The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of whether Washington D.C. can ban handguns or not. The decision should be around June '08.


Supreme Court to rule on gun ownership rights - CNN.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/wa...nd-scotus.html

U.S. Supreme Court takes up gun-rights case | csmonitor.com



Somehow, I think there is a chance that this will be the final nail in the 2nd amendment coffin. I doubt the 4 liberal justices will consider that the government never went around after the country was started to confiscate guns. Or read what the framers said about the 2nd amendment (which to me clearly indicates that we have a right to keep guns). I suspect Kennedy is going to be the vote that will matter.

Kramer

__________________
“It's time to admit that public education operates like a planned economy, a bureaucratic system in which everybody's role is spelled out in advance and there are few incentives for innovation and productivity. It's no surprise that our school system doesn't improve; it more resembles the communist economy than our own market economy."
Albert Shanker, former president of the American Federation of Teachers

This is already being called the "Kennedy Decision."

He will be the one.

__________________

The courts are far too busy erasing the fourth amendment to hurt the second. Besides, the second is the only part of the bill of rights w likes - no way a more conservative court than the one that appointed him messes with it.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

Clarence Thomas is the most anti-freedom of the bunch.

__________________
Life only becomes meaningful at its extremes

-- S

I suspect that the Court is going to do what it has done for decades when examining a second amendment issue - either avoid it trough procedural or technical means, or render a ruling so narrowly crafter to the DC issue as to be meaningless to the rest of the nation.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

You really DON'T have a clue do you?

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

I can only hope that, if they don't cop out on a technicality of some sort, they make the right decision and declare a hand gun ban to be unconstitutional.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

In this case that's going to be quite difficult to do. Everything I've read from either camp indicates the decision will have to either acknowledge the 2nd amendment protects an individual right, or redefine it as a government-controlled privilege.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

I'd be interested, for the sport of it, to see her attempt to back that statement up....

How 'bout it, Solletica?

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

This case actually has me quite worried. I'd like to believe the USSC will hold that the 2nd protects an individual right, but there is the possibility they will simply disregard the plain language of the amendment, as well as their own precedent, and say the state can restrict gun ownership at will. If this happens, the response from the general public could become very violent.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

OK, serious question here. What constitutes "arms". As I understand the DC law, it only bans handguns. So citizens can still arm themselves with rifles or shotguns. So they have the right to bear arms, just not a certain kind of arms. So where is the line? Should citizens be allowed to own machine guns? Rocket launchers? Missiles? I'm not being facetious, all of these can be considered "arms". Are they all covered by the 2nd amendment?

I'm not a gun control guy. I've owned guns myself. I'm just curious what some of you define as "arms".

What constitutes "arms"? Any weapon - period.

No, DC citizens cannot still arm themselves with rifles or shotguns, and even if the DC law allowed that, there is no provision in the 2nd Amendment to allow any form of restriction.

The question is not "should citizens be allowed to own {insert weapon here}", but rather, "Is the government authorized to restrict ownership of {insert weapon here}".

For the record, private citizens can, and do, own all manner of weapons from full-auto firearms to tanks.

The line is simple - a person can own whatever he damn well wants. Those who disagree with that view have the option to amend the Constitution to grant the government the authority to restrict ownership of certain weapons.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Personally, I think that people should be allowed to own whatever the fuck they please. That is to say that, unless, ipso facto, possession of something harms others (i.e. "owning" anthrax in your front yard), it should be legal. My sentiment here applies to drugs, guns, bombs, and whatever other diabolical things you can come up with - using them for their intended purpose might frequently be a crime, but just, literally, possessing them should not be.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Very well said, my friend. I'm extremely leery of any power that "the government" gives itself.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Thanks for the clear answers. So if Bill Gates wants to install ICBM silos in his front yard, your cool with that? See I'm a bit suspicious of people who give the founding fathers powers of foresight. I think if they foresaw the weapons technology of today, they would have clarified the 2nd Amendment a bit. By the same token, if they foresaw internet porn, they would have clarified the 1st. But I agree, it's the law as it stands and it would take an amendment to change it. It's also one of those political football issues that both sides like to have, so I don't see it ever changing much one way or the other.