Posted on 05/08/2007 10:05:16 AM PDT by ozoneliar
BTTT, so to speak.
Be Ever Vigilant!
And from what I understand some of those cases involved convicted felons who claimed their gun rights were being denied.
But, doesn’t the Supreme Court need to hear the case to overturn the precedent set in a 1930s era case that individuals do not have an absolute right to have a firearm?
The Miller case doesn’t say any such thing. That’s gun prohibitionist spin.
My honest (and wishful) thinking is that it is 90% upheld, in a 7-2 vote. The real risk is that some obscure issue of standing lets them overrule without upholding the notion that you can’t deny people a whole class of arms.
Another I remember about DC cops, at least back in the 70’s, is that DC cops had to live in DC. Consequently they tended to be the beneficiaries of an education at the hands of the DC school system. This resulted in poorly run investigations and illegible poorly written reports. Prosecutors had to dismiss cases quite a number of cases due to basic poor police work
Which is why I believe Parker CAN be used to overturn the 1986 Machine Gun Ban, but not the NFA of 1934.
And keep in mind that it will be VERY easy for SCOTUS to reconcile the circuits by saying that the total ban of an entire class of arms is unconstitutional per Parker, while the seemingly conflicting holdings in other circuits (upholding certain restrictions on guns) may stand, without the needless and constitutionally incorrect “collective right” position.
“Let’s get Parkerized!”
It like they ruled “we can’t sail around the world because we don’t have a boat, we don’t know how to sail, and because the world is flat.” SCOTUS can come in and rule that the world is round without disrupting the original holding that they can’t sail around the world.
And I will admit that the 5th circuit ruling on Emerson includes similar “individual right” dicta that was not needed for their holding.
Yes, that's what I like about Parker - only normal, law-abiding citizens were plaintiffs. This removes this source of prejudice or concern that a judge/Justice might have for allowing the citizen win.
shot down in flames baby!
Silverira v Lockyer? Wasn't that in the opinion?
"Because the Second Amendment affords only a collective right to own or possess guns or other firearms, the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' Second Amendment claims is AFFIRMED. . . . The constitutional challenges to the validity of the California Assault Weapons Control Act are all rejected, with the exception of the claim relating to the retired officers provision.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED."
I believe similar opinions were rendered in Fresno Rifle & Pistol Club v. Van de Kamp, 965 F. 2d 723 (9th Cir. 1992); Hickman v. Block, 81 F. 3d 998 (9th Cir. 1996), cert denied, 519 U. S. 912 (1996); San Diego County Gun Rights Committee v. Reno, 98 F. 3d 11121 (9th Cir. 1996); and United States v. Mack, 164 F.3d 467, 474 (9th Cir. 1999).
That's just the 9th Circuit, and that was just a quick search.
The government presented that argument (among others), but it was never addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court. I don't understand what you mean by "FAILED".
Sorry, I made two mistakes.
First, I didn’t realize I was replying to you. I try not to encourage your annoyances.
Second, you are right, and did find the rare case on point. Yes, this opinion may be overturned, if Parker is held to apply to the states.
Good job on the search. I’m curious... do you agree with the 9th Circuit?
Well ... not quite.
No evidence whatever had been presented regarding the usefulness of the weapon. The remand to the lower court was in order to determine that.
But the lower court was not instructed to consider Miller's membership in a Militia. If the lower court had found that short-barreled shotguns are useful to a Militia, then Miller would have had an individual right to possess that weapon and would have been acquitted. Such an acquittal could not be appealed by the prosecution due to double jeopardy protection for Miller.
Judges dislike this practice intensely. There are many cases of judges virtually taking over the direction of government agencies which refuse to respect the court's decisions.
One long-standing case I believe involves voting procedures in one or more southern states. Another involves a large city's fire department's hiring practices.
Imagine the DC Circuit Court enjoining the DC Police Department from charging ANY gun crimes and enjoining the DC prosecutors from prosecuting any such crimes, subject to criminal contempt citations from the Court for violating the Court's orders. Given acquiesence from the higher courts, each individual court has incredible power within their jurisdiction.
Agreed, but they may think that that is preferable to losing most of the gun controls that the left has snuck in over the last 100 years.
And it would take *years* to get through the court systems.
You are certainly correct that the decision only specifically ruled those infringements unConstitutional. But the scope of their ruling permits lower courts to similarly find other aspects of DC's laws unConstitutional.
The lower courts are not expected to ignore what the DC Circuit Court's decision means when applied to other laws. There would be no way for a lower court to find that the right to "keep and bear" is limited to only what happens inside a person's home, for example.
This is the reason that the Court publishes a detailed opinion. There are sometimes cases, I believe, where the Court issues a decision but no opinion. This can happen in cases where there is something very peculiar about a case which allows them to render a decision, but where there is thought to be no applicability to other cases.
Wow!
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.