Posted on 03/18/2008 4:06:43 PM PDT by semantic
I would be ecstatic about a 7-2 decision!
The most important part is to neuter the effect of the “militia” misdirection argument, and a 7-2 even narrowly based, could easily be the most important positive USSC ruling of my lifetime.
Ginsberg made comments that almost sounded that she is pondering the possibility of voting on the pro-gun side of this. That is really too much for me to hope for, though, and she talked out the other side of her mouth, too... I can’t recall any even moderately arguable situations that she voted the way I would favor.
| The Weaver stance minimizes your target area but exposes the unprotected area below your armpit. This stance can make shooting while moving difficult. | The Isosceles stance places your body armor between you and the threat and allows for ease of movement. However, it has limited application in fighting, since it exposes such vulnerable targets as the eyes, throat, and groin. |
 |
 |
I’m leaning towards the Weaver stance.
Agreed. The whole argument was based on historical context and construction... the USSC chose the playing field to be one that is extremely unfavorable to the defendants. That really gave me heart -— but still I will wait with trepidation for their decision.
I also believe that they were depending greatly, as they should, on the ruling and written decision of the lower court. Silberman’s argument that was as eloquently written decision as I believe I’ve ever read, and set up the USSC justices’ arguments, made the defendant’s job tougher and minimized the plaintiff’s need to argue their case to perfection. His beautiful lesson in the history of bearing arms in this United States was a godsend for defenders of the right to keep and bear arms. The plaintiffs mostly needed to show up and agree with Silberman. He put a lot of stock in Miller in the portion of his examining arguments that mostly presented the more favorable aspects of DCs case. That the USSC seemed almost to have tossed Miller aside, almost as if it is irrelevant, during their questioning weakened DCs hand, I believe.
Silberman really set up this whole USSC argument. I encourage anybody who has not read it to take a long look at it. One place it can be found right now is here: http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf but it is widely available ... Look for Parker, et.al., vs. District of Columbia ... decision on 9 March 2007.
I just listened to about an hour on CSPAN. Dellinger spoke, then the Solicitor General and finally the lawyer (Duras) for the plaintiff.
I got the impression that Stevens and Ginsburg were “on the fence” or squidgy. I think 9-0 is possible, but it seems that what Roberts was trying to attain was a 7-2. This is my humble non-lawyerly opinion.
I will submit that Roberts framed this nicely over and over again (followed by Alito, magnificently by Scalia and surprisingly by Souter and Kennedy) in terms of “original intent” and Miller.
If Ginsberg joins Thomas in this opinion, the Libs are going to have a massive heart attack.
I think the left almost wants to see ALL gun law overturned in order to drive an Amendment to the Constitution restricting the 2nd.
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.