The Supreme Court Ruled in Favor of The 2nd

["DoubleAction"]

Lawyer Who Wiped Out D.C. Ban Says It's About Liberties, Not Guns

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/17/AR2007031701055.html

I'm sure by now everyone has heard the news earlier today. I think I'll visit some of the gun control activist sites to see how they're taking the news. ;D

[TMan]

Did you notice who voted for and who voted against? It was sort of a party-line vote. In other words: thank Dubya and the Republicans that you have a chance to defend yourself.

[5ontarget]

yeah, so much for the lifetime gig eliminating party bias.

["DoubleAction"]

Jun 27, 2008 6:43:44 GMT -5 5ontarget said:

yeah, so much for the lifetime gig eliminating party bias.

I watched the Oral Argument on C Span this morning, from 2:18 until around 3:30 and never heard Clarence Thomas chime in. I might try to find more on who voted for or against.

One thing which baffled me on Heller's attorney is when the crime rate in DC was mentioned in the same context as reasoning for the ban. Heller's attorney failed to mention the crime rate had risen during the ban. I think it was Associate Justice Scalia who finally mentioned to the attorney with the crime rate as being a factor for people to bear arms in defending themselves among such a crime. It made me wonder if there should have been someone presenting this argument with more expertise in the area, like say Larry Pratt of the Gun Owners of America or Wayne La Pierre of the NRA.

A vote of 5 to 4 is too close for comfort, and I hope it never again comes to this.

["DoubleAction"]

Another thing was the Argument presented by the DC Attorney on the trigger locks. The Justices questioned the reliability of having a firearm for self defense when it is disabled by a trigger lock. They asked the DC Attorney how long it took to remove the lock, load the weapon, and what it entailed. The DC Attorney stumbled on his words a little and suggested the firearm remain loaded when installing the lock, or after installing the lock.

Bad Idea; One never places or removes these trigger locks, while the firearm is loaded. This is how idiots have all these incidents of unintentional discharges. If one were to view these hearings in order to come out of it with more knowledge on firearm safety awareness; you're better off not watching. There should be a disclaimer displayed before broadcasting any such hearings on firearms

["DoubleAction"]

The Attorneys and Associate Justices also discussed the use of the word "Arms" in reference to The Right To Keep And Bear Arms.

When used in the preamble, as they referred to in maintaining a an Organized Militia, they also presented the position that "Arms" was in reference to Military Weapons.

I thought "Arms" was considered to be the language, at the time of our founding fathers, when referring to Firearms. I then wondered how "Arms" was introduced into our language; so, I looked up the translations for Weapons.

Weapon : Any Tool Used For Fighting

Translations for: Weapon

Dansk (Danish)
n. - v?ben
v. tr. - armere, gribe til v?ben

Fran?ais (French)
n. - (lit, fig) arme
v. tr. - armer

Italiano (Italian)
arma

Portugu?s (Portuguese)
n. - arma (f), defesa (f)

Espa?ol (Spanish)
n. - arma, proyectil
v. tr. - armar

......"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion... in private self-defense. ”

~John Adams

www.americanhistorycentral.com/entry.php?rec=451&view=quotes

After listening to the oral arguments, from these Attorneys, I'm convinced that the Supreme Court acted entirely on their own, in ruling on this case. The vote was 5 to 4, therefore, I feel there are 4 Justices on The Supreme Court who would have been hung at another time in this nation's history.

["DoubleAction"]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER
AND COMMUNITIES OF COLOR

www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/blj/vol25/133-180.pdf

[Adam Dieffenbach]

I'm glad this ruling happened. Now maybe Mayor Nutter (couldn't possibly make that name up if I tried) will stop drooling over the idea of a city-wide ban in Philadelphia.

["DoubleAction"]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER

Amici Briefs

supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/docket/2007/march/district-of-columbia-v-heller-07-290.html

Amici Briefs in Support of Petitioners

Amicus Brief of Am. Acad. of Pediatrics
Amicus Brief of the ABA
Amici Brief of Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, et al.
Amicus Brief of City of Chicago
Amici Brief of Coalition of Civil Rights groups
Amici Brief of Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, et al.
Amici Brief of D.A.'s
Amici Brief of Former Dep't of Justice Officials
Amici Brief of Historians
Amici Brief of U.S. Cities et al.
Amici Brief of Members of Congress
Amicus Brief of NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund
Amici Brief of National Network to End Domestic Violence, et al.
Amici Brief of New York et al.
Amici Brief of Professors Erwin Chemerinsky and Adam Winkler
Amici Brief of Crim. Justice Professors
Amici Brief of Linguistics Professors
Amici Brief of Violence Policy Center et al.

