The SCOTUS is going to grant cert in DC v. Heller.

This is another huge story (two in one day, with the stem cell breakthrough). They are finally going to resolve, one way or the other, if the purpose clause can allow a government to deprive people of their civil rights. It will be a sad day for liberty if they overrule the appeals court, and essentially eviscerate the Bill of Rights of one of its most powerful one.

The pen is mightier than the sword, so they say, which may be why they made freedom of speech the first amendment, but the fact that the right to bear arms is number two is probably a good indication of the degree of importance attached to it by the Founders. Without that one, all the rest are ultimately at risk to a new tyranny.

Dear Lord,
For what we are about to receive, may we be truly thankful.
Amen.

I wish I could be that confident.

Given the prevailing state of reason in this country, now, we'll be lucky if they don't issue summary orders to kick all our doors down before close of business on the day they decide.

I am not at all optimistic.

Given the prevailing state of reason in this country, now, we'll be lucky if they don't issue summary orders to kick all our doors down before close of business on the day they decide.

I am not at all optimistic.

This is not an all or nothing ruling. There are three sections which need to be ruled on. Here's what I posted at Hot Air:

According to Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog, those three sections of the D.C. law that are listed in the question the court has chosen to deliberate on are as follows:

“The first listed section bars registration of pistols if not registered before Sept. 24, 1976; the second bars carrying an unlicensed pistol, and the third requires that any gun kept at home must be unloaded and disassembled or bound by a lock, such as one that prevents the trigger from operating.”

I’m thinking that the 2nd secition on prohibiting the carrying of an unlicensed pistol will be upheld by most (7 or more) of the justices. Some will apply the “no right is absolute” argument, some will apply federalism arguments (states rights), and the liberals will just leap at the opportunity to restrict gun ownership.

I predict that the 3rd section (mandating gun locks) will be upheld by a slim majority of the court (5-4) with Souter and Kennedy siding with the liberal justices.

The first section, however, an outright ban on owning handguns, is a more difficult read. I figure that Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia will definitely vote to strike down that section as unconstitutional without D.C. providing some provisions for legal ownership.

Souter and Kennedy can go either way. Souter leans toward permitting the gov’t (both state and federal) to exercise some control over firearm ownership, but I’m not sure he would support anything this sweeping, without just cause.

Kennedy ruled against using the Commerce Clause to a support a Federal Law regarding gun free school zones. Souter ruled for that (as did the liberals on the court).

I’m thinking that at least one–possibly both of the two swing justices (Kennedy and Souter) will see the first section as too far reaching, and will rule it unconstitutional. I’m thinking either 5-4 or 6-3 in striking down the first section.

It is important to note that current liberal constitutional scholars (such as Lawrence Tribe) have come out in support of the interpretation of “individual rights” rather than collective rights in reference to the 2nd Amendment. I believe they’re afraid of the spillover affect on other rights that they treasure. That may or may not influence the thinking of Ginzberg and Stevens, but definitely not Breyer. He’s completely in favor of gov’t running roughshod over individual freedoms he doesn’t care for–gun rights included.

I can only hope and pray that they finally say it is a GOD given right to be able to defend yourself.

It is at least an American right:-)

To anyone who has any faith that the Supreme Court will adhere to the Constitution or the protection of individual rights, I have one word: Kelo.

I have to agree with kayawanee... this is big news, but not necessarily a positive one for gun owners. I've already heard arguments that could bolster the "militia" clause with police forces fitting the need for "militia". I've heard better arguments stating that some restriction is allowed for such things as portable SAMs and ICBMs, in much the same way as the first amendment restricts obscene behavior and yelling "fire" in a crowded restaurant. Personally, I prefer the primary statement "the right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed", but it's preceded by qualifiers.

If you are a gun owner, I wouldn't start celebrating.

To anyone who has any faith that the Supreme Court will adhere to the Constitution or the protection of individual rights, I have one word: Kelo.

Posted by Larry J at November 20, 2007 01:13 PM

Point taken. But was it really necessary to darken my skies?

"But was it really necessary to darken my skies?"

Which would you prefer: fantasy or reality?

Which would you prefer: fantasy or reality?

Posted by Billy Beck at November 20, 2007 01:38 PM

Depends on the day!

The outcome of Kelo is that some state and local legislatures are making property-rights protections explicit while others are tolerating plunder. I think it will go similarly for the RKBA if the SC rules for DC. Choose your jurisdiction of residence wisely.

Question: Why do the same people who insist that the government (read: Bush) is trampling on the Constitution also tend to be the same people who insist that gun control is A-OK?

Answer: They only insist that the government is 'Trampling on the Constitution' when it's someone they don't like in power and they don't want the plebs in a position to defend themselves when it's their party doing the 'trampling'.

Even by the standards of Miller, a Handgun ban (or most gun bans) do not pass muster, not to mention any interpretation less restrictive than Miller.

The funny thing about Miller is it doesn't say a lot of the things the gun ban crowd thins it does, even a cursory reading can be an eye-opener.

"I've heard better arguments stating that some restriction is allowed for such things as portable SAMs and ICBMs, in much the same way as the first amendment restricts obscene behavior and yelling "fire" in a crowded restaurant. "

The first amendment does not restrict obscene behavior in a private setting and you can yell fire in a crowded theater provided it is actually on fire.

The analog to that would be that shooting someone can be extremely legal or highly illegal depending on the context of the shooting.

Agree with you, Mike. The arguments came from a local "conservative" Houston City Counsel member / "conservative" radio host. Unfortunately, Larry J made my point better than I did. Anything you can do to take the pain away from Larry's comments?

Given Kelo, This could be really bad.
I just finished reading a "Nation of Sheep" and
the 2nd amendment is about the only right that the current government has not tried to trample.

If one can't be free in the U.S. where???

"If one can't be free in the U.S. where???
Posted by Paul Breed at November 20, 2007 04:42 PM"

The Moon, Mars, and Beyond!

Actually, the First Amendment was originally proposed as the third, the Second as the fourth the fourth, and the Twenty-Seventh as the the second.

>> Art. I. After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than one hundred representatives, nor less than one representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of representatives shall amount to two hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred representatives, nor more than one representative for every fifty thousand.

Art. II. No law varying the compensation for services of the senators and representatives shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.

My prediction is that the SCOTUS rules on technical law point and throws it back. The dissents will be outrageous, but the whole thing gets punted.

Argument for an individual right to bear arms in multiple parts:

- Self defense is a fundamental human right. Corollary is a right to the instruments to exercise that fundamental right.

- 'Rights' in the language of the constitution apply to individuals. 'Powers' apply to groups or the government.

- Arms embody a means to project or resist power. The essence of democracy is that power should not be concentrated to the few. Limiting arms to government and its agents is a concentration of power.