Posted on 07/16/2007 8:03:08 AM PDT by ctdonath2
Local government officials in Washington, D.C., decided on Monday to appeal to the Supreme Court in a major test case on the meaning of the Second Amendment. The key issue in the coming petition will be whether the Amendment protects an individual right to have guns in one's home.
Unless there is an inconsistent decision in another Circuit, the USSC may not take this case. If the D.C. Circuit got it right, there is no need to take it.
I would not want to be working for the Federal tyrant, if the wrong decision is handed down. The only question is "Who will shoot first?"
Unfortunately, that's our cake they're eating; the paultry crumbs we get don't even have sufficient flavor anymore.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
The evils are becoming insufferable.
Recognizing RKBA as individual is crucial - and hopefully unavoidable.
With Kennedy the court’s swing liberal, this is setting-up for a 5-4 defeat of the Second Amendment.
The firearm in question was a sawed off shotgun, also known as a "trench gun" in the military.
A proper defense was never presented.
The pro-RKBA judges will have nothing substantive (but weight) to contribute to the case, and actually have no reason to grant cert because, strictly speaking, they have nothing to add.
The anti-RKBA judges are actually the ones more likely to grant cert precisely because they don't like the current verdict.
Fenty had to appeal.
I predict SCOTUS will not accept the case. Really, they have nothing to add.
If they want to make it illegal to defend ones life, that’s when silencers will come into common usage.
A robber breaks in, pfft, pfft, (double tap) one robber down, quietly get the shovel and dispose of the corpse. Being sure to plant ivy or some nice flowers to explain the freshly overturned soil.
I believe you are correct. Since DC comes under the control of Fedral legislation and is not considered a state, it is possible to repeal this law without making any comment on the individual right issue for the rest of the country.
If the SCOTUS chooses not to hear the case, would that not then leave their prior ruling on the Parker case (from earlier this year) as-is -- leaving the D.C. gun-grabbers up the creek without a paddle? Am I correct in that understanding?
If so, it seems like this could be a win-win situation, or win-draw at worst:
Win-win: SCOTUS doesn't hear case, prior ruling stands; SCOTUS hears case, rules that 2nd Amendment means individual rights.
Win-draw: same as above, except SCOTUS does not expand on, or go any further than, the original opinion in the Parker decision. No great victory for gun rights, but nor does it make things any worse.
Win-lose seems unlikely, based on the incredibly well-written, well-founded, and well-principled opinion rendered in the Parker case (which should be required reading for all Americans).
They may have to incorporate. The reason is, the 9th and 6th circuit courts have stated that the 2nd is a collective right while the 5th, 4th and now DC have declared it an individual right. To justify the ruling, the lower court explicitly stated that RKBA is an individual right which suggests that the USSC will most likely uphold it as such and get rid of this headache.
The upside is also more far reaching than just the DC gun ban. We’ll be able to eliminate every gun ban in the nation with a good ruling. Gun control is in the ER and the life support is failing on it.
Mike
Yes
Win-lose seems unlikely, based on the incredibly well-written, well-founded, and well-principled opinion rendered in the Parker case (which should be required reading for all Americans).
Remember this is the same court that handed down the Kelo decision, so no matter how logical it looks to us, the supremes have been in the past supremely capricious and over the last 60 years or so have sided against the individual in favor of the state about 8 to 1 (or so I remember reading - don't have a reference for it)
I’m not as optimistic as you are, Mike, but I sure like the way you wrote that! Let’s all keep up the hard work (letters to editor, phone calls, e-mails, contribute to GOA/2AF/NRA/etc.) to bring back justice re: 2nd Amendment.
Fair enough. But doesn't it seem unlikely that the same court would backtrack from an opinion rendered just a few months ago?
If one or more members had changed in the interim, I'd agree 100%. But I think rendering a different opinion -- with the same members and so soon after the previous ruling -- would simply make them look foolish, both in public and amongst themselves....
One would hope. Keeping fingers crossed
Bookmark.
BTW, there ARE errors in the Parker decision.
In Silveira v. Lockyer (2002), the Supreme Court denied review and let stand a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that there is no individual right under the Second Amendment to possess firearms. This ruling conflicted with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit's ruling in United States v. Emerson (2001).
Before that, I don't know. The U.S. Supreme Court did not grant certiorari in Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove (1982), letting stand the decision of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that "possession of handguns by individuals is not part of the right to keep and bear arms."
The wrong decision in this case would start a civil war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.