In the news today (as im sure alot of you have heard) in washington DC the supreme court is ruling on the law with banning handguns in DC, also some would like it to include keeping gunlocks on rifles or in some way having them dissasmebled while in the city. of the protestors one said that guns kill, like larry the cable guy said, if guns kill then i can blame my pencil for my spelling mistakes, this ruling could in my opinion easily be the start of a battle for the right to keep our weapons.

I thought they were just hearing the case today. If they are just hearing it today, it will still be a long time before they issue their ruling and opinions.

Or are they actually publishing their decision today?

They're hearing it today. A ruling probably will not come until the end of this court session.

According to this report, they ruled in our favor! :-)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080318/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns

No, they haven't ruled in favor of the 2nd Amendment, nor against the D.C. handgun ban. They are voicing opinions and questioning some of the challenges brought before them.

A ruling may not be made until after the National elections.

According to this report, they ruled in our favor! :-)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080318/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns


Better read it again. They had a hearing today, and a majority of the judges seemed, by the tone of their questions, to support an individual right to own guns. Doesn't mean a thing. The justices are notorious for playing "Devil's advocate" in open court, and their questions and comments say nothing bout how they'll rule. Likely we won't know until at least June.

My understanding is that the majority have declared that the 2nd admendment does in fact grant an individual right to gun ownership!
However it would also seem that the view taken suggest that the government can dictate what type gun you can have and what condition it must be stored in, which would go against historic openions as explained by the very men who drafted this document those many years ago.
The phrase (Shall not be infringed) simply means messed with! Why the top judges and politicans in this country can't read a sentence and understand it's meaning when written this clearly is below comprehension:mad:

Tonight,FOX news discussed the upcoming case.
They expect a decision around June.
Frank

My understanding is that the majority have declared that the 2nd admendment does in fact grant an individual right to gun ownership!
:mad:


They haven't "declared" a blessed thng until they complete their private deliberations, vote on their decision, and render majority and dissenting opinions. Again, today's proceeding was merely the hearing, full of palaver that may mean nothing at all.

pisgah, I believe this is what I read on yahoo news 3/18/08, wheather it was ( declared and blessed ) or not. Remember don't shoot the messenger!

I've read the transcript of the oral argument and the brief submitted by Gun Owners of America. Seems the questioning by the justices may point to a decision allowing "reasonable" gun regulations, such as needing a license for machine guns or rejecting mentally unstable people from gun ownership. Also, they probably will not address gun regs from other states as the Solicitor General wanted, and they most likely will overrule the total ban of handgun ownership in D.C. But, they will allow D.C. to impose gun lock requirements for loaded guns if D.C. chooses to try to pass new, constitutional laws.

FWIW,IMHO, D.C.'s attorney did not seem convinced of his own argument as the rigorous questioning quickly illustrated. The Solicitor General offered the most polished discussion with the justices which was expected since he argues cases before the justices more frequently than most other lawyers. I didn't feel that the gun owner's lawyer strongly advocated against the anti's statistics and conceded too much on the machine gun issue. He could have pointed out that actual military weapons were not relevant to the total ban on handguns for the self defense issues for the statutes being challenged.

The transcript plainly illustrated the ridiculous position of D.C. on the total ban. Out of one side of its lawyer's mouth, the city said everyone had a right to self defense even with firearms. But, its lawyer responded to questioning by the justices that it was in fact illegal to carry a handgun from one room to another within the same house. Several of the justices simply could not understand how the lawyer could say the city supported a person's right of self defense when the city expected a homeowner to 1.) turn on a bedside light, 2.) put on reading glasses, 3.) manipulate the combination of the gun lock, 4.) load the handgun, and then finally 5.) subdue the threatening person despite the lawyer's statement that he personally successfully completed steps 1-4 in 3 seconds in the daylight (of course without a threat being present also).

The transcript contained much discussion of whether there are 2 rights --one to keep arms and one to bear arms (to me, the most interesting historical discussion in the whole transcript), and whether the opening phrase of the 2A just reaffirmed the right of states, as expressed in 1A, clauses 15 &16 to have a militia not subject to control by the federal government. As was pointed out in the discussion, there was "reasonable" gun control even in the early years of the republic with laws preventing the carrying of firearms (long guns) and pistols in an open market.

This case proves what has been said many times. No one wins when a lawsuit is filed. Neither side ends up happy, and the lawyers get the green.

If my previous post ends up double posted, I apologize. I was too quick with the enter key when data transmission was interrupted.

My attorney friend agrees with Rimrock's assessment. He writes:

"As for the Heller case, I suspect the court will hold that it is an individual right but allow so many restrictions that the distinction between an individual right and a collective right will be almost irrelevant. An individual right subject to "reasonable" regulation as opposed to a fundamental right is a very different standard. The court often defines "reasonable" with what is informally called the "straight face test." That is, if congress can claim with a straight face that the regulation is reasonable then the court will uphold it. A fundamental right is subject to strict scrutiny which would likely overturn most any infringement. I suspect we will end up with the former rather than the latter giving us a nominal victory without most of the spoils. Such a ruling however could pave the way for future litigation."