Potential Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment

[Seamas]

The court case won by people in D.C. over how they have been denied their Second Amendment rights has been appealed to the Supreme Court.  If the Supreme Court decides to not hear the appeal the ruling will stand - in D.C.  I think Chicago also has a ban on handguns so this would set up a contradiction based on one's jurisdiction.  If they do decide to hear it they may rule on whether the Second Amendment is in individual right (like the rest of the Bill of Rights) or something else (contrary to the written record of the founders on this issue).  Or they may just rule on some narrow technicality. 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311276,00.html

[Dreepa]

no matter how they rule... people just need to learn how to read:

Shall not be infringed.  really isn't tough to figure out.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Don't need to be a member of SCROTUS to understand that!

[John Edward Mercier]

The 10th is actually a State's Right amendment, not an individual right.

Until recently most judicial rulings have held the 2nd to be a right under State militia, I think this is one of the few rulings to go the other way.

In either case, the NH Constitution has individual protection embedded. Without them Part 1 Article 10 wouldn't be practically effective.

[penguins4me]

Many/most "judicial rulings" this century have been in direct conflict with the sole source of federal authority, the US Constitution.

Then there's 10 USC 311, which is CURRENT US LAW, as of today, right now.

Pretty damned clear, no matter which angle you pick. Machine guns, RPGs, anti-aircraft missiles - all are a part of a modern fighting forces' arsenal, of which the individual has an unalienable right to keep and bear.

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
    males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
    313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
    declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
    and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
    National Guard.
      (b) The classes of the militia are -
        (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
      and the Naval Militia; and
        (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
      the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
      Naval Militia.

[John Edward Mercier]

That could be a problem...
More than likely the code was entered to dignify selective service and conscription.
The Constitution allows the Congress an Army and Navy... but militia was concieved to be forces of the the various Republics (States).

A ruling by the SCOTUS could have dramatic effects in the US Code.

[KBCraig]

That could be a problem...
More than likely the code was entered to dignify selective service and conscription.

It goes straight back to the Militia Act of 1792. Predates selective service by quite some time. 

[John Edward Mercier]

Well since the SC interpretation can not change the Constitution, if it can't affect the USC then this is really moot. Someone just stood up to the system, worked through the process... and enlightened some bureaucrats.

[Seamas]

Logically maybe.  But a ruling that the right to bear arms is an individual right would be a huge win for those of us who would like everyone in the U.S. to be able to defend themselves without risking going to jail for a long time.

I don't encourage you to open carry in NYC and see how that works out for you.  But since you seem so convinced; go ahead, stand up to the system, work through the process, and let me know how it works out for you.  When they are done with you; perhaps you will have a better idea about if it is moot or not.

Well since the SC interpretation can not change the Constitution, if it can't affect the USC then this is really moot. Someone just stood up to the system, worked through the process... and enlightened some bureaucrats.

[John Edward Mercier]

The reason for it being moot is the possible outcomes.

The SC refuses to review the lower court ruling... individual right stands.
The SC reviews the lower court ruling, and agrees with it... individual right stands.
The SC reviews the lower court ruling, and reverses it... militia restrictions apply... USC limits restrictions.

[mvpel]

Here's the question accepted:

"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?"

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

[KBCraig]

Such a carefully written question is likely to lead to a ruling that is very narrow in scope.

[mvpel]

If we get a fair answer on the meaning of "the people," then it won't be much more work to get a fair answer on the meaning of "infringed."  I'm not too worried, yet.

[Lloyd Danforth]

I think I just heard on the Marconi that scotus shot down the dc law!

[mvpel]

Apparently someone on the Marconi is not well-versed in the operation of the US Supreme Court.