NRA-ILA Grassroots Alert

[normsutton]

Supreme Court Hears Arguments in D.C. Gun Ban Case
Fairfax, Va.-Today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller, a case the Court has stated is "limited to the following question: Whether Washington, D.C.'s bans [on handguns, on having guns in operable condition in the home and on carrying guns within the home] 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 case came before the Supreme Court on appeal by the District of Columbia, after a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declared the city's gun bans unconstitutional. The panel's decision was upheld by the full Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals decision--consistent with the views of the Framers of the Bill of Rights, respected legal commentators of the 19th century, the Supreme Court's ruling in U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), numerous court decisions of the 19th century, the Supreme Court's ruling in U.S. v. Miller (1939), the position of the U.S. Department of Justice, and the vast majority of Second Amendment scholars today-concluded that "the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)."

In today's argument, the Justices aggressively questioned advocates for all sides, including Walter Dellinger for the District, Solicitor General Paul Clement for the Department of Justice, and Alan Gura for the plaintiffs challenging D.C.'s law.

While it would be a mistake to predict the outcome of a case from questions at oral argument, some justices' questions clearly suggested where they stand-as when Chief Justice John Roberts, questioning the District's Dellinger, scoffed at the idea that a citizen awakened by an intruder in the middle of the night could "turn on the lamp . pick up [his] reading glasses," and disengage a trigger lock. Dellinger back-pedaled from D.C.'s longstanding position that its laws prohibit self-defense, claiming that D.C. actually supports citizens having functional firearms for defense.

Justices extensively questioned all three attorneys on the meaning and effect of the Second Amendment's "militia clause," with Dellinger taking the extreme position that unless a state "had attributes of [a state] militia contrary to a Federal law," the Second Amendment would have no effect as a restraint on legislation. Several justices seemed to disagree strongly with that view, with Justice Antonin Scalia noting that even if the militia clause describes the purpose of the Second Amendment, it's not unusual for a law to be written more broadly than necessary for its main purpose.

Justice Anthony Kennedy questioned the attorneys very actively, especially on the importance of self-defense in the Founding era. Justice Kennedy suggested that even the Supreme Court's 1939 Miller decision-which gun control advocates have often wrongly cited as protecting only a "collective" right-was "deficient" and may not have addressed the "interests that must have been foremost in the Framers' minds when they were concerned about guns being taken away from the people who needed them for their defense."

Plaintiffs' attorney Gura-in addition to responding to many hypothetical questions-noted that the Second Amendment was clearly derived from common law rights described by Blackstone and other 18th Century commentators. Although the militia clause "gives us some guide post as to how we look at the Second Amendment," Gura said, "it's not the exclusive purpose of the Second Amendment."

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox (who both attended the arguments) commented, "Washington, D.C.'s ban on keeping handguns and functional firearms in the home for self-defense is unreasonable and unconstitutional under any standard. We remain hopeful that the Supreme Court will agree with the overwhelming majority of the American people, more than 300 members of Congress, 31 state attorneys general and the NRA that the Second Amendment protects the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms, and that Washington, D.C.'s bans on handguns and functional firearms in the home for self-defense should be struck down."

Amicus briefs filed with the Supreme Court in support of the Court of Appeals' decision included those by the National Rifle Association and the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund; Vice-President Dick Cheney (in his capacity as President of the Senate) and Members of Congress; the state attorneys general; and noted Second Amendment scholars. All the briefs in the case are available at www.nraila.org/heller.


View the transcript (PDF format)

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_argu ... 07-290.pdf

[normsutton]

Minute Video: To view this week's "Grassroots Minute" video,

copy and paste

mms://media.streamtoyou.com/nra/2008/ilamin040408.wmv.

[normsutton]

Governor Charlie Crist Signs House Bill 503



Florida Governor Charlie Crist today signed important National Rifle Association (NRA)–backed legislation into law that will protect the existing rights of law-abiding gun owners. House Bill 503 preserves the self-defense rights of law-abiding men and women as they travel in their cars to and from their daily activities.



“Customers and workers should not have to choose between protecting themselves or following the political policies of an anti-gun business,” said NRA Past President Marion P. Hammer. “The right to protect oneself must be maintained no matter where you park your car.”



This legislation protects the rights of gun owners to possess a firearm in any private motor vehicle in a parking lot, and prevents businesses from searching private vehicles of customers or employees.



“This is a great day for the people of the state of Florida,” concluded Hammer. “Their right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and other lawful purposes has been restored.”

[manicmechanic]

We need this up here in MI Norm!!

[normsutton]

Outrage of the Week

Friday, May 30, 2008

Outrage Of The Week



This week’s outrage comes to us from Winchendon, Massachusetts where, in yet another case of “zero-tolerance” enforcement defying common sense, fourth-grader Bradley Geslak was suspended from Toy Town Elementary School for bringing a Memorial Day souvenir to school.



According to a May 29, Telegram.com article, a uniformed veteran gave the 10-year-old two empty rifle shell casings from blanks used during the town’s Memorial Day celebration Monday morning. Bradley gave one of the empty casings to his grandfather and kept the other as a souvenir. The trouble began when he took his souvenir to school the next day.



“He was just playing with it at lunch,” explained Crystal Geslak, Bradley’s mother. “He wasn't showing it to anyone; he had it in his hand and was playing with it.”



A teacher saw him with the harmless piece of brass and confiscated it. Ms. Geslak was then called at work and told to come and pick up her son, who had been suspended for five days!



Ms. Geslak arrived at the school to find her son in tears. “I was totally shocked. I couldn’t believe this was happening,” she said. “It was just an empty shell, not even from a real bullet. A sharpened pencil would be more dangerous than this piece of metal.”



“He was so proud to have been given them. His dad’s a veteran, his uncle’s a veteran, both his grandfathers are veterans. Memorial Day is a big thing to us. It’s a very important holiday and we have a big celebration every year,” Ms. Geslak said.



Ms. Geslak, who will be forced to miss work in order to stay home with her son, says she is worried about what having a “weapon-related suspension” on his school record will mean to his future.



To add insult to injury, the family says a school official told them that the shell would not be returned, and that the next step might involve assigning a probation officer to Bradley! Yes, you read that right, a probation officer.



A young boy punished over a harmless souvenir. By any standard, that’s outrageous.



If you’d like to express your concern over this incident, please visit http://www.winchendon.mec.edu/. To leave a voice message for Brooke Clenchy, Superintendent of Schools, please call 978-297-0031.



If you see something that you feel would be a good candidate for the “Outrage of the Week!” section, please send it to: freedomsvoice@nrahq.org. Please be sure to send additional background and citations where available.

[garry]

I have 7 grandchildren. I have pondered just how far they could take it if one of them were to take some of my reloading stuff to school. I explained to them what will happen if they take even a fragment of a spent bullet to school. The Anti-Gun people would come Kill us with Stupidity! That just confirms what I had imagined would happen. G