Amici Briefs in Support of Respondent

Amicus Brief of Academics
Amici Brief of Academics for the Second Amendment
Amicus Brief of Alaska Outdoor Council
Amicus Brief of American Center for Law and Justice
Amicus Brief of American Civil Rights Union
Amicus Brief of American Legislative Exchange Council
Amici Brief of Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
Amici Brief of Buckeye Firearms Foundation, et al.
Amici Brief of Cato Institute and Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm
Amicus Brief of Center for Individual Freedom
Amici Brief of Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Amicus Brief of Congress of Racial Equality
Amici Brief of Criminologists
Amici Brief of Disabled Veterans for Self-Defense
Amicus Brief of Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund
Amici Brief of Former Justice Department officials
Amicus Brief of Foundation for Free Expression
Amicus Brief of Foundation for Moral Law
Amicus Brief of GeorgiaCarry.org
Amicus Brief of Goldwater Institute
Amicus Brief of Grass Roots of South Carolina
Amici Brief of Gun Owners of America
Amicus Brief of Heartland Institute
Amicus Brief of Institute for Justice
Amici Brief of International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association
Amici Brief of International Scholars
Amicus Brief of Jeanette Moll
Amici Brief of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
Amicus Brief of Joseph B. Scarnati
Amicus Brief of Libertarian National Committee
Amicus Brief of Liberty Legal Institute
Amici Brief of Maj. Gen. Altenburg, et al.
Amicus Brief of Maricopa County Attorney's Office
Amici Brief of Members of Congress and Vice-President Cheney
Amicus Brief of Mountain States Legal Foundation
Amicus Brief of National Rifle Association
Amicus Brief of National Shooting Sports Foundation
Amicus Brief of Paragon Foundation
Amici Brief of Pink Pistols
Amici Brief of Retired Military Officers
Amicus Brief of Rutherford Institute
Amicus Brief of Second Amendment Foundation
Amicus Brief of Southeastern Legal Foundation
Amici Brief of State Firearms Associations
Amici Brief of Texas, et al.
Amicus Brief of Virginia1774.org
Amici Brief of Women legislators et al.

["DoubleAction"]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER

Amici Briefs

BRIEF FOR BRADY CENTER

#5
]4. The phrase “keep and bear Arms” refers to
possession and use of weapons for military
purposes
While the lower court thought it self-evident that
the word “keep” injects a private, non-militia purpose
into the Amendment, there is no historical or textual
basis to believe that while the right to “bear Arms” is
military, the right to “keep and bear Arms” is not.
There are, of course, multiple contexts in which “keep”
has an “obvious individual and private meaning[].” Pet.
App. 27a. It does not, however, have that meaning as
part of the phrase “keep and bear Arms” in a constitutional
provision referencing the importance of a “well
regulated Militia.”

supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/07-290/07-290.mer.ami.pet.brady.pdf

BRIEF FOR The NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund

CONCLUSION This Court, all but two of the federal Courts of Appeals, and the various State appellate courts have consistently held that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to “keep and bear Arms” for purely private purposes. Prior to the decision below, no federal court had ever found a statute facially invalid under the Second Amendment without subsequently being reversed. While evolution in the understanding of a Constitutional provision is sometimes warranted, nothing has changed in regard to the Second Amendment that would justify this Court in radically departing from its jurisprudence here; if anything, the lethal nature of the modern handgun and the epidemic of handgun violence and its attendant effects on the African-American community in this country should cast doubt on the radical reinterpretation of the Second Amendment proffered by the D.C. Circuit. Respectfully Submitted, THEODORE M. SHAW, DIRECTOR COUNSEL JACQUELINE A. BERRIEN *VICTOR A. BOLDEN DEBO P. ADEGBILE MARC K. BATTLE NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 [phone] January 11, 2008 MICHAEL B. DE LEEUW DARCY M. GODDARD DALE E. HO FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER & JACOBSON LLP One New York Plaza New York, New York 10004 [phone] *Counsel of Record

[/center][/size][/quote]

supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/07-290/07-290.mer.ami.pet.naacp.pdf

["DoubleAction"]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER
AND COMMUNITIES OF COLOR

supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/07-290/07-290.mer.ami.pet.brady.pdf

["DoubleAction"]

The Second Amendment : District of Columbia v. Heller

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states, which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia. The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." "Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975."

The core holding in D.C. v. Heller is that the Second Amendment is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

A Breakdown of DC v. Heller

By a 5-4 majority, the Supreme Court sided with Heller, affirming the appeals court’s decision. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the court’s opinion and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., and justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, Jr.

Dissenting were justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

The court ruled that the District of Columbia must give Heller a license to possess a handgun inside his home. In the process, the court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms and that the district’s handgun ban and trigger lock requirement violated the Second Amendment.

civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/DC-v-Heller-Gun-Control-Case.htm

[blueglass]

That was the right choice for them to make. There would have been a lot of upset people if it had gone the other way. Score one for the GOOD guys. Obama loses.

["DoubleAction"]

..If One of these U.S.Supreme Court Justices had voted the other way, I would shutter to think what the aftermath might have been. It was a shameful disgrace to see this 5-4 vote.