Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,794
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Essay:Gun Control Case (view source)
Revision as of 23:11, November 20, 2007
, 23:11, November 20, 2007analysis of gun case
This is an analysis of the most significant case of the 2007 [[U.S. Supreme Court]] Term: the gun control case.
== Question Presented ==
The [[U.S. Supreme Court]]'s unusual rewriting of the question in its [[cert. granted]] in the big control case reveals that it is leaning in favor of a governmental power to impose [[gun control]]:
"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 [[conservative]] view is that it is irrelevant whether individuals are affiliated with a state-regulated militia. Putting that in the question shows the liberals already have the upper hand.
== Contrary Opinion ==
Perhaps the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] is merely framing the issue without prejudging
it. The Court will undoubtedly begin with the unanimous (but
notoriously ambiguous) Miller case of 1939.<ref>
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZS.html</ref>
As the Miller case has been interpreted, the [[Second Amendment]] protects
persons who, and/or weapons which, have "some reasonable relationship to
the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."
Therefore, it is already a given that individuals who are affiliated
with a state-regulated militia have [[Second Amendment]] rights. The Court
does not need to revisit that question.
The [[D.C.]] case presents the question whether "individuals who are not
affiliated with any state-regulated militia" also have [[Second Amendment]]
rights. The Court may frame the issue as whether the Miller
case should be extended to cover this new class of persons who are
outside the scope of constitutional protection as described in the
Miller case.
A former clerk for Justice Kennedy predicts he is likely to bridge the left-right divide on gun rights.<ref>
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_11_18-2007_11_24.shtml#1195588501</ref>
== References ==
<references/>
[[category:Essay]]
== Question Presented ==
The [[U.S. Supreme Court]]'s unusual rewriting of the question in its [[cert. granted]] in the big control case reveals that it is leaning in favor of a governmental power to impose [[gun control]]:
"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 [[conservative]] view is that it is irrelevant whether individuals are affiliated with a state-regulated militia. Putting that in the question shows the liberals already have the upper hand.
== Contrary Opinion ==
Perhaps the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] is merely framing the issue without prejudging
it. The Court will undoubtedly begin with the unanimous (but
notoriously ambiguous) Miller case of 1939.<ref>
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZS.html</ref>
As the Miller case has been interpreted, the [[Second Amendment]] protects
persons who, and/or weapons which, have "some reasonable relationship to
the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."
Therefore, it is already a given that individuals who are affiliated
with a state-regulated militia have [[Second Amendment]] rights. The Court
does not need to revisit that question.
The [[D.C.]] case presents the question whether "individuals who are not
affiliated with any state-regulated militia" also have [[Second Amendment]]
rights. The Court may frame the issue as whether the Miller
case should be extended to cover this new class of persons who are
outside the scope of constitutional protection as described in the
Miller case.
A former clerk for Justice Kennedy predicts he is likely to bridge the left-right divide on gun rights.<ref>
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_11_18-2007_11_24.shtml#1195588501</ref>
== References ==
<references/>
[[category:Essay]]