[SmithL]

Let's pretend that I'm starting to understand this stuff.

Until SCOTUS actually takes up these cases, this ruling only applies to the DC area. And the Texas ruling would only apply in that Circuit area. And those of us in California are still stuck with the 9th Circus ruling.

Did I get it right?

[ctdonath2]

Did I get it right?

Yes. Court cases only apply within their jurisdictions - not beyond.

That the two cases result in different RKBA results from the rest of the country creates an "equal protection" problem which only SCOTUS can resolve (and will likely find the narrowest possible, and thus very unpalatable, solution to).

[Atlas Sneezed]

Until SCOTUS actually takes up these cases, this ruling only applies to the DC area.

---

All this does is overturn the DC law. No effect anywhere else on other laws.

But there is likely to be granted a "stay" inevitably requested by the DC government goons, pending the inevitable appeal.

That means that even though a court has ruled otherwise, DC cops will toss people in jail for having handguns in their homes, and DC courts will happily sentence them to prison.

[Congressman Billybob]

You got it precisely right. That's why the SC should have taken the Emerson case a year ago, to eliminate the conflict among the Circuit Courts. It didn't, and the conflict will stay there until the SC takes a case and settles the issue.

I would hope that either Justice Ginsburg or Justice Stevens are gone and replaced by a new Bush appointee before that happens. Right now, I worry about the outcome of that SC case if Justice Kennedy is the "swing" vote. If Bush makes a new appointment -- confirmed by the Senate or as a recess appointment -- in the mold of Alito and Roberts, I would not worry about the outcome of that case.

John / Billybob

[El Gato]

Until SCOTUS actually takes up these cases, this ruling only applies to the DC area. And the Texas ruling would only apply in that Circuit area. And those of us in California are still stuck with the 9th Circus ruling.

You got it. The 5th Circuit ruling may, may that is, have only been dicta, not necessary to reach the result the court applied. They ruled against Emerson, who was in violation of the "domestic violence misdemeanor gun ban. They did rule the second protects an individual right, but that the Lautenberg amendment did not violate that right. Personally I think they were setting up a situation where the Supreme Court would hear the appeal, due to differences among the circuits, but in the end the SC did not hear the appeal, instead refusing to hear the appeal.

Now we have a clear difference, with no question of dicta, between the circuits, which should induce the Supremes to take on the case.