delta6
11-21-2007, 14:40
Supreme Court Takes Its 96th Gun Case
64th gun case since Miller in 1939
Recognition of individual right to arms could be reversed
by Alan Korwin, Co-Author
Supreme Court Gun Cases
Nov. 20, 2007, Washington, D.C. -- The Supreme Court today decided to
hear the District of Columbia v. Heller civil-rights case, characterized
by many as its first gun case since the Miller case in 1939, a common
error.
The High Court has been ruling on guns and gun rights since 1820, with
31 cases addressing the subject before Miller and 63 cases afterwards
until this one. The widely quoted Miller case concerned two bootleggers
and a sawed-off shotgun. Miller was murdered before his case could be
retried as directed by the Supreme Court, leaving that short,
controversial decision to be interpreted in many ways.
In the Court's 92nd gun case, U.S. v. Bean (2002), it decided that a
man deprived of his right to keep and bear arms, due to a questionable
felony arrest in Mexico, could not sue in federal court to regain those
rights, since the federal bureau in charge of reviewing such gun-rights
cases had failed to act.
The 93rd gun case, Brosseau v. Haugen (2004), asked whether a police
officer shooting an escaping felon in the back was an excessive use of
force. The Court avoided this question, resolving only a side issue of
the officer's immunity from a lawsuit after the shooting. The case
involved a rather wild fracas and an awkward shot at a driver through
the rear driver's side window.
In its 94th such case, Small v. U.S. (2005), the Justices decided that
a felony conviction in a Japanese court, which used procedures far below
American standards, was not sufficient to deprive the defendant of his
right to buy and possess a firearm.
The 95th case, Castle Rock v. Gonzalez (2005), confirmed a
long-standing rule that, even though an armed violent spousal abuser
under a restraining order had repeatedly threatened his estranged wife,
the woman had no grounds to expect police protection. Some claim this is
not a gun case per se, even though the husband shot her three children
to death, before he was shot to death by police. Others have suggested
that, since police have no duty to protect you, the right to self
preservation, and the tools to make it effective, must be inherent under
due process.
Ms. Gonzalez had assistance from civil rights groups and a firm with
1,000 lawyers but still lost the case. Although counterintuitive, police
only have an obligation to society in general, not to specific people.
Justice Scalia, in the 7-2 decision said there is no federal
constitutional right to police protection, which leads some observers to
infer a right to self protection. The Court said states were free to
craft laws to fill the gap, but states have not. It is not the most
clear-cut of the Court's many related cases, but it does firmly
establish police "no duty to protect."
The new case now granted review, District of Columbia v. Heller, is
somewhat different, since the parties are arguing specifically over the
Second Amendment itself, and not the firearms they choose to bear or how
they put them to use. The District of Columbia has, since 1976, denied
its citizens any right to keep and bear an operable firearm even in
their homes. Some credit this law, and the related city bans on
obtaining or carrying a firearm, with forcing its law-abiding,
defenseless citizens to live in one of the murder capitals of the
nation, where only the criminal element (and authorities) are armed.
Discussions of the first 92 cases are compiled in Supreme Court Gun
Cases, published by Bloomfield Press, which for the first time dispelled
the notion that the High Court had been quiet about the subject of guns.
The Court's decisions use some form of the word "gun" (rifle, shotgun,
handgun, firearm, etc.) more than 2,900 times. Fourteen of the cases
deal specifically with using guns in personal self defense.
News outlets, universally calling the Heller case the first gun case in
decades, are merely repeating each other, rather than doing research
that would easily show it's not true. (Going against the tide at this
point might be hard for most news organizations.)
The case could be pivotal however, since the Justices could use it to
effectively overturn gun laws at the state and federal level that
civil-rights advocates have for years claimed infringe on the right to
keep and bear arms. The D.C. law is an extreme example, they say, though
New York City, Chicago and even some entire states have highly
restrictive laws against private possession of arms, which tend to
increase crime rates.
There is also a chance this decision, expected next year with a hearing
as early as March, could set a precedent by finding against an
individual right to keep and bear arms, which is what the mayor of D.C.
and his supporters seek.
That would reverse two centuries of consistent rulings that have
recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms for self defense
and all other lawful purposes.
In private, pro-gun-rights groups and anti-gun-rights groups express
dread at the chance the decision will go against them. A strong, broad
decision in either direction could tear at the fabric of the nation,
leading some observers to expect a carefully crafted and narrow decision
that avoids the most delicate or volatile issues.
