> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Supreme Court Takes Its 96th Gun Case > Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 22:40:30 -0500 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE > > > Supreme Court Takes Its 96th Gun Case > Supreme Court Takes Its 96th Gun Case > Supreme Court Takes Its 96th Gun Case > > > 64th gun case since Miller in 1939 > 64th gun case since Miller in 1939 > > > > Recognition of individual right to arms could be reversed > > > > by Alan Korwin, Co-Author > Supreme Court Gun Cases > > > Nov. 20, 2007, Washington, D.C. -- The Supreme Court today decided to > hear the District of Columbia v. Heller civil-rights case, characterized > by many as its first gun case since the Miller case in 1939, a common > error. > > > The High Court has been ruling on guns and gun rights since 1820, with > 31 cases addressing the subject before Miller and 63 cases afterwards > until this one. The widely quoted Miller case concerned two bootleggers > and a sawed-off shotgun. Miller was murdered before his case could be > retried as directed by the Supreme Court, leaving that short, > controversial decision to be interpreted in many ways. > > > In the Court's 92nd gun case, U.S. v. Bean (2002), it decided that a > man deprived of his right to keep and bear arms, due to a questionable > felony arrest in Mexico, could not sue in federal court to regain those > rights, since the federal bureau in charge of reviewing such gun-rights > cases had failed to act. > > > The 93rd gun case, Brosseau v. Haugen (2004), asked whether a police > officer shooting an escaping felon in the back was an excessive use of > force. The Court avoided this question, resolving only a side issue of > the officer's immunity from a lawsuit after the shooting. The case > involved a rather wild fracas and an awkward shot at a driver through > the rear driver's side window. > > > In its 94th such case, Small v. U.S. (2005), the Justices decided that > a felony conviction in a Japanese court, which used procedures far below > American standards, was not sufficient to deprive the defendant of his > right to buy and possess a firearm. > > > The 95th case, Castle Rock v. Gonzalez (2005), confirmed a > long-standing rule that, even though an armed violent spousal abuser > under a restraining order had repeatedly threatened his estranged wife, > the woman had no grounds to expect police protection. Some claim this is > not a gun case per se, even though the husband shot her three children > to death, before he was shot to death by police. Others have suggested > that, since police have no duty to protect you, the right to self > preservation, and the tools to make it effective, must be inherent under > due process. > > > Ms. Gonzalez had assistance from civil rights groups and a firm with > 1,000 lawyers but still lost the case. Although counterintuitive, police > only have an obligation to society in general, not to specific people. > Justice Scalia, in the 7-2 decision said there is no federal > constitutional right to police protection, which leads some observers to > infer a right to self protection. The Court said states were free to > craft laws to fill the gap, but states have not. It is not the most > clear-cut of the Court's many related cases, but it does firmly > establish police "no duty to protect." > > > The new case now granted review, District of Columbia v. Heller, is > somewhat different, since the parties are arguing specifically over the > Second Amendment itself, and not the firearms they choose to bear or how > they put them to use. The District of Columbia has, since 1976, denied > its citizens any right to keep and bear an operable firearm even in > their homes. Some credit this law, and the related city bans on > obtaining or carrying a firearm, with forcing its law-abiding, > defenseless citizens to live in one of the murder capitals of the > nation, where only the criminal element (and authorities) are armed. > > > Discussions of the first 92 cases are compiled in Supreme Court Gun > Cases, published by Bloomfield Press, which for the first time dispelled > the notion that the High Court had been quiet about the subject of guns. > The Court's decisions use some form of the word "gun" (rifle, shotgun, > handgun, firearm, etc.) more than 2,900 times. Fourteen of the cases > deal specifically with using guns in personal self defense. > > > News outlets, universally calling the Heller case the first gun case in > decades, are merely repeating each other, rather than doing research > that would easily show it's not true. (Going against the tide at this > point might be hard for most news organizations.) > > > The case could be pivotal however, since the Justices could use it to > effectively overturn gun laws at the state and federal level that > civil-rights advocates have for years claimed infringe on the right to > keep and bear arms. The D.C. law is an extreme example, they say, though > New York City, Chicago and even some entire states have highly > restrictive laws against private possession of arms, which tend to > increase crime rates. > > > There is also a chance this decision, expected next year with a hearing > as early as March, could set a precedent by finding against an > individual right to keep and bear arms, which is what the mayor of D.C. > and his supporters seek. > > > That would reverse two centuries of consistent rulings that have > recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms for self defense > and all other lawful purposes. > > > In private, pro-gun-rights groups and anti-gun-rights groups express > dread at the chance the decision will go against them. A strong, broad > decision in either direction could tear at the fabric of the nation, > leading some observers to expect a carefully crafted and narrow decision > that avoids the most delicate or volatile issues. > > > Not even the Justices know what they will ultimately decide, but the > case is sure to be closely watched by pro-rights and anti-rights > advocates, and wild speculation is running rampant. People are "counting > votes" based on past decisions and known or supposed preferences. The > ruling is unlikely to close the debate on gun rights, with parties > remaining heavily committed to their own points of view, and the freedom > of the country literally hanging in the balance. > > > Supreme Court Gun Cases, published in 2003 after six years of research, > is available for news-media review by calling 1-800-707-4020. The > authors are available for interview. > > > To see the book or purchase one: > http://lists.serverhost.net/link.php?M=665644&N=1271&L=2035 > > News media fact sheet: > http://lists.serverhost.net/link.php?M=665644&N=1271&L=2036 > > Summaries of the first 92 cases are online: > http://lists.serverhost.net/link.php?M=665644&N=1271&L=2037 > > > > > Specifically, the Court agreed to resolve this issue: > > "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 cited provisions are: 1 - The ban on handguns not registered before > 1976; 2 - the ban on carrying an unlicensed handgun; and 3 - the ban on > keeping an operable firearm at home. The Court didn't address the Parker > case, involving five of the original litigants who seek to join this > case. The Court could add that later, decide it seperately later, or > ignore it. News on that should come out after Thanksgiving. Enjoy your > holiday. We're having brisket. > > > > ### > > > > [Backgrounder: Phoenix-based Bloomfield Press, founded in 1988, is the > largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Our > website, gunlaws.com, features a free national directory to gun laws and > relevant contacts in all states and federally, along with our unique > line of related books and DVDs. Gun Laws of America for news-media > review is available on request, call 1-800-707-4020. Our authors are > available for interview, call to schedule. Call for cogent positions on > gun issues, informed analysis on proposed laws, talk radio that lights > up the switchboard, fact sheets and position papers. As we always say, > "It doesn't make sense to own a gun and not know the rules."] > > > > WE'VE MOVED -- JAN. 1, 2007!! > > Alan Korwin > Bloomfield Press > "We publish the gun laws." > 4848 E. Cactus, #505-440 <-- NEW STREET ADDRESS > Scottsdale, AZ 85254 <-- NEW STREET ADDRESS > 602-996-4020 Phone > 602-494-0679 Fax > 1-800-707-4020 Orders > http://lists.serverhost.net/link.php?M=665644&N=1271&L=1385 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Call, write, fax or click for free full-color catalog > > > If you can read this, thank a teacher. > If you're reading this in English, thank a veteran. > > > "No one could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing > because he could do only a little." > --Edmund Burke > > > http://lists.serverhost.net/unsubscribe.php?M=665644&N=1271&L=289&C=78485363c3af7c3fdcd0ba62b5515c5d > > Tell your friends -- > to get on my list just send me an email: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
