The LENGTH of time its taking for a decision on this issue is, in itself, ominous. It should have been a simple thing, based on the intial court hearing.
My guess is the Libs are trying to figure out some way to twist logic and reason and come out in support of Washington D.C. without looking like the total @$$e$ they are.
According to what I’ve read on the subject, the decision has already been made and was probably made within a couple of days of the hearing. The time has since been spent trying to write the opinion out in such a way as to make a very narrow legal statement.
I make fun of the SCOTUS from time to time but theirs is a very tough job. One that I would not want.
I don't think so.
Even liberal legal scholars have come to recognize that the Second Amendment is an individual right. Since the right pre-existed the Second Amendment, the right cannot be diminished by the amendment and will be found to include the right to self defense with arms.
What takes time is to fashion the decision that will serve the people of the United States.
An unnecessarily broad decision won't serve the people best, because the Supreme Court should not be in the business of anticipating litigation. For this reason, there will be an effort to tailor the decision as narrowly as possible while still addressing the question before the Court.
Another thing that doesn't serve the people well would be a decision by an unnecessarily narrow majority. If there is a 7-2 decision, or even a 9-0 decision, that addresses the issue before the Court properly, then that decision should be preferred to 5-4 decision that states more than is necessary to decide the case.
However, once a determination that, say, a 6-3 decision is possible, then there would need to be a discussion of how broad the decision should be. Making the narrowest possible decision wouldn't be the right decision, if a more generic guiding principle can be applied.
In other words, the Court would be justified in announcing a decision which applies to "arms" rather than just "handguns" if the principle that is being applied would apply to all arms. The Court would be justified in announcing a decision which addresses "keep" and "bear" rather than just "keep" if the principle being applied is the same.
If the Court finds that the Second Amendment protects a "fundamental" right, then it would be justified in announcing a decision which is consistent with recognizing such a right, even if that recognition is not required for this particular case.
The reason I state this is because it is not the Court's job to avoid making an important decision that is relevant to the case before it, simply because the case may be decided on some narrower grounds. Avoiding the larger issues simply causes the Court docket to fill with cases that should be decided, correctly, by lower courts.
The problem with the Heller case is that prior Supreme Courts have violated their oaths and permitted District Courts to make decision that are not in concert with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I personally hold all those earlier Courts responsible for the deaths of everyone who died at Waco. There should never have been an opportunity for the BATF to attempt to enforce unConstitutional victimless laws concerning militia-type firearms. Those prior Supreme Courts have just as much responsibility for those deaths as the jack-booted thugs in the BATF.
It remains to be seen whether this Supreme Court will accept its responsibility to prevent future massacres committed in the guise of "reasonable" gun control.