Not even the Justices know what they will ultimately decide, but the
case is sure to be closely watched by pro-rights and anti-rights
advocates, and wild speculation is running rampant. People are "counting
votes" based on past decisions and known or supposed preferences. The
ruling is unlikely to close the debate on gun rights, with parties
remaining heavily committed to their own points of view, and the freedom
of the country literally hanging in the balance.
Supreme Court Gun Cases, published in 2003 after six years of research,
is available for news-media review by calling 1-800-707-4020. The
authors are available for interview.
To see the book or purchase one:
http://lists.serverhost.net/link.php?M=665277&N=1271&L=2035
News media fact sheet:
http://lists.serverhost.net/link.php?M=665277&N=1271&L=2036
Summaries of the first 92 cases are #####: http://lists.serverhost.net/link.php?M=665277&N=1271&L=2037
Specifically, the Court agreed to resolve this issue:
"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 cited provisions are: 1 - The ban on handguns not registered before
1976; 2 - the ban on carrying an unlicensed handgun; and 3 - the ban on
keeping an operable firearm at home. The Court didn't address the Parker
case, involving five of the original litigants who seek to join this
case. The Court could add that later, decide it seperately later, or
ignore it. News on that should come out after Thanksgiving. Enjoy your
holiday. We're having brisket.
[Backgrounder: Phoenix-based Bloomfield Press, founded in 1988, is the
largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Our
website, gunlaws.com, features a free national directory to gun laws and
relevant contacts in all states and federally, along with our unique
line of related books and #####s. Gun Laws of America for news-media
review is available on request, call 1-800-707-4020. Our authors are
available for interview, call to schedule. Call for cogent positions on
gun issues, informed #####ysis on proposed laws, talk radio that lights
up the switchboard, fact sheets and position papers. As we always say,
"It doesn't make sense to own a gun and not know the rules."]
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you're reading this in English, thank a veteran.
"No one could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing
because he could do only a little."
--Edmund Burke
http://lists.serverhost.net/unsubscribe.php?M=665277&N=1271&L=289&C=68f6c3609cfce6bc95ed24b26c15de43
Tell your friends --
to get on my list just send me an email:
alan@gunlaws.com
64th gun case since Miller in 1939
Recognition of individual right to arms could be reversed
by Alan Korwin, Co-Author
Supreme Court Gun Cases
Nov. 20, 2007, Washington, D.C. -- The Supreme Court today decided to
hear the District of Columbia v. Heller civil-rights case, characterized
by many as its first gun case since the Miller case in 1939, a common
error.
The High Court has been ruling on guns and gun rights since 1820, with
31 cases addressing the subject before Miller and 63 cases afterwards
until this one. The widely quoted Miller case concerned two bootleggers
and a sawed-off shotgun. Miller was murdered before his case could be
retried as directed by the Supreme Court, leaving that short,
controversial decision to be interpreted in many ways.
In the Court's 92nd gun case, U.S. v. Bean (2002), it decided that a
man deprived of his right to keep and bear arms, due to a questionable
felony arrest in Mexico, could not sue in federal court to regain those
rights, since the federal bureau in charge of reviewing such gun-rights
cases had failed to act.
The 93rd gun case, Brosseau v. Haugen (2004), asked whether a police
officer shooting an escaping felon in the back was an excessive use of
force. The Court avoided this question, resolving only a side issue of
the officer's immunity from a lawsuit after the shooting. The case
involved a rather wild fracas and an awkward shot at a driver through
the rear driver's side window.
In its 94th such case, Small v. U.S. (2005), the Justices decided that
a felony conviction in a Japanese court, which used procedures far below
American standards, was not sufficient to deprive the defendant of his
right to buy and possess a firearm.
The 95th case, Castle Rock v. Gonzalez (2005), confirmed a
long-standing rule that, even though an armed violent spousal abuser
under a restraining order had repeatedly threatened his estranged wife,
the woman had no grounds to expect police protection. Some claim this is
not a gun case per se, even though the husband shot her three children
to death, before he was shot to death by police. Others have suggested
that, since police have no duty to protect you, the right to self
preservation, and the tools to make it effective, must be inherent under
due process.
Ms. Gonzalez had assistance from civil rights groups and a firm with
1,000 lawyers but still lost the case. Although counterintuitive, police
only have an obligation to society in general, not to specific people.
