Is what the NRA is calling the decision to be made the US Supreme Court about the DC gun ban. This decision will affect everyone’s right to keep a handgun in their own home. After the Kelo decision which ended private property in this nation, I don’t know what to expect from this particular set of 9 “elites.” The good news is, if the court does correctly recognize the right of the individual to keep and bear arms, this decision would lead the way to reversing other gun bans, making the people in those cities infinitely safer,
Supreme Court to rule on right to keep handguns at home
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court set the stage Tuesday for a historic ruling on whether the fiercely debated 2nd Amendment protects the rights of Americans to keep handguns at home.
The justices said they would review an appeals court decision that struck down a 31-year-old ban on handguns in Washington, D.C. The case will be heard early next year and decided by next summer…agreeing to hear the case, District of Columbia vs. Heller, the justices issued an order saying they would rule on whether the city’s handgun ban “violates the 2nd 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.”
Personally, I will never hand Snuffy, my .38 Special, over to the Feds or any other law enforcement agency, and I will gladly face the repercussions of that refusal.
A note by Maynard: See these earlier posts, “How the Left Plans to Take Your Guns” (which explains the legal uncertainties surrounding the 2nd Amendment, which may get resolved by this case) and “The Second Amendment: Saved?” (about the favorable lower court ruling which will now go to the Supreme Court). Note that this is a high-stakes ruling, which may either roll back various unconstitutional impositions on our fundamental firearms rights, or further shred the Constitution. Be thankful that George Bush, for all his faults, has given us better judges than any Democrat would have.
And one more footnote: In the recent Democrat debate, the candidates stumbled over each other to assure us that any judges they appoint will support the constitutional right to privacy, which is the legal foundation upon which Roe vs. Wade is based. I don’t want to open up the abortion argument here, but it should be understood that the “right to privacy” is not explicitly declared in the Constitution, and it takes some creative legal spinning to derive it (based largely upon the right to protection against unreasonable searches), and even more acrobatics to get from privacy to an unfettered right to terminate pregnancy. An honest lawyer (forgive the oxymoron!) will acknowledge as much, regardless of his or her feelings about abortion. I wish these politicians were as enthusiastic about protecting the rights that the Constitution actually enumerates (like bearing arms) as they are about the stuff they conjure out of the Constitution’s “penumbra” (that’s the word they use).
I have lately come to regret the decision I made after my father died 16 years ago to turn in his .38 Special. Neither my mother nor I ever learned to shoot and after he died, I wasn’t interested in learning and she was afraid to. Therefore, I didn’t feel comfortable with her having a gun in her house and being untrained in how to use it.
As my thoughts about the Second Amendment have matured since then, I’m seriously thinking about gun ownership. I’m contemplating it from a personal protection point of view, but also as a statement that I have a right to own a handgun.
I am a very *strong* believer in the Bill of Rights! That is why I will never vote for Rudy. As Mayor he spent tens of millions to taxpayers $ trying to deny Americans the rights guaranteed by the American Constitution. He raised many taxes and created new taxes to fund his fights agains the Bill of Rights.
No matter what hes saying now he is opposed to the Bill of Rights – just like the ACLU!
What are you going to do if the court decision goes against private ownership? What are you going to do when the Blackwater troops show up at your door demanding your illegal firearms? What are you going to do when they give you a 30 day grace period and amnesty to turn in your firearms? Are you going to talk, cry, rant,–comply? I never thought I’d see half of the illogical, illegal government and societal actions that are accepted today. We are all to blame. Unfortunately, we are the product of our own best thinking and lack of moral courage.
When it was my turn, I did stand up and do the right thing. Many of us did. We paid dearly for those actions but don’t regret having done the right thing—-for the wrong reasons. Now we are too old to make much difference. It’s up to those of you who don’t have arthritis and flashbacks. Do something! Stand up for your country and your rights. This might me the last chance you have to save yourself. Surely saving yourself is motivation enough for most of you.
Do this: buy a handgun today. You don’t even have to have ammunition if you are afraid of them. Just buy one today and get your name on “the list.” Make a statement! Do something!
The decision by the Supreme Court will come down to Justice Kennedy. One man with the power to decide our rights. Is this the America for which our forefathers fought? We have much to lose, and little to gain. If we lose, the antigunners will be emboldened as never before. Randy.
Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit writes:
“I look at some other cases that Winkler doesn’t discuss — and in particular the way the privacy and gun right cases intertwine in Tennessee — and suggest that it doesn’t have to turn out that way. The gist: If courts pay as much attention to assessing the reasonableness of regulations aimed at firearms — where there’s a textually secured right — as they do to regulation of gay sex — where there isn’t — firearms owners will receive considerable protection. And if courts fail to do so, the legitimacy of courts will suffer considerably.”
