I'm thinking that if Kelo didn't break the camel's back, then maybe this will. My hubby is a member of the NRA and I imagine this could get things really stirred up. Would love to see the reaction of the inmates of DC after the court bollucks this one up. (or not!)
OT: how is Bonita working out? You never have told us about your trip to the airport to retrieve her.
Bonita is everything I expected and much much more.
maybe I'll get a chance to post on her later.
The NRA must be salivating about this - lots of PR to rile everyone up and get lots of $$$ out of them
no question Invid
the court specificly stated that the men COULD own machine guns... and tanks... and air craft carriers... and cruise missiles.
I really need an A-10 to do some serious elephant "hunting". Or caribou "hunting". That would be awesome.
I'd also settle for a couple of .50 cal turrets to kill anyone who tries to swim across my moat.
That is, once I build a moat...
This one is a real cliff-hanger. There's no strong indication either way on the court's leaning.
Thomas and Scalia - for individual rights.
Souter, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer - against individual rights.
Alito and Stevens - unknown, but leaning towards individual rights.
Roberts could be the tiebreaker, and so far he seems pro-gun. This assumes, of course, that they take the case. If they don't take the case, this is Excellent news! That means the ruling stands, and that's a major victory for gun rights.
I would rather them no take it... but I admit... if they took it.. and upheld the ruling... many.. MANY federal laws would be struck down.
MANY federal laws would be struck down.
That's the problem. Stevens, and possibly Alito, have indicated that they'd rather not invent new laws, but uphold precedent and let Congress handle the actual changing of laws. A laudable sentiment, I wish every judge had that view, but it's not the world we live in - we have hundreds of bad laws on the books. The court has to realize that they created this mess, and get busy cleaning it up and thus force congress to either change the laws or modify the Constitution. We can't keep kicking this can down the road forever.
By the way... Any comments on this story?
http://www.energytribune.com/art...les.cfm?
aid=678
I can't believe it took so damn long for someone to challenge these stupid gun laws in court. What a bunch of pussies.
Josh,
The last two guys that took these gun laws to court lost everything they had and spent years in jail. See Miller for details.
"MANY federal laws would be struck down."
I kind of doubt it. I could see them taking it, striking down the ban, and then defining the 2A protections so narrowly that only laws exactly like the DC handgun ban would be struck down.
At the end of the day, my prediction is that almost nothing of any consequence will change for most of us - however it comes out.
"MANY federal laws would be struck down."
I'd love to see that also, but I doubt it as well.
This is not a lame attempt at getting ya'll to visit my blog, but I posted something last week about stare decisis, and I think Roberts has at least hinted that he thinks Roe vs. Wade should be left alone because of stare decisis. I can see him doing the same in this case.
If he believes that many federal laws would be overturned he may well overturn the ruling to uphold stare decisis.
Again, I hope I'm wrong.
The entire debate seems odd.
Isn't the entire Bill of Rights about the rights of the people and restrictions on the power of the Gov over the people?
Isn't the entire Bill of Rights about the rights of the people
The Constitution, and Bill of Rights, are just pieces of paper. They don't mean a thing, and never have. It probably would have been better if the Bill of Rights had never been written. The only way to ensure that your rights are protected is to elect people that respect your rights, firearms come into play well after rights have been violated.
Oh dear.
Watching this one closely.
What the 'justices' (ahem) would probably LIKE is a screwball interpretation that doesn't change the status quo or require the repeal of many (or any) federal or state laws.
The way I understand this case, though, is that there ain't much of a penumbra to scurry and hide in. Its make or break, yes or no type stuff.
If it goes against gun ownership, it will be a tradegy on the scale of (or bigger than) Roe v. Wade...and will stir similar 'movements'.
I don't think the LQ planned on this coming down the pike during her campaign. It definitely something she doesn't want to take a position on prior to the election.
Let's say the SC goes against the clear 'individual' interpretation...with Roberts and/or Alito doing the screwing.
George Bush may never be able to set foot outside the WH again.
Conversly (and perversely) - if things go the RIGHT way. I might just have to scrape the 'W' sticker off the bottom of my trash can and scotch tape it to the car window again.
exactly porcus. it means that much. quite literally every sin will be forgiven if Alito and Roberts come through
I just can't see this going badly for gun owners. SCOTUS would have to overturn a lower courts ruling on this specific case, and overturn loads of laws already on the books in places like Arizona, Alaska, Texas, etc that allow folks to walk around with firearms. There's clear precedent and clear case law supporting individual ownership.
