Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

DC Gun Case to be considered Nov. 9th
Posted by: mcq on Thursday, October 25, 2007

SCOTUS blog brings us up to date on the status of that case:
The two cases are the city’s appeal — District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290) — challenging a D.C. Circuit Court ruling last March striking down the handgun ban under the Second Amendment, and a cross-petition by five city residents — Parker v. District of Columbia (07-335) — seeking to join in the case to add their own legal complaints about the city gun control law.

Because the two sides have framed the Second Amendment question in different ways in their papers in 07-290, it is conceivable that, should the Court grant review, it might choose to rephrase the issue itself.
I think what most advocates of 2nd Amendment rights are hoping is that the SCOTUS will address the issue, once and for all, of whether the amendment is an individual right or not. The possibility that the court might choose to rephrase the issue itself throws some doubt on that.

SCOTUS blog tells us that the fate of the two cases won't be known until Nov. 13, and if granted, would be heard no earlier than Feb. or Mar.
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

I agree. It is ridiculous that the basic meaning of the Second Amendment has not yet been settled by the Supreme Court.

Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
The court doesn’t like drawing arbitrary lines, even though it has in the past. Obviously, it’s not going to rule an individual right to nuclear weapons. I suspect the meaning will come down to: a) accepting that it is an individual right to bear arms (not just state militias); and b) recognizing the ability of states to regulate how that right can be expressed, so long as the regulation is regional and doesn’t deny the basic principle that people can arm themselves in a way reasonable to assure self-defense and the legitimate pursuit of their affairs (hunting, gun collections, etc.) Such a ruling would not invalidate most existing gun laws, would put an end to efforts for absolute bans and acknowledge that the ’right to bear arms’ does not mean ’the right to any weapon that exists.’
Written By: Scott Erb

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks