Posted on 11/20/2007 10:12:34 AM PST by Pyro7480
Breaking on MSNBC... Supreme Court to take up DC gun ban case
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.com ...
When the balloon goes up?
Billybob,
I hope you don’t mind if I ping you to this thread. Being FR’s resident constitutional lawyer (and future congressman), I and others would like your take on this.
I am expecting a mixed victory out of this. I expect that they will find the 2A was intended to be an individual right, but that local jurisdictions can impose “reasonable restrictions”.
“A while. Arguments in March, probably, with no decision until June.”
************
Oh. :( Maybe enough time for a 3rd party talk then.
I am afraid you are right. It may not be now, but it will be soon.
Personally, I give it a 5 percent chance. In 20 years, I would say 20 percent chance.
I think the lefty justices granted certiorari because they had nothing to lose by taking it.
Also this case is unusual in that BOTH sides of the issue wanted the USSC to hear it. I’m not sure why the pro-2nd side wanted it heard, but it suggests confidence that a wider, favorable ruling could be obtained.
Aw crap, I know now.
=/
The four conservatives are very likely to vote for an individual right. They are all more-or-less originalists and the historic record of the original meaning of the 2nd is very strong (even convincing lefties like Alan Dershowitz).
The four lefties are certain to vote against an individual right because, well, they are lefties and they don't care what the constitution says or means. They just do what they think is right and any well-indoctrinated leftie thinks guns are only for folks who have badges.
Kennedy, who knows? I'm very uncomfortable hanging the second amendment on such a weak reed.
The one hopeful sign here is that the issue posed by the court is very narrow--it is phrased to deal with just the individual vs collective issue for private use in the home in Washington DC. This means the supremes are not ready to bite off, for example, concealed carry. It also means that the conservatives probably crafted the issue to be narrow because they thought Kennedy was going to have a hard time with the "guns on the street" problem.
It's also a very narrow issue posed in that DC is Federal Jurisdiction. So the judges don't have to decide if the second amendment applies to the States.
The narrowness of the definition of the issue has Robert's footprints all over it. That is the one good indicator I can see.
If we win this case, we still have a long way to go--concealed carry, does the second amemdment apply to the states, etc? If we lose, it's a complete and total loss--there is no second amendment left because the individual/collective issue will have been decided against us and a collective right is meaningless.
There is no practical way for a single Supreme Court decision to fully define the limits of the right.
But ANY modification of the DC laws whatever is only consistent with an individual right. The court WILL address the DC law sufficiently to provide guidance to DC as to what part, if any, of their existing ban is permitted.
It's hard for me to imagine how the Supreme Court could speak to the ban without also speaking to the requirement for registration, since the ban has been implemented as a refusal to register.
Nobody is required to register books or newspapers. I don't see where the limits of an individual right could include detailed records on the gun ownership of every citizen in the US.
If, in addition to outlawing general firearm registration schemes by the federal government, the Supreme Court also uses the word "fundamental" to describe the protected right, then many state laws will be teetering. After a lifetime of increasing infringements, I hope to see a forceful re-establishment of the right to keep and bear arms as it existed for the first century and a half of the Republic.
Can you mention the probable timeline of events again? Thanks.
I love that, thanks!
Keep your powder dry, boys.
I'm thinking that maybe a few people in the government are looking at a Hiullary President and are terrified. And now they want the Second Amendment ruling as insurance against a Stalinette.
Actually, we should fear the government that doesn't fear our guns, and is confident and cocky enough to try to take them away.
This is an open comm channel. COMSEC
I don’t recall where but last week I was reading about the idea of *double springing* magazines used in semi auto or full auto weapons. Yes, putting two springs in a magazine especially if the weapon tends to jam as the magazine empties. That will help guarantee that the cartridges are going to be at the top of the mag when needed.
Makes sense to me.
Radio Free America Announcer: It’s 11:59 on Radio Free America; this is Uncle Sam, with music, and the truth until dawn. Right now I’ve got a few words for some of our brothers and sisters in the occupied zone: “the chair is against the wall, the chair is against the wall”, “john has a long mustache, john has a long mustache”. It’s twelve o’clock, American, another day closer to victory. And for all of you out there, on, or behind the line, this is your song.
[the Battle Hymn of the Republic begins to play] (/Red Dawn)
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.