PDA

View Full Version : US Supreme Court to Hear Second Amendment Case



Mark Murray
20th November 2007, 19:05
Sometime next year, the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) will hear the case started in DC (District of Columbia). This will turn out to be an important ruling for the United States. We certainly live in interesting times. :)


Couple of articles:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/20/AR2007112000893.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/washington/20cnd-scotus.html?hp

Mark Murray
20th November 2007, 19:12
More detailed analysis here:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/court-agrees-to-rule-on-gun-case/

Here is the way the Court phrased the granted issue:

“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?”

Mark Murray
20th November 2007, 19:14
A detailed analysis of the Second Amendment by the US DOJ (Department of Justice):

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf

Mark Murray
26th November 2007, 13:52
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20071120/pl_bloomberg/aqzrvxk0_fko

and there's a Wiki page on it also,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_v._District_of_Columbia

Mark Murray
20th December 2007, 16:42
http://www.roanoke.com/politics/wb/143971

RICHMOND -- Virginia will join other states in urging the U.S. Supreme Court to decide that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own firearms, Attorney General Bob McDonnell said Tuesday.

(More at link)

Mark Murray
20th December 2007, 16:46
Supposedly:

At the DC Circuit level:
Pro-DC (anti-gun rights) - MA, MD, NJ, cities of Boston, Chicago, New York, San Francisco

Pro-Parker (pro-gun rights) - TX, AL, AR, CO, FL, GA, MI, MN, NE, ND, OH, UT, WY


At the Supreme Court (petition stage):
Pro-DC (anti-gun rights) - NY, HI, IL, MD

Pro-Heller (pro-gun rights) - none


At the Supreme Court (post-certiorari stage):
Pro-DC (anti-gun rights) - none yet

Pro-Heller (pro-gun rights) - TX, AR, MT, MO, ID, MI, CO, VA

Jim Sorrentino
20th December 2007, 19:19
Hi Mark,

One of the three attorneys on the pro-gun side, Clark Neily, trains at Aikido of Northern Virginia! Clark had an excellent shodan test on December 15. Let's hope it's a good omen for this case!

For more information about the litigation and the attorneys, please visit http://dcguncase.com/blog/about-us/.

See you on the mat!

Jim

Mark Murray
2nd January 2008, 17:19
Hi Mark,

One of the three attorneys on the pro-gun side, Clark Neily, trains at Aikido of Northern Virginia! Clark had an excellent shodan test on December 15. Let's hope it's a good omen for this case!

For more information about the litigation and the attorneys, please visit http://dcguncase.com/blog/about-us/.

See you on the mat!

Jim

Hi Jim,
Congrats to Clark on the shodan.

Found this paper online:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1077908
You can download the PDF from the links at the bottom of the page.

I haven't read it yet, but thought people might like to know it's there.

Mark

Mark Murray
7th January 2008, 14:39
D.C.: 2nd Amendment Does Not Apply Here
By MATTHEW BARAKAT:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h99aa4jzfFB8xPGY6iZVII7xpxJAD8TVCV880

Leibowitz's Canticle:
http://canticleforleibowitz.blogspot.com/2008/01/how-many-lawyers-does-it-take-to-make.html

Article from Fred Thompson on the issue:
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?5165ff5b-4ad7-482c-b256-17da3213aaee
(How many Presidential candidates have you heard talk about this issue?)

Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/04/AR2008010402538.html
(There is a link near the bottom of the page to the actual brief.

Mark Murray
22nd January 2008, 14:15
http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/wm1775.cfm

Although some thoughtful lovers of liberty have lamented the half-empty aspects of the U.S. Solicitor General's recently-filed brief in the D.C. gun ban case (District of Columbia v. Heller), the portion that is full is legally far more significant in securing Second Amendment rights in the arena that counts most: the Supreme Court. On careful analysis, the brief's departures from sound principle are internally inconsistent and otherwise not particularly effective. Americans should recognize the importance of the government's concessions to individual liberty and ignore its predictable, bureaucratic attempt to defend existing federal laws. That is what the High Court is most likely to do.

(More at link ...)

Mark Murray
5th February 2008, 16:47
The document can be found here:
http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/pleadings.html

Click on the top link, "Respondent's Brief". It's a PDF File.

