Here we go, folks, and hang on -- it's going to be a wild ride.
IBrp.
Here we go, folks, and hang on -- it's going to be a wild ride.
They need to atone for the eminent domain ruling.
One wonders if the SCOTUS will cop out with a narrow ruling that only applies to DC.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
“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?”
Indeed, the question is rather narrow - without being unfair. This could well establish grounds for "incorporation" and overturning 922(o).
Kindly append “(SCOTUS takes Heller)” to title for clarity.
What's the over/under?
This will be both interesting and historic.
Awesome. Enough of this piecemeal state and local infringement... Let’s bring things to a head and settle it once and for all.
This an interesting way to frame the question. Miller is generally cited by the courts to advance the principle that 2A rights arise when there is “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia” [Lewis v. U.S.]Furthermore, one claim is that even if not in official militia service, the 2A reflects a principle that there is an unorganized militia as well, a possible resource for the state [see esp. U.S. v. Miller] as well as a guard against tyranny.
This militia IOW is not really solely for ‘private’ use by definition. Likewise, even if the arms are used for “private” use (again, a misleading term here), they still are “regulated” by the state in some ways. This is so even if it is not done so as part of a “state regulated militia” as such.
Finally, is “the home” an important aspect here? The dissent in a 1980s 7th Cir. case (Quilici) argued privacy rights are at stake here.
Does the phrasing of the question prejudge the case in any significant fashion?
They probably took the case because of conflicting Circuit Court rulings. Here’s their chance to set the record straight that the 2nd Amendment is indeed what we all know it to be, which is an individual right.
This is ominous. The "question" as formulated represents a poison-pill which can be used as a pretext to destroy the Second Amendment. The conflation of the term "well-regulated militia" with "state-regulated militia" is a dangerous sophistry. The terms are not synonymous.
I think this is bad timing.
Alitto, Scalia, Roberts, Thomas - individual right
Kennedy, Bader-Ginsbugr et al - not an individual right.
The Second Amendment people should be scouring the speeches of the liberal justices to see if they have prejudiced themselves in this case by prior assumptions on the subject.
"Supreme Court radically redefines millions of years of judicial precedent, experts say ruling dangerous, controversial"
Does the Court usually hear a case because they want to uphold a ruling?
Would they want to do it for a rkba ruling?
There are a lot of Democrats who firmly believe in rkba, but they are not Sup Ct justices.
I’m a pessimist. Especially after Kelo.
Here we go.
Soon, we could all be felons.
Buy your plastic pipe before the rush. ;>)
what will be interesting to see is if the ruling also settles the incorporation issue regarding the other “individual rights”
Can you remind us of the probable timeline of events again? THanks.