguns, a case that could produce the most in-depth examination of the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" in nearly 70 years.

The justices' decision to hear the case could make the divisive debate over guns an issue in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections.

"Whatever the justices decide in this case will have an enormous impact on the debate," CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen says. "If the Court sides with D.C. and offers a narrow interpretation of the Second Amendment, we'll see more gun control. If the justices side with the gun owner here, gun control measures around the country will be in jeopardy."

The government of Washington, D.C., is asking the court to uphold its 31-year ban on handgun ownership in the face of a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban as incompatible with the Second Amendment. Tuesday's announcement was widely expected, especially after both the District and the man who challenged the handgun ban asked for the high court review.

The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment of the Constitution protects an individual's right to own guns or instead merely sets forth the collective right of states to maintain militias. The former interpretation would permit fewer restrictions on gun ownership.

Gun-control advocates say the Second amendment was intended to insure that states could maintain militias, a response to 18th century fears of an all-powerful national government. Gun rights proponents contend the amendment gives individuals the right to keep guns for private uses, including self-defense.

The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. That decision supported the collective rights view, but did not squarely answer the question in the view of many constitutional scholars. Chief Justice John Roberts said at his confirmation hearing that the correct reading of the Second Amendment was "still very much an open issue."

The Second Amendment 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."

Washington banned handguns in 1976, saying it was designed to reduce violent crime in the nation's capital.

The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because "handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia."

The District is making several arguments in defense of the restriction, including claiming that the Second Amendment involves militia service. It also said the ban is constitutional because it limits the choice of firearms, but does not prohibit residents from owning any guns at all. Rifles and shotguns are legal, if kept under lock or disassembled. Businesses may have guns for protection.

Chicago has a similar handgun ban, but few other gun-control laws are as strict as the District's.

Four states - Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New York - urged the Supreme Court to take the case because broad application of the appeals court ruling would threaten "all federal and state laws restricting access to firearms."

Dick Anthony Heller, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at home for protection.

The laws in question in the case do not "merely regulate the possession of firearms," Heller said. Instead, they "amount to a complete prohibition of the possession of all functional firearms within the home."

If the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to have guns, "the laws must yield," he said.

Opponents say the ban plainly has not worked because guns still are readily available, through legal and illegal means. Although the city's homicide rate has declined dramatically since peaking in the early 1990s, Washington still ranks among the nation's highest murder cities, with 169 killings in 2006.

The U.S. Court Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 for Heller in March. Judge Laurence Silberman said reasonable regulations still could be permitted, but said the ban went too far.

The Bush administration, which has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, has yet to weigh in on this case.

Arguments will be heard early next year.

In September, District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty announced the appeal on the steps of police headquarters.

"The bottom line is we do not need more guns in this city," Fenty said.

[dgg9]

Even with a win, I doubt things will change that much. Outright bans might be rejected, but as long as "reasonable regulation" is allowed, what difference does that make? Ok, so DC and Chicago residents are not banned from owing a handgun -- rather, they would likely fall into the draconian NYC-style rules, which are essentially not very different.

So, aside from the tiny handful of places upshifting from "outrageously oppressive" into "merely NYC-level oppressive," what difference do we see this making?

I don't see this leading to mass-scale repeal of any existing gun laws, aside from total bans which are irrelevant to most of us here.

[billamj]

One thing that no one seems to be taking into consideration is that the court could hold that it is unconstitutional only in areas such as DC that are subject to Congressional oversight for the majority of its laws. That could be a real clusterf$$k.

[phillyd2]

Yeah, this could bite us in the ass in a big way but I'm glad to see that the issue will finally be addressed - or at least I hope it will. IMHO best case is for the Court to rule that the 2nd. like all others is a individual right.

[NineseveN]

Originally Posted by billamj

One thing that no one seems to be taking into consideration is that the court could hold that it is unconstitutional only in areas such as DC that are subject to Congressional oversight for the majority of its laws. That could be a real clusterf$$k.

While in part, that might end up being the case, based on the suit, I would say they still have to rule whether or not it is an individual right, which is the most important aspect of this case IMHO.

To answer dgg9's point, this ruling is highly unlikely to strike down all gun control or even immediately or directly impact gun control in states like Illinois, California or New York, but the ruling will set (hopefully) enough precedent that will pave the way to challenges within those states based on the notion of individual rights. Don't think of this as a kill shot, it's merely the process of getting the range right and putting the targets in our sights.

[Buckmark.35]

Originally Posted by dgg9

I don't see this leading to mass-scale repeal of any existing gun laws, aside from total bans which are irrelevant to most of us here.

Agreed. Probably won't be a ton of gun control measures coming off the books.. however, if the DC ban is over-turned, that's one less precedent that the anti's will be able to quote, and one more that 2A supporters will be able to use. This ruling will be very important.