See: http://instapundit.com/archives2/011806.php
KELLY:
Don’t give it one more thought. Do it! Get training first, then choose your gun. If your state is a shall-issue concealed carry state, get your license. Buy ammo and practice, practice, practice. But by all means stop thinking about it. Do it – NOW!
Actually it is the ’emanations’ from the ‘penumbra’ and not anything so unfortunate as ‘written down’
Hey Ballistic,
I’m in California, just outside of San Francisco. Surprisingly, there are a few firing ranges offering training around here that haven’t been shut down by the anti-gun nuts. (I know. I was shocked too.)
Yes, I think this is one of my resolutions for 2008. I, of course, will be picking all of your wonderful brains for suggestions and info as I go along. 🙂
Have a great Thanksgiving.
KELLY:
You say you live in California just outside San Francisco? You have my deepest and sincerest sympathies. Perhaps someday you or someone from your state will provide a satisfactory explanation to me as to why anyone would ever want to live in California.
And if you want to know, I’m an Ohio resident. Why would I want to live in Ohio? One, we have shall-issue concealed carry. Two, we have statewide preemption against restrictive local gun ordinances (i.e., home rule). Three, we have a stand-your-ground bill currently pending in the legislature, which I and many others are working to have passed.
And fourth and last, but certainly not least, if Ohio has anything to say about it, Hillary Clinton will never be President of the United States.
Have a happy Thanksgiving. I hope to be of assistance to you regarding acquiring a firearm in the near future.
Hi Ballistic,
Congratulations to Ohioans for fighting the good fight and thanks for your offer of assistance.
I’m a 4th generation San Franciscan and I have nothing but beautiful memories of my childhood. I grew up on the same street that my father did with a real sense of neighborhood and community. To this day, if I’m in the city for any long period of time, I run into someone I know or who knew my family. (Sometimes that can get a bit claustrophobic, but all in all, it’s nice.)
Everywhere I go is some sort of touchstone of my past or my family’s past. I love the fact that my family has real roots here. I cherish what San Francisco (and California) used to be and I mourn what it has become. However, I love my state despite its flaws. It’s stunningly beautiful geographically and architecturally and there are interesting, intelligent, witty, kind people who live here. (Not everyone is insane.)
If I abandoned California, I’d be surrendering to the nutcases who just scream the loudest and make us all look bad. We need Californians to stay and fight for our state and our nation. That’s what I try to do every day in even the smallest of ways.
And one of those ways will be by becoming a gun owner.
This is an interesting case indeed. Fortunately, the Supreme Court, including many of the current justices, has referenced the Second Amendment a number of times in cases having nothing to do with gun rights. In those mentions, the Court stated clearly that the Second Amendment protects a right of the individual as do the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights.
That doesn’t mean that things couldn’t go bad, but to rule against an individual rights interpretation would create legal chaos in ways plain and unclear in a wide variety of facets of American life.
Let’s keep out fingers crossed.
By Jennifer Freeman:
“The Supreme Court is expected to hear the Heller case early in 2008. If they were to interpret the Second Amendment as applying to the individual, many of the anti-gun laws in effect today would be overturned. Depending on how the decision is rendered, firearm ownership, possession, and use could be legal again in D.C. Semi-automatic rifles may again be legal in California. People like you and me would be able to spend our time enjoying our freedoms, rather than fighting for them.”
Jennifer Freeman is Executive Director and co-founder of Liberty Belles, a grass-roots organization dedicated to restoring and preserving the Second Amendment.
I’d probably support more handgun control measures than either Tammy or most of the posters (I live in NYC and supported Rudy’s measures), but I DO find the DC law egregiously draconian. I’m also apprehensive that in striking down that law, the Court might facilitate the rolling back of more reasonable restrictions on firearm ownership like the 12-is-enough laws.
Here’s a good, fair brief in opposition to the law from Sandy Froman, the head of the NRA (with whom I usually disagree):
http://tinyurl.com/293dbv
I would like to speak to the popular misconception that the US Constitution “enumerates” our rights.
To quote Maynard, “the “right to privacy” is not explicitly declared in the Constitution”.
Isn’t it a fact that the founding of this nation was based on “self-evident truths” that “all men are created equal” enjoying “inalienable rights” in order to “effect their Safety and Happiness.”
That puts the ‘people’ at the TOP of the pyramid; the government being the SERVANT of the ‘people’.
The Constitution lays out the form and process of how these SERVANTS are to do their jobs. The ‘people’, being the SOVEREIGNS (replacing the King) have the liberty to anything that does not violate another’s rights. How can the owner of a company be held to the restrictions laid out in an employee manual intended for hired workers?
Unless you believe that the government is the King and not the people, no rational argument can support the idea that we can only do what the government tells us we can.
A free people is just that, free. To look to a document written two centuries ago to see what WE the SOVEREIGNS are allowed to do is a ludicrous perversion of all that we claim to believe in.