Court to examine gun appeals Nov. 20
The Supreme Court will consider at its private Conference on Nov. 20 whether it will hear one or both of two appeals in a case involving the constitutionality of the District of Columbia’s flat ban on private ownership and use of handguns. The Court’s electronic docket on Thursday indicated that the Justices will be examining District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290) and a conditional cross-petition, Parker v. District of Columbia (07-335) at that time The two cases were up for consideration at the Nov. 9 Conference, but the Justices took no action then.
Any order in the cases could emerge on the day of the Nov. 20 Conference, or the following Monday, Nov. 26.
In a strange way it would be better if the S.Ct. didn’t hear the case- there are too many wild cards when it comes down to a collective right v, individuals right; if the Court doesn’t hear the case, the rights will stand as the Founding Fathers intended- we as individuals are the militia. The lower Court examined the Right of possession of firearms in its original intent and came up with the right answer. As far a the D.C. area goes, there are four areas that are rated similar to combat zones for transiting through , and living in- maybe the D.C. Police should address that problem. I realize that it is safer to go after the law abiding citizen rather than the criminal who will shoot back. The individual needs the means to to protect his/herself- a firearm stored in a locked box, with ammunition stored and locked up in a separate area is a death sentence. Why should D.C. residents be deprived of their Constitutional Rights? What part of Right doesn’t the D.C. Government understand?
Comment by Tom Hudson — November 15, 2007 @ 11:50 am
if the Court doesn’t hear the case, the rights will stand as the Founding Fathers intended…
Whether intended or not, they will stand only in D.C., not in other jurisdictions where courts have reached contradictory results. That alone is a good reason why the Court should either affirm or reverse the D.C. Circuit.
Comment by Marc Shepherd — November 15, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
Who knows what the Founders intended. Saul Cornell does a good job expanding on the notion of a militia as understood in colonial times. Of course, the Founders never intended on government evesdropping via wiretaps, but here we are. What it all comes down to is what the nine unelected members of the Court have to say on the issue, and they’ve been noticably mum. Hopefully they will not dodge the bullet as they did with the Emerson case (U.S. v Timothy Emerson) and grant cert.
Comment by Charles Smith — November 16, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
I always thought The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution ,to protect the Rights of the people.Apparently the government in D.C. doesn’t have any problem using their Right to free speech.But I’m supposed to give up my Right to keep and bear arms.That sounds like an oppressive government to me.I thought that’s what The Bill of Rights was supposed to prevent.
Comment by Calvin DeFrell — November 16, 2007 @ 6:57 pm
As has been pointed out by better legal minds than mine, If the SCOTUS denies cert and the lower court ruling stands then indeed it does pertain only to the District of Columbia. But it also can be used to sue the Federal government on other matters pertaining to the Second Amendment. Thus it would be possible to sue for the right to register a new machine gun, in spite of the laws made in 1983 (I think.) Other Federal gun laws could also be contested as long as the suit is brought in DC where the government “lives.”
Comment by Derald Yancey — November 16, 2007 @ 11:19 pm