Supreme Court to take up DC gun case, 2nd Amendment

:scared:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/20/475202.aspx

Supreme Court takes up DC gun case
Posted: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 1:49 PM by Mark Murray

From NBC's Pete Williams
The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear the Washington, DC gun case. The justices will review a federal appeals court ruling that found DC's ban on handguns to be unconstitutional.

The court makes it clear today that it intends to address what the 2nd Amendment really means -- surprisingly, the court has never said before what the right to bear arms actually means. Here's the way it frames the question: "Whether {DC's gun laws} 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?"

:scared:

The Second Amendment does indeed protect the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, but the government can create restrictions provided they pass the Strict Scrutiny test.

In other words, any restriction on weapons must fulfill these requirements.



That would be my ideal ruling on this case, which would imply that a blanket ban on handguns is unconstitutional, but less restrictive means to deal with safety and crime issues might be acceptable.

But yeah, that would assume we had a government and a SCOTUS capable of this line of thought, and not hamstrung by corruption and bad ideology.

A thoughtful, informed analysis?!? WTF?

will be deciding which part of the 1st amendment needs to be adjusted....whoops! too late..

Since it's been a while since I've had to actually do anything involving con-law, do you know if there is any case law extending strict scrutiny to non-equal protection cases? I feel dumb for needing to ask.

..but it would be seen by the gun nuts as a huge defeat since it would open the door to a fire-arms registration program to track all weapons for security and law-enforcement purposes and it would be impossible to argue that simple registration was over-burdensome.

edit your --> you're

Here's the catch.

1. Must be free-as-in-beer. In other words, you shouldn't have to pay money to assert a constitutional right - otherwise the scheme will be shut down in the same way that poll taxes were shut down.

2. Must be shall-issue. Just like the laws on concealed-carry licenses in many states. Those laws say "The licensing authority shall issue a license provided the licensee has fulfilled the requirements." as opposed to "may issue" laws which mean the sheriff can deny licenses for any reason including no reason. Put the shall-issue language in the law, requiring the authority to issue a license to anyone who fulfills the licensing requirements, and you're well on your way to a constitutionally sound firearms licensing system.

3. Must be relatively easy. It's not outrageous to suggest that people who want firearms take a single two-hour class on basic marksmanship, gun safety (Cooper's four rules) and legal issues around firearms. But it must be easy enough that any Joe Citizen with a clean record could come in and complete the class as long as he isn't a total idiot. I know, my interpretation is a bit fuzzy. Still, if you do what the Jim Crow crowd did with "literacy tests" and made them so difficult nobody could pass them, then it's unconstitutional. Handling weapons safely and legally isn't particularly difficult.

I don't think Strict Scrutiny is a bad way to rule on this - it ensures that the Second Amendment has strong protection, but within sanity - it doesn't protect the right to keep and bear nuclear weapons, and it nicely dovetails into the case law around other constitutional rights.

I think a lot of us could definitely benefit from a basic marksmanship/safety class. I know I sometimes feel silly for asking for help on basic gun issues like loading, cleaning, and the rest, but the view should be towards promoting competence and responsibility with firearms. Those are times when I should simply swallow my pride and tell the gun-shop proprietor, "Can you help me out with something?"

One good example is with pistols like Glocks where the entire receiver slides back and forth as opposed to more traditional pistols like many Colt and S&W models. I do not own a Glock, but I wanted to familiarize myself with that design, so I asked the local shop owner what I needed to know. He told me about the slide, showed me how to obtain a proper two-handed grip on the pistol so that my hand doesn't get skinned alive, and let me practice a quick stance to see what sort of position would work best with me.

Now I can't go so far as to say that one should have a permit in order to merely own a firearm. But if we are the "well-regulated Militia" spoken of in the Second Amendment, we had better act like one. And that means thinking beyond our own selves and considering overall effectiveness and safety as a whole.

:sigh:

This may be the most influential Second Amendment ruling since US v. Miller way back when.