SCOTUS to decide if Second Amendment guarantees individual right to bear arms. I asked my GLOCK, and the answer is in the affirmative.
The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290 (2007).
The issue before the Court is this:
Do the following provisions - D.C. Code sections 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 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.
What does the Second Amendment provide? Here's what it provides:
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.
According to that court, “[T]he phrase ‘the right of the people,’ when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual.”
The Supreme Court's precedent mentioned include the ruling in U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), numerous court decisions of the 19th century, the Supreme Court's ruling in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).
You can listen to the audio of the Supreme Court's argument, or read the transcript.
You can also read the briefs for Heller, District of Columbia's main, reply, and the United States.
I expect the Court to rule that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to posses a firearm, though that right, like other rights enumerated in the constitution, are subject to REASONABLE government regulation -- and that the gun ban that is the subject of this case is UNREASONABLE.
The issue before the Court is this:
Do the following provisions - D.C. Code sections 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 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.
What does the Second Amendment provide? Here's what it provides:
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.
According to that court, “[T]he phrase ‘the right of the people,’ when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual.”
The Supreme Court's precedent mentioned include the ruling in U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), numerous court decisions of the 19th century, the Supreme Court's ruling in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).
You can listen to the audio of the Supreme Court's argument, or read the transcript.
You can also read the briefs for Heller, District of Columbia's main, reply, and the United States.
I expect the Court to rule that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to posses a firearm, though that right, like other rights enumerated in the constitution, are subject to REASONABLE government regulation -- and that the gun ban that is the subject of this case is UNREASONABLE.
Labels: Constitutional rights, Justice, The Constitution, U. S. Supreme Court
posted by KYJurisDoctor at 12:03 PM
2 Comments:
My Ruger says affirmative as well.
In fact,I did a poll of my handguns,and it was overwhelmingly in support of the second amendment.
Hear that,Supreme Court?
YEP. I'm sure they hear us, yakki.psd, because we heard our Founding Fathers.
Post a Comment
<< Home