Grammatically speaking the intent of the 2nd Amendment is not crystal clear, and that's always been the problem. A strict, constructionist reading arguably shows only that it permits the existence of citizens' militia and that "..the right of the people to keep and bear arms..." is only a figurative reference to militias.AP NEWS wrote:WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court gets to write on a blank slate when it takes up the meaning of the Second Amendment "right to keep and bear arms" and the District of Columbia's ban on handguns.
The nine justices have said almost nothing about gun rights, and their predecessors have likewise given no definitive answer to whether the Constitution protects an individuals right to own guns or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
The case that will be argued Tuesday is among the most closely watched of the term, drawing 68 briefs from outside groups. Most of those support an individuals right to own a gun.
"This may be one of the only cases in our lifetime when the Supreme Court is going to interpret an important provision of our Constitution unencumbered by precedent," said Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett.
Even if they determine there is an individual right, the justices still will have to decide whether the capital's 32-year-old handgun ban can stand and how to evaluate other gun control laws. This issue has caused division within the Bush administration, with Vice President d!ck Cheney taking a harder line than the administration's official position at the court
Regardless of the outcome, the SCOTUS ruling will be law. Most Constitutional Law lawyers will tell you it is easier to attack a law as it is applied to a limited situation. It doesn’t seem that this is the case here though. In ruling, SCOTUS may choose to limit the ruling, if unfavorable, to specific legislation, as is the Washington D.C. legislation, or they may issue a ruling with sweeping reach.AFP wrote: The court's decision -- on whether the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamentally an individual or collective right -- is expected to have a far reaching impact on US gun control laws, experts say.
The high court has never before issued a ruling on the interpretation of the second amendment to the constitution, which states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The following have filed amicus (friend of the court) briefs in support of Heller (I.E., supporting private ownership of guns)NRA wrote:U.S. Supreme Court To Hear D.C. Gun Case On March 18, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller. In November, the Court announced its decision to take the case in which plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of the District's gun ban. The District of Columbia appealed a lower court’s ruling last year affirming that the Second Amendment of the Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the District’s bans on handguns, carrying firearms within the home, and possession of loaded or operable firearms for self-defense violate that right.
National Rifle Association Academics Academics for the Second Amendment Alaska Outdoor Council American Center for Law and Justice American Civil Rights Union American Legislative Exchange Council Association of American Physicians and Surgeons Buckeye Firearms Foundation, et al. Cato Institute and Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm Center for Individual Freedom Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Congress of Racial Equality Criminologists Disabled Veterans for Self-Defense Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund Former Justice Department officials Foundation for Free Expression Foundation for Moral Law GeorgiaCarry.org Goldwater Institute Grass Roots of South Carolina Gun Owners of America Heartland Institute Institute for Justice International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association International Scholars Jeanette Moll Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership Joseph B. Scarnati, III, President Pro Tempore of the Pennsylvania Senate Libertarian National Committee Liberty Legal Institute Major General John D. Altenburg, et al. Maricopa County (Ariz.) Attorney's office Members of Congress and Vice-President Cheney Mountain States Legal Foundation National Shooting Sports Foundation Paragon Foundation Pink Pistols Retired military officers Rutherford Institute Second Amendment Foundation Southeastern Legal Foundation State Firearms Associations Texas and other states Virginia1774.org Women state legislators and academics
The following have filed amicus briefs in support of Washington D.C. (I.E. favoring more restrictive, or prohibitions on gun ownership)
American Academy of Pediatrics American Bar Association American Public Health Association, et al. Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, et al. City of Chicago Coalition of civil rights groups D.C. Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, et al. District Attorneys Former Department of Justice Officials Historians Major U.S. cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors Members of Congress NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund National Network to End Domestic Violence, et al. New York and other states Professors Erwin Chemerinsky and Adam Winkler Professors of criminal justice Professors of linguistics Violence Policy Center and various police chiefs
You can see that the "against" side has all the heavy hitters ( legal and Legislative.)
This will be an interesting ruling. How do you feel about further restrictions on gun ownership?