Justice Scalia, in the 7-2 decision said there is no federal
constitutional right to police protection, which leads some observers to
infer a right to self protection. The Court said states were free to
craft laws to fill the gap, but states have not. It is not the most
clear-cut of the Court's many related cases, but it does firmly
establish police "no duty to protect."
The new case now granted review, District of Columbia v. Heller, is
somewhat different, since the parties are arguing specifically over the
Second Amendment itself, and not the firearms they choose to bear or how
they put them to use. The District of Columbia has, since 1976, denied
its citizens any right to keep and bear an operable firearm even in
their homes. Some credit this law, and the related city bans on
obtaining or carrying a firearm, with forcing its law-abiding,
defenseless citizens to live in one of the murder capitals of the
nation, where only the criminal element (and authorities) are armed.
Discussions of the first 92 cases are compiled in Supreme Court Gun
Cases, published by Bloomfield Press, which for the first time dispelled
the notion that the High Court had been quiet about the subject of guns.
The Court's decisions use some form of the word "gun" (rifle, shotgun,
handgun, firearm, etc.) more than 2,900 times. Fourteen of the cases
deal specifically with using guns in personal self defense.
News outlets, universally calling the Heller case the first gun case in
decades, are merely repeating each other, rather than doing research
that would easily show it's not true. (Going against the tide at this
point might be hard for most news organizations.)
The case could be pivotal however, since the Justices could use it to
effectively overturn gun laws at the state and federal level that
civil-rights advocates have for years claimed infringe on the right to
keep and bear arms. The D.C. law is an extreme example, they say, though
New York City, Chicago and even some entire states have highly
restrictive laws against private possession of arms, which tend to
increase crime rates.
There is also a chance this decision, expected next year with a hearing
as early as March, could set a precedent by finding against an
individual right to keep and bear arms, which is what the mayor of D.C.
and his supporters seek.
That would reverse two centuries of consistent rulings that have
recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms for self defense
and all other lawful purposes.
In private, pro-gun-rights groups and anti-gun-rights groups express
dread at the chance the decision will go against them. A strong, broad
decision in either direction could tear at the fabric of the nation,
leading some observers to expect a carefully crafted and narrow decision
that avoids the most delicate or volatile issues.
Not even the Justices know what they will ultimately decide, but the
case is sure to be closely watched by pro-rights and anti-rights
advocates, and wild speculation is running rampant. People are "counting
votes" based on past decisions and known or supposed preferences. The
ruling is unlikely to close the debate on gun rights, with parties
remaining heavily committed to their own points of view, and the freedom
of the country literally hanging in the balance.
Supreme Court Gun Cases, published in 2003 after six years of research,
is available for news-media review by calling 1-800-707-4020. The
authors are available for interview.
To see the book or purchase one:
http://lists.serverhost.net/link.php?M=665277&N=1271&L=2035
News media fact sheet:
http://lists.serverhost.net/link.php?M=665277&N=1271&L=2036
Summaries of the first 92 cases are #####: http://lists.serverhost.net/link.php?M=665277&N=1271&L=2037
Specifically, the Court agreed to resolve this issue:
"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 cited provisions are: 1 - The ban on handguns not registered before
1976; 2 - the ban on carrying an unlicensed handgun; and 3 - the ban on
keeping an operable firearm at home. The Court didn't address the Parker
case, involving five of the original litigants who seek to join this
case. The Court could add that later, decide it seperately later, or
ignore it. News on that should come out after Thanksgiving. Enjoy your
holiday. We're having brisket.
[Backgrounder: Phoenix-based Bloomfield Press, founded in 1988, is the
largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Our
website, gunlaws.com, features a free national directory to gun laws and
relevant contacts in all states and federally, along with our unique
line of related books and #####s. Gun Laws of America for news-media
review is available on request, call 1-800-707-4020. Our authors are
available for interview, call to schedule. Call for cogent positions on
gun issues, informed #####ysis on proposed laws, talk radio that lights
up the switchboard, fact sheets and position papers. As we always say,
"It doesn't make sense to own a gun and not know the rules."]
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you're reading this in English, thank a veteran.
"No one could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing
because he could do only a little."
--Edmund Burke
http://lists.serverhost.net/unsubscribe.php?M=665277&N=1271&L=289&C=68f6c3609cfce6bc95ed24b26c15de43
Tell your friends --
to get on my list just send me an email:
alan@gunlaws.com