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.
Ultimately, we need a case that challenges Miller
What makes you think that the supremes will hear the case or more importantly find in favor of the individual right?
Because there is no straight face argument to the contrary, if you look at the opinion. If they reversed, it would be on a standing issue, and not the individual right issue.
And the result is mild (guns in the home for DC residents, no criminal plaintiffs to worry about, etc.)
But it will be easy to find an individual right, and it would be a pathetic embarrassment to the dissenters to argue otherwise.
If they don’t hear the case, the ruling stands.
Yes, but only for that district.
Which is the circuit in which the BATFE operates, setting up an easy challenge to the 1986 machine gun ban.
Could be. After all, the collective right argument is that the federal government cannot infringe on the state forming a militia.
Pretty hard to incorporate that -- a state shall not infringe itself to form a militia?
What’s the upside? They vote an individual right and D.C. allows handguns. I’m not sure the USSC would even incorporate.
This decision would only affect the federal government. Unless, the SCOTUS chooses to incorporate the 2nd amendment to apply to the states, then individual states like Illinois are free to do whatever they want regarding gun ownership.
Actually, the rationale the D.C. circuit used to decide the case is premised on incorporation. The court reasoned that the D.C. law should be treated like a state law.
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.
While I grant that finding an individual right would represent little more than our holding the line against a decades-old absurd legal position of the left, this decision held more. It held that a whole class of arms can’t be banned.
THAT is the important precedent of Parker.
And it would help to secure against the trend of hostility toward citizen possession of the most useful military arms.
BTW, there ARE errors in the Parker decision.
“BTW, there ARE errors in the Parker decision.”
Care to elaborate???
I expounded on them on previous threads, but failed to save a link (bookmark).
I will read it again, when time allows.
Sorry for the lame answer.
See 151 - as I recall, there were three glaring errors of fact in the majority decision in Parker, all of which made more restrictions on IRTKBA possible.
I posted all of them, screemed about it, and failed to bookmark it - my bad.
I will research it, and repost.
I think it’s quite one-sided, Lexington.
Not quite. The firearm in US v Miller was a sawed-off, double-barreled, 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches.
The most common military shotguns of World War I – officially known as "Trench guns" – were made by Winchester, Models 97 and 12. Both were chambered for the 2 3/4" 12 gauge shell, had a pump action, 20" barrel, and a five-round tube magazine (a sixth round could be carried in the chamber). They also had a bayonet mount, barrel shroud, and sling swivels.
I’m more pragmatic than that. I’d say whatever I needed to and live to fight another day.
Does the First Amendment only protect certain, exact texts? If so, then no nebulous “freedom of speech” exists - only those exact texts. If it doesn’t, then why do you cite specific aspects of a particular firearm, as if that has anything to do with the RKBA?
Considering the history of you and that line of discussion, may I politely request that if you want to discuss the “Miller vs. Trench Guns” argument, please do so in another thread.
Suffice to say there is reasonable doubt as to whether Miller’s gun was “militia suitable” or not. I’d be happy to link to further discussion thereof when relevant, but don’t want that to derail this thread (as has happened several times before).
Let’s focus on the Parker appeal here.
Thanks Joe,
I’ve been keeping a very close eye on this case and there is a lot of stuff happening that we aren’t seeing. The anti’s are freaking out because the USSC has expressed an interest in a 2nd Amendment case and this is giving it to them on a silver platter.
I also think the USSC knows that after the Kelo case, they better be darned careful about how they deal with this. The gun owners in the country are really not happy right now and it wouldn’t take much for many of them to get another civil war rolling. The USSC knows this and they also know about the abuses of the BATFE (they have copies of “The Gang” published by JPFO 2007) and they know that the pressure cooker is near the fail point.
Combine this with the miserable fact that the Republicans have basically abandoned the core group that gave them Congress in 1994 and you see how the USSC is very likely to not only rule in our favor but will do so to neutralize the 2nd Amendment as a political issue.
I see the USSC deciding broadly, incorporating the 2nd into the 14th and wording the decision as to remove the fire under the pressure cooker. They will not only eliminate the ban in DC but they will broaden the decision to include any ban under the criteria set down by the appelate court.
This case will be the pivot point between salvation of our nation and the next civil war. We can’t really afford a civil war with the world wide political scene and the USSC had damned well take that into account in making this decision.
Also, the political entities should really like this on both sides. It’ll take the 2nd off the political radar and change the fight for control of the Government in Congress and the White House.
A broad decision in our favor will give most sides a lot of what they want. Anything short of that is putting this nation in dire straits.
Mike
A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.
Quick, what does that mean?
This will be very interesting and it would seem that it would be decided 5-4 one way or the other.
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.