Mark Murray
7th February 2008, 14:18
http://canticleforleibowitz.blogspot.com/2008/02/heller-good-guys-shoot-back-with-effect.html

I'd like to post the complete thing, but I haven't asked for permission. Good read, though.

Mark Murray
8th February 2008, 15:37
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/amicus-briefs-for-heller-available-in-guns-case/

Keep watching for updates ...

Geoff
11th March 2008, 00:28
Can anyone explain why the Bush administration would encourage the DOJ to submit a brief opposing the lower court ruling that led to the SCOTUS Heller case? From what I understand the DOJ brief asserts that while Heller is probably right in maintaining that the Second Am. preserves an individual right to firearms ownership the Bush administration believes it is within the scope of its power to remove citizens' rights to own firearms whenever it deems necessary. This is like saying, "(wink,wink) Sure you have an individual right garrunteed in the Second Amendment; we just have the power to restrict that right in circumstances as we wish."

This doesn't sound like a conservative position to me. Instead it sounds like a power grab by the government in sheep's clothing.

Can someone with a legal background explain the rational for the DOJ brief to me?

Surgere
11th March 2008, 13:23
From what I read, it seems like the presidential administration (regardless of who is in office) has a duty to support congressional rulings already in place: in this case, the DC gun ban.
...but I do not have any legal background.

Mark Murray
11th March 2008, 14:06
Couple of articles about the Solicitor General's brief:

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0108/0108secamd.htm

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120096108857304967.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

http://www.redstate.com/blogs/gamecock/2008/jan/15/thompson_accuses_bush_administration_of_overlawyering_in_dc_gun_case_opposes_remand

One theory is that the Republicans in charge have been leaning left for quite awhile. A theory for that is because they've been in DC too long. :)

Geoff
15th March 2008, 14:02
Here's another article, from Slate, that addresses my question from last week. I don't agree with the anti-individual rights bias, but it explains some of the inner controversy within the DoJ and the executive. http://www.slate.com/id/2185927/

Mark Murray
17th March 2008, 21:22
Tomorrow is the day for the oral arguments. Should be an interesting day. People started lining up on Sunday to reserve a space. Who says Nintendo is the only thing to draw a crowd? :)

Mark Murray
18th March 2008, 14:42
CSPAN should have the audio. Sometime around 11:30, I think.

SCOTUS Blog has updates and a live Blog:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

Mark Murray
18th March 2008, 16:10
From what I can tell, the Oral Arguments are over. CSPAN is supposed to release the audio soon. Initial indications appear positive for an individual rights view. But, it's far from over.

Mark Murray
18th March 2008, 19:17
Transcript here:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf

Replay (Real Media)
rtsp://video.c-span.org/archive/sc/sc031808_2amendment.rm

Mark Murray
25th June 2008, 15:31
The Supreme Court of the US will give its opinion on Heller tomorrow.

Tune in to Scotusblog for live updates.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

Mark Murray
26th June 2008, 15:02
Today is the day. Stay tuned ...

Mark Murray
26th June 2008, 15:13
Heller affirmed ...

Mark Murray
26th June 2008, 15:15
Second amendment is an individual right.
It also protects a right to possess a firearm.

Mark Murray
26th June 2008, 15:27
From the Scotusblog site:



Tom Goldstein - Quoting the syllabus: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Very good news!

Brian Owens
30th June 2008, 12:26
From various news sources:


Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms exists and is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

Scalia said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas.

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons." [Uh, yeah. Exactly. Just as they limited official's ability to regulate free speech, religion, the press, etc.-Brian-]

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

A 5-to-4 interpretation is too narrow a margin for any of us to rest easy on. We need to remember that at one time courts allowed slavery, prevented women from voting, allowed Japanese-Americans to be sent to concentration camps, used public funds to promote one religion, etc.

Our founding fathers' vision was a perfect one, but the implementation of that vision has been -- and continues to be -- far from perfect.

JS3
30th June 2008, 22:33
1) A 5-to-4 interpretation is too narrow a margin for any of us to rest easy on. We need to remember that at one time courts allowed slavery, prevented women from voting, allowed Japanese-Americans to be sent to concentration camps, used public funds to promote one religion, etc.

2) Our founding fathers' vision was a perfect one, but the implementation of that vision has been -- and continues to be -- far from perfect.

I agree 100% with point 1.

Point 2...
Lets just say that the not all the founding fathers were in agreement on what this "perfect vision" was.