By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press WriterSun Nov 11, 12:03 PM ET
[/align][/align]Supreme Court justices have track records that make predicting their rulings on many topics more than a mere guess. Then there is the issue of the Second Amendment and guns, about which the court has said virtually nothing in nearly 70 years.
That could change in the next few months.
The justices are facing a decision about whether to hear an appeal from city officials in Washington, D.C., wanting to keep the capital's 31-year ban on handguns. A lower court struck down the ban as a violation of the Second Amendment rights of gun ownership.
The prospect that the high court might define gun rights under the Constitution is making people on both sides of the issue nervous.
"I wouldn't be confident on either side," said Mark Tushnet, a Harvard Law School professor and author of a new book on the battle over guns in the United States.
The court could announce as early as Tuesday whether it will hear the case.
The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or instead spells out the collective right of states to maintain militias. The former interpretation would permit fewer restrictions on gun ownership.
The Second Amendment reads: "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."
The federal appeals court for the District of Columbia was the first federal panel to strike down a gun-control law based on individual rights. The court ruled in favor of Dick Anthony Heller, an armed security guard whose application to keep a handgun at home was denied by the district.
Most other U.S. courts have said the Second Amendment does not contain a right to have a gun for purely private purposes.
Chicago has a similar handgun ban, but few other gun-control laws are as strict as the district's.
Four states "” Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New York "” are urging the Supreme Court to take the case because broad application of the appeals court ruling would threaten "all federal and state laws restricting access to firearms."
The district said its law, passed in 1976, was enacted by local elected officials who believed it was a sensible way to save lives. The law also requires residents to keep shotguns and rifles unloaded and disassembled or fitted with trigger locks.
The city's appeal asks the court to look only at the handgun ban because local law allows possession of other firearms.
Critics say the law has done little to curb violence, mainly because guns obtained legally from the district or through illegal means still are readily available.
Although the city's homicide rate has declined dramatically since peaking in the early 1990s, it ranks among the nation's highest, with 169 killings in 2006.
Heller said Washington remains a dangerous place to live. "People need not stand by and die," he said in court papers.
He said the Second Amendment gives him the right to keep working guns, including handguns, in his home for his own protection.
The last time the court examined the meaning of the Second Amendment was in a 1939 case in which two men claimed the amendment gave them the right to have sawed-off shotguns. A unanimous court ruled against them.
Gun control advocates say the 1939 decision in U.S. v. Miller settled the issue in favor of a collective right. Gun rights proponents say the decision has been misconstrued.
Chief Justice John Roberts has said the question has not been resolved by the Supreme Court. The 1939 decision "sidestepped" the issue of whether the Second Amendment right is individual or collective, Roberts said at his confirmation hearing in 2005.
"That's still very much an open issue," Roberts said.
Both the district government and Heller want the high court to take the case. The split among the appeals courts and the importance of the issue make it likely that the justices will do so, Tushnet said.
The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.
[/align][/align][/align][/align]
__________________
You're only one post away from a federal watch list.
Very interesting. It has always been interesting to me why the supreme court has ducked 2nd amendment cases over the years, but then again I probably know why. I don't know if the NRA and people who swear by the 2nd amendment really want to hear what the supreme court thinks about it. They may be in for a surprise. I'm sure all the justices will have their own take on what the amendment actually might mean, but I am sure most of the interpretations won't be anywhere near the absolute right to gun ownership that the NRA type think they have. Maybe it can be settled once and for all here, but don't be surprised if the verdict hurts gun ownership in general more than it helps!
If the supreme court takes an intellectually honest constitutional approach to the ammendmant, they most certainly will find in favor of absolute gun rights for citizens. There is much supporting literature available from the framers of the ammendment, and what their objectives were.
It's kind of scary. But I do feel a lot better knowing that the last two members of the court were apponted by George Bush and notwhoever that was who ran against him.
__________________
Proud parents of our own "Daddy's Little Girls"
I heard Jesus He drank wine and I bet we'd get along just fine.
Don't forget there are some very liberal judges on the high court also. The only ones I can definitely see being totally on the 2nd amendment side is Scalia and Thomas. I somehow don't think Roberts will see it as an absolute right for people to own just any firearm they want under all circumstances. The NRA doesn't even want this to get to the supreme court. No surprise there. It would take the air out of their big money balloon if the court ruled something other than how they think the 2nd amendment should be interpreted. They are just another American lobby who thrives on issues that can never be totally resolved. Any ruling other than their NRA's interpretation by the high court would surely be a kick in the groin to them, however.
Supreme Court may take gun case.
They'll throw you in prison for forgetting you had a box of ammo in your trunk...