Possible outcomes:
1) They don't take the case, in which case nanny-state gun laws in DeeCee take a MAJOR hit. Gun ownership will again be legal in the Capital.
2) They take the case and overturn the lower court. To avoid all sorts of Federal problems (given the diversity of gun laws in America), they'd have to restrict the ruling to just this particular case, in which case we're back to the status quo in DeeCee, and there's little impact anywhere else.
3) They take the case and uphold the lower courts ruling. This will embolden gun owners in other jurisdictions, and we can expect to see more challenges to nanny-state laws.
I can't envision a realistic scenario where this goes badly.
"I can't envision a realistic scenario where this goes badly."
Oh, I can. Very badly. They arrest pro-life demonstrators...want to guess what the feds would do to pro-gun demonstrators.
Hint: They'll assume you are armed.
Porcus,
What do you think the possible outcomes of the court case will be?
Bill: "2)...they'd have to restrict the ruling to just this particular case, in which case we're back to the status quo in DeeCee, and there's little impact anywhere else."
The problem with this outcome, though, is that it sets precedent for that particular law. Other cities/states can follow suit with the same restrictions, knowing that it will be upheld on appeal.
There'll be little impact anywhere else -- until those new laws are passed.
Since we're all making predictions...
I'd eliminate the extremes. I doubt they'll take the case and rule in absolute favor of either side. They won't say the 2A means what it says and thus wipe out any law that infringes. They also won't say that it's only collective, and therefore congress can make any law it wants as long as it doesn't apply to the NG.
Bill:
Being the pessimist that I am; I think the most likely ruling is a clumsy one that leans heavily toward the 'collective' side and opens a big door for more (not less) gun control and/or registration.
The problem with this outcome, though, is that it sets precedent for that particular law. Other cities/states can follow suit with the same restrictions, knowing that it will be upheld on appeal.
Waterboy, I'm shocked that you made such a rookie mistake. (To be fair, I didn't see it either until I read your comment.)
Ok, pop quiz:
Why are firearms laws in DC NOT applicable to any other city?
DC is a federal district.
I think Bill's point is that easing gun laws in DC doesn't mean the states will be forced to follow suit.
And I was so looking forward to strapping on my 686 and riding the NY subway until something fun went down.
There go my Christmas plans!
Bill: "Why are firearms laws in DC NOT applicable to any other city?"
Bill, are you implying that DC's status as a federal entity will have no effect on laws anywhere else in the country?
The DC Court of Appeals ruled that handgun ownership is a personal right, not a collective right (of the "militia"). Should SCOTUS overturn that ruling, they will be saying that ALL gun ownership under the Second Amendment is a collective right. And SCOTUS's rulings DO affect laws in the rest of the country (cf Roe v Wade).
Other cities will use that ruling as a basis upon which to pass their own total bans, rather than the merely restrictive ordinances they have now.
Should SCOTUS overturn that ruling...
Yeah, what are the odds of that?
The DC Court of Appeals ruled that handgun ownership is a personal right
I don't read it quite that way. Miller established that it's an individual right, - there's no basis to overturn Miller. Miller has usually been interpreted to mean "individual rights to commonly available weapons", so you can have handguns, but not rockets. That is, soldiers carry shotguns, not sawed-off shotguns.
Currently it's legal, barely, in DeeCee, to have long guns but not pistols - this is the crux of the case. As an added bonus, DeeCee tried to sidestep the "individual" aspect by forcing people to store long guns in a non-functional mode (individuals could own guns, just not guns that work). They've gotten by this far by not prosecuting anyone for that particular "crime", thus preventing "standing", but now they stepped in it by trying to totally ban handguns - clear violation of Miller.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the 14th amendment brought up in this case.
Bill: "Yeah, what are the odds of that?"
Practically nil. But you mentioned it as possibility (2) in your analysis, and I felt your dismissal of this eventuality as having minimal impact was invalid; it could potentially have a great impact, should it come to pass.
Me: "The DC Court of Appeals ruled that handgun ownership is a personal right..."
Bill: "I don't read it quite that way. Miller established that it's an individual right..."
The DC Court of Appeals ruling disