The Supreme Court just announced it will take up the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, setting the stage for its first hard look in nearly 70 years at the meaning of the Second Amendment's "right of the people to keep and bear arms."
D.C. Attorney General Linda Singer petitioned the Court to reverse a March 9 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that the amendment protects an individual, rather than a collective or militia right to keep arms. On that basis, the D.C. Circuit, in a decision written by senior judge Laurence Silberman, struck down D.C.'s strict gun control ordinance.
The Cato Institute's Robert Levy, a key strategist in the legal assault on D.C. 's ordinance, said soon after the Supreme Court's announcement, "It's about time. It's only been about 70 years." The last time the Court ruled squarely on the Second Amendment was in the 1939 case U.S. V. Miller, which found the amendment pertained mainly to the needs of state militias.
Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said in a statement, "The U.S. Supreme Court has the chance to reverse a clearly erroneous decision and make it clear that the Constitution does not prevent communities from having the gun laws they believe are needed to protect public safety." He added, "The Supreme Court's decision in this case will be extremely significant - the most important decision on guns in nearly 70 years and maybe the most important ever regarding the Second Amendment."
Both sides in the dispute -- the D.C government, and Dick Heller, a D.C. resident who challenged it -- had asked the high court to decide the constitutionality of the statute. But significantly, the justices wrote its own version of the "question presented" that will frame and focus the briefing in the case.
Here is the question the justices want answered: "Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”
The provisions listed in the Court's question, respectively, ban the registration of handguns, except for retired D.C. Police officers; prohibit carrying a pistol without a license, even from room to room within a house; and require all lawfully owned firearms to be kept unloaded or disassembled or trigger-locked.
The case will likely be argued next March and decided by June, making it likely that the contentious issue of gun rights, and the importance of the Supreme Court as an issue for voters, will gain more prominence in the 2008 presidential campaign.
The Bill of Rights is VERY clear:
Amendment II
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.
A well regulated militia, during the period which this was written, referred to a LOCAL volunteer militia, which was called to arms to defend the the settlement/State.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms was an effort to ensure the local people had armed volunteers from which to form a militia to protect their settlement/State.
Those were the intended purposes of our Founding Fathers. Twisting it to mean anything other than their original intent IS ILLEGAL.
Consider this: During all the early wars, ALL our Military Forces, were VOLUNTEERS. For example, during the Civil War, the designation for troops from my area was called, 125th Regiment, New York Volunteer Infantry.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Amendment X forbids the Federal Government from changing our rights to suit the Federal Government.
Posted by: Thomas Aldrich | November 21, 2007 at 10:45 PM