The question that SCOTUS will answer in DC v Heller

SCOTUS met in conference and decided that in DC v Heller they will answer the following question.

"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?”

The DC codes listed cover: the barring of registration of pistols if not registered before Sept. 24, 1976; the barring of carrying an unlicensed pistol; and the provision that any gun kept at home must be unloaded and disassembled or bound by a lock, such as one that prevents the trigger from operating.

What I found very interesting is that the original Parker case did not seek any redress on the matter of carrying an unlicensed pistol yet SCOTUS sees fit to include it in their question for decision.


PLEASE NOTE: This is not a thread to discuss D.C. status as a state vs non-state, it's status of representation to the U.S. Govt, etc. SCOTUS has given cert. on the case and that is the final word regarding this thread. Any discussion on the general status of D.C. (as per "gungeon" rules) needs to be posted elsewhere. Thank you

Did the the defendant fail to raise the issues at trial? Is that a bar to raising them on appeal? Are they going to make a decision on the appeal arguments? The second amendment? Are they deciding other issues related to the statute?

but not unheard of. See when a case gets to SCOTUS all bets are off. The Supremes can do whatever they want. They can increase the scope of the appeal or narrow the scope. Remember the Miranda decision. The appeal was that this guy never new he had a right to council. SCOTUS widened the scope of the decision to include that not only do cops have to tell a person under arrest that they have a right TO council but that the state also had to PROVIDE council for the indigent.

No, the original case did not address the carrying of arms at all. Only the ban on new handguns and the reg on keeping long guns in an unservesable condition. In fact, DC's appeal to SCOTUS only dealt with the ban on handguns and did not touch on the long gun issue. Many people suspected that that would anger SCOTUS from the out-start. Perhaps it did.

So, with the question that SCOTUS hammered out in their own private conference the scope of the Heller decision has (in my opinion) increased.

If the court is bringing it up, they must really want to rule on the second amendment. I guess they'll uphold it.

In fact, I believe that it was Thomas that has stated that the 2A needs to be addressed by SCOTUS (it may have been a different justice but one of them said it)

The general opinion is that SCOTUS is going to make a big and wide ranging decision affirming the 2A. The question they hammered out even hints that they already consider the 2A an individual right.

I have read that part of the DC briefs filed Friday are even trying to limit the scope of any decision of SCOTUS to D.C. only as D.C. is not a state. If DC is actually trying to put limits on a SCOTUS decision I read two things into. This is likely to anger SCOTUS and Brady Inc. is trying to limit damage that an affirmation of the 2A could do to them nation wide. Just my opinion though.

The NRA survives on scaring people into thinking their guns are going to be taken away. An affirmation of 2A would alleviate those concerns. More sensible gun control acts that don't violate 2A would have a better chance.

I know Brady Inc. doesn't see it that way.

I 2A victory will not be the end of it by a long shot. It will just be the basis for challenging gun laws on the books. The victory would be immediately felt in D.C. of course but everyone else will have to fight to remove lots of gun laws on the books. It should be pretty easy to win but it will take some time.

There will be lots of regulation left on the books also. In fact the Circuit Court did leave open the possibility of a national registration of arms. The logic being that if the militia needed to be called up it would be helpful to know what assets are where.

I see the NFA being left largely intact but arbitrary gun laws like in Il. and CA will have to go by by. That of course is all my opinion.

sometimes it's the only way I myself can understand some things :)

That said, Parker wants a readily functional handgun in her home for defense. Heller applied for a handgun permit and was denied, also wants readily functional firearms (both handgun and longarm) in his home.

I think i got that right(?)

That is it in a nutshell. Now the DC circuit court agreed with Parker at el but expanded on it in their summary. The said that not only was Parker right but that citizens regardless of being active in a militia or not they should be able to keep arms of like kind that are currently issued to the regular army. (Or some such, I'll look for the exact quote)

Of course that reading would mean that us normal folk should be able to keep an M-4 at home.

Now that SCOTUS has it they have widened it again to look at the prohibition on the carrying of arms. We'll see how it goes but I'm on record as already saying that Ginsberg will vote to affirm the 2A. I'm looking at a 7-2 ruling.

Carrying as maybe relating to Heller not having to leave his service weapon at work and being able to transport it home, or does he have to leave it at work? (I know, I need to go back and look)

Or CCW/CHL etc?

Sorry, not up to speed on every last facet of it.



ps: it should read G3, not M-4 ;)

It could simply mean that SCOTUS is willing to say states may regulate CCLs but not bar it outright; or it could mean that SCOTUS recognizes that states may "back-door" gun bans by saying that you cannot bar the TRANSPORTATION of firearms (ie allowing regulations to keep them locked in the trunk but not outright ban the transportation)

I did however find it very interesting that SCOTUS did include a provision not originally opposed though. I really think SCOTUS is going to come out with a major, MAJOR, 2A affirmation ruling.

If you go to www.progunprogressive.com you will see where the "host" has been trying (for years, now?) to obtain a CCW under Maryland's "may issue" law which, to briefly sum up, requires a finding of necessity. One such necessity is a verifiable threat to a citizen's life. In this instance, there is a clear record that the "progun progressive" is under an on-going threat to his life; yet he has not received a permit. These "may issue" permits (also in effect in NYC) are rife with abuse and favoritism -- much like the literacy test in the South before the 1965 Voting Rights Act. In light of a favorable Heller decision, I see these "may issue" laws being challenged. However, "shall issue" laws may very well withstand scrutiny as reasonable regulation because of (presumptive) transparent and achievable standards.

Here is the summary paragraph of the D.C. Circuit Court decision that has been appealed to SCOTUS. By todays standards it seem pretty radical. But by a constitutionality's standards it is pretty right on.


"To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Anti-federalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia."