US Supreme Court going to decide on 2nd Amendment

[Right 2 Carry]

Saw this on DefensiveCarry.com

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21039929/

[ishi]

This probably will end up being somewhat anti-climactic. The supreme court will try to make their ruling as narrow as possible. If DC is ruled against, we won't be getting "You know what, the 2nd amendment really does apply. Throw out the NFA!".

It will be interesting to see though.

Here's hoping for the best.

[doublenutz]

This probably will end up being somewhat anti-climactic. The supreme court will try to make their ruling as narrow as possible. If DC is ruled against, we won't be getting "You know what, the 2nd amendment really does apply. Throw out the NFA!".

It will be interesting to see though.

Here's hoping for the best.

If they overturn the lower court however, that will set a precedent that may make things very diffucult for gun owners in some states.

D.C. gun law challenged
Washington, D.C., has urged that the justices uphold the city's ban on handguns — one of the strictest gun laws in the nation. City officials said the restriction is essential to fighting crime.
"What we ban is a weapon that is uniquely dangerous, that is easily concealed and that is disproportionately used in crime," said Linda Singer, Attorney General for the District of Columbia.

In a surprising ruling, a federal appeals court earlier this year declared the ban a violation of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The law was challenged by a Washington, D.C., resident who claimed the Constitution gives him a right to own a handgun for self-defense.
"I had a house broken into once, and things happen," said Rich Heller, the man who filed the lawsuit. "You want to protect yourself if you need to."
Though the Supreme Court discussed the Second Amendment in a 1939 gun case, the court has never definitively ruled on if the amendment protects an individual's right to own a gun or if it only protects a right of state militias to resist being disarmed by the national government.

[ElZorro]

To wit:

"Though the Supreme Court discussed the Second Amendment in a 1939 gun case, the court has never definitively ruled on if the amendment protects an individual's right to own a gun or if it only protects a right of state militias to resist being disarmed by the national government."

This was obviously written by one who has never actually read "Miller" and sounds like some of the crapola espoused by the Bradys and their ilk.

The justices in the Miller case referenced here did, indeed, decide that the Second Amendment applies to individuals and uses many quotes and references to amplify and prove this point. The onlly sticking point (for me) was that they specified that the weapons to be kept and born would have to be of a type in common military use at the time.

(Of course, today that would mean your problem is where to store your 800 rpm Gatling and whether you could afford the other fully automatic weapons "in common military use".)

The deciding question was whether the shotgun in question, with a barrel shorter than required by NFA, was in common military use at the time.

Had the defendants had representation before the Supremes (one had died and the other was conspicuously absent of representation); it could easily have been proved that the Winchester model of 1897 was issued by the government to our troops in WWI with barrels considerably shorter than the requisite 18 inches. Some were reportedly hacked off even more by the troops in the field.

Affectionately called the "trench sweeper", it saw use, along with the Model 12 (also issued with a short barrel), through WWII. I've handled and shot one of the Model 12s brought back from the Pacific theater by an uncle and there's anecdotal evidence that they were still in use in VietNam, though I have no cites to prove this.

Let's hope the Supremes, if they decide to hear this case, will go back to Miller for their guidance.

For those who have not read the complete Miller, I offer the following URL for your perusal and edification.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=307&invol=174

Y'r ovsv't s'vt;
ElZorro

[HK4U]

I am afraid anytime any thing goes to the Supreme Court. Thomas Jefferson was right about them.

[doublenutz]

To wit:

"Though the Supreme Court discussed the Second Amendment in a 1939 gun case, the court has never definitively ruled on if the amendment protects an individual's right to own a gun or if it only protects a right of state militias to resist being disarmed by the national government."

This was obviously writter by one who has never actually read "Miller" and sounds like some of the crapola espoused by the Bradys and their ilk.

ElZorro

I have actually read US vs Miller during my undergrad years as a political science student in college... my question is however, do you have anything to offer beside being a spoiler and rudely questioning the credentials or critiquing the information that is supplied in a topic of all who post in any thread you participate in. The point of the article was that the Supreme Court has NEVER DEFINITIVELY RULED ON ANY 2A CASE brought before it since 1939 (as Ishi correctly implied- the SC ruling will likely be very anti-climactic). If you can find one or more cases that may prove that case or statement wrong please educate us about one or more of them here. I, for one, would like to see your valuable and intellectual contributions, in the stead of dashing the credibility of people who post and the information we collectively gather and post here.

I think we can all agree that you may have a wealth of information that we want to hear but for the sake of Christ... do you have to be so incredibly rude to us?

[ElZorro]

The criticism was of the original MSNBC article, not any poster here, and that is what I quoted.

And the criticism hinged on the part of the quote which stated that the SOCUS had not decided whether 2A was an individual or collective right.

If you'll carefully peruse Miller, you'll see that that decision was, indeed, made; although you're correct in that they did not officially "rule" on that point, inasmuch as that point was not specifically within their jurisprudence, not having been brought up in the briefs from the lower courts with which they were provided.

Pretty please, if you're going to bash me for negativity (or anything, for that matter) quote me in context.

I did not and have not intended to bash or denigrate any poster here but, as I said, the criticism was of the author of the original article quoted here, and not of the poster who provided it.

Incidentally, your post, in addition to misreading my comments out of context, was anything but "gentle correction". Could even be called "rude", to use your terminology.

Humbly,
ELZorro

[doublenutz]

The criticism was of the original MSNBC article, not any poster here, and that is what I quoted.


I did not and have not intended to bash or denigrate any poster here but, as I said, the criticism was of the author of the original article quoted here, and not of the poster who provided it.

Humbly,
ELZorro

<Hand Shaking> Thank you for the clarification... my most sincere apologies for misinterpreting your posts, shortcoming of electronic communications media, I guess.

I neglected to mention that your posts are informative and I read them closely. If I was not interested in what you had to say I would not have posted my concerns. I am very much looking forward to your future contributions here they definately have a "STOP, and pay attention here" impact.:)

[ElZorro]

for the "handshake".

I appreciate the camaraderie and sincerity of your reply.

Thanks again,
ElZorro

[The Law]

I don't believe cert has been granted just yet. I'd like to believe it would be though.