[from occupied ga]

Woo-hoo! It’s about time that we get this issue resolved.

What makes you think that the supremes will hear the case or more importantly find in favor of the individual right?

[7thson]

If they don’t hear the case, the ruling stands.

[Mariebl]

Woo-hoo! It’s about time that we get this issue resolved.

What makes you think that the supremes will hear the case or more importantly find in favor of the individual right?

I think that it's extremely logical that they'll hear the case, since it's an important constitutional issue that, at the moment, has a split in the lower court rulings--the DC court having ruled one way, and other courts of approximately equal status having ruled the other way.

That they'll find in favor of the individual right? I don't think any of us have a good enough crystal ball for that, but I think it'd be cowardly not to try. It's the best court we've had in a long time.

Note that a court ruling against the Second Amendment would not be nearly as disastrous as some of the posters here imply. Basically, it'd be a ruling for the unfortunate status quo--that whether or not people own guns, and what sort of guns they can own is left up to individual states, cities, and communities. What's been keeping those states, cities, and communities from grabbing guns hasn't been fear of the Second Amendment, it's been fear of being voted out of office. That won't change.

So, as I see it, it's a gamble, where a win wins big, and a loss gives us a hard slap in the face but doesn't change anything to speak of. That's worth trying.

[robertpaulsen]

In my opinion, this is not good.

What's the upside? They vote an individual right and D.C. allows handguns. I'm not sure the USSC would even incorporate.

We know the downside.

[NewJerseyJoe]

> What makes you think that the supremes will hear the case or more importantly find in favor of the individual right?

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).

[Atlas Sneezed]

What makes you think that the supremes will hear the case or more importantly find in favor of the individual right?

---

They’ll hear it because it is

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.