Blue Crab Boulevard

Supreme Court To Rule On DC Gun Ban

The Supreme Court of the United States will hear a case appealed by both parties in the case regarding the total ban on handguns Washington, DC. enacted some 31 years ago. The gun ban was overturned by the Court of Appeals but it remains in effect until thie ruling by the SCOTUS. This is widely seen as a very large issue that may define Second Amendment rights.

The justices' decision to hear the case could make the divisive debate over guns an issue in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections.

The government of Washington, D.C., is asking the court to uphold its 31-year ban on handgun ownership in the face of a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban as incompatible with the Second Amendment. Tuesday's announcement was widely expected, especially after both the District and the man who challenged the handgun ban asked for the high court review.

The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment of the Constitution protects an individual's right to own guns or instead merely sets forth the collective right of states to maintain militias. The former interpretation would permit fewer restrictions on gun ownership.

Gun-control advocates say the Second amendment was intended to insure that states could maintain militias, a response to 18th century fears of an all-powerful national government. Gun rights proponents contend the amendment gives individuals the right to keep guns for private uses, including self-defense.

Alan Gura, a lawyer for the D.C. residents who challenged the ban, said he was pleased that the justices were considering the case.

"We believe the Supreme Court will acknowledge that, while the use of guns can be regulated, a complete prohibition on all functional firearms is too extreme," Gura said. "It's time to end this unconstitutional disaster. It's time to restore a basic freedom to all Washington residents."

Even a profoundly anti-gun constitutional scholar, Jonathan Turley, has recognized that the Second Amendment is meant to be an individual right. But you can expect the anti-gun zealots to pull out all the stops on this one. A ruling that favors the right of the individual will be a major setback for them and will put many of the more extreme gun control laws in jeopardy. Keep in mind that a ruling the other way would be a disaster for gun owners.

UPDATE: Brace yourselves. AllahPundit is predicting a disaster for gun owners.

Legal | Gaius November 20, 2007

By Neo, November 20, 2007 @ 1:39 pm

Meanwhile Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell sat before the State House Judiciary Committee today in support of three gun control bills.
By martian, November 20, 2007 @ 2:08 pm

I always have to laugh whenever the gun control advocates trot out that old conundrum that the Second Amendment merely sets forth the collective right of states to maintain militias. The reason that I laugh is that the gun control advocates either don’t know their history or have chosen to ignore historical facts. The simple fact is that, in that day and age, a “well regulated militia” consisted of EVERY ABLE BODIED ADULT MALE. Thus, even by their reasoning that it merely authorizes states to maintain a militia, by the historical definition of militia means that EVERY ABLE BODIED ADULT MALE
By martian, November 20, 2007 @ 2:13 pm

(Sorry, hit the wrong keyboard key. To continue…) has not only the right but the obligation to own a weapon (gun). Since the same rights that were extended to every able bodied adult male are now extended, by law, to adult females as well that means that women also have the right and the duty to own a weapon. So much for gun control. By their own reasoning EVERY ADULT should own a gun!
By bill-tb, November 20, 2007 @ 3:51 pm

How can you tell a right spelled out in the Bill of Rights is meant to be an individual right? I always assumed the Bill of Rights was just a catchy name for the first ten amendments and their meaning would be figured out later. No, you think I might have it wrong?

When A guy can get a Nobel Peace Prize for a phony movie full of lies and distortions of truth, just think of the possibilities.
By halfacarafe, November 20, 2007 @ 8:37 pm

What an excellent time for this case to be chosen by the Supreme Court. It gives every reporter an opportunity to ask all the presidential candidates their opinion of this case. It should help the “undecided” be able to make a choice. It lets us know where the candidates stand on their interpretation of the second amendment.

Expect the MSM to fail. Maybe they can ask about pearls, or diamonds, or Paris Hilton.
By Quilly Mammoth, November 21, 2007 @ 6:02 am

Jefferson was wrong by almost two hundred years. He thought we’d need periodic revolutions to keep our liberties. Going this long without having to hit the reset button is pretty good.