Emerson Petitions SCOTUS: Will the Court Take His Case?

On Target: Newsletter of the Wayland (Mass.) Rod & Gub Club ^ | March 23, 2002 | Jean F. Drew

[betty boop]

FYI: Just bringing Emerson "up to date."

[Lurker]

Thanks Betty.

L

[Lurker]

Thanks Betty.

L

[betty boop]

May I please have your interpretation of Article IV, Section 2, paragraph 1? To me, it is the most obscure text in the Constitution. What I'm interested in getting at is, now that citizens in Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana have a federally recognized personal right under the Second Amendment, what, if anything, happens with the citizens of the other 47 if the Supreme Court decides not take Emerson's case? What would be their status under the Second Amendment, going forward? And would that be consonant with Article IV, Section 2, paragraph 1? Thanks, guys -- bb.

[betty boop]

Hello there, Stranger! You're welcome. best, bb.

[NonZeroSum]

That article is incorrect. Kopel is not the Tennessee law professor--Glenn Reynolds is. I don't know which of them they're quoting there, but I suspect that it's Professor Reynolds.

[betty boop]

A Constitutional bump headed your way! best, bb.

[betty boop]

That article is incorrect. Kopel is not the Tennessee law professor--Glenn Reynolds is.

I depended on my source for this -- the Second Amendment Foundation. I apologize if the information is incorrect. best, bb.

[NonZeroSum]

Then you might want to inform them that they have it wrong.

Here, as an example, is a column in NRO from last October by Kopel and Reynolds, in which Kopel is correctly identified as the research director of the Independence Institute, and Reynolds as U of Tennessee law professor.

They are clearly confusing the two, and I'd think they'd want to get it right, since both are firm friends of the Second Amendment.

[sourcery]

Interesting.

I suspect the SCOTUS will take the case. If so, I also expect it will rule 5-4 in favor of the individual right to keep and bear arms, and it will also rule 5-4 in favor of declaring the Federal statute at issue here unconstitutional. The wailing and whining after that happens should be quite entertaining.

[jabonz]

My application for a NYC premice/target pistol permit application was disapproved by 1PP, so yes fellow Freepers, you may be well chatting with the next Dr. Emerson. The only difference is I am an Exterminator. The dam is starting to crack. God Bless America!

[Free the USA]

Check the Bump List folders for articles related to and descriptions of the above topic(s) or for other topics of interest.

[betty boop]

They are clearly confusing the two, and I'd think they'd want to get it right, since both are firm friends of the Second Amendment.

Well, now that we've got that all cleared up, NonZeroSum, would you care at all to comment on the substance of this article, one way or the other? We "firm friends of the Second Amendment" must have better things to do than quibble. Thanks for writing, bb.

[go star go]

I don't believe the SCOTUS wants to intrepret the 2nd Amendment. They will take a pass on this case.

[IronJack]

Emerson was a qualified victory for gun owners, as this article has noted. The Supreme Court would probably break along expected lines if a ruling were handed down today. And I'm not sure Emerson is the best case for a test, since its constitutionality is an ancillary variable, not the heart of the contention.

[VA Advogado]

I don't believe the SCOTUS wants to intrepret the 2nd Amendment. They will take a pass on this case.

I dont want them to until we get 2 more conservatives on the court. A decison on the second amendment is not something to be compromised during deliberation. (See Sandra Day O'Conner re: abortion).

[betty boop]

I suspect the SCOTUS will take the case. If so, I also expect it will rule 5-4 in favor of the individual right to keep and bear arms, and it will also rule 5-4 in favor of declaring the Federal statute at issue here unconstitutional. The wailing and whining after that happens should be quite entertaining.

sourcery, that's my take on this, too. Justice Thomas has clearly signalled his willingness to hear a Second Amendment case (although this is, strictly speaking, a Fifth Amendment case, though it has clear bearing on the Second; so it may not be the "right case"). I think Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justices Scalia, O'Connor, and Ginsberg may be not necessarily averse. Justice Stevens -- a huge Fourteenth Amendment proponent -- will likely be retiring soon, so may want to go out with something "big" to "really remember him by." Justice Kennedy may be on-board. Souter -- God bless him -- would probably write the minority opinion. Breyer would join the minority. :^)

So much for my "handicapping." But this is all pure speculation, isn't it? Still, I'm glad you've seen it the way I did. Thank you so much for writing, sourcery. best, bb.

[betty boop]

Thank you so much for your comments. I wish I'd seen them before I posted #19. Please go take a look at it, and let me have your thoughts? Thanks again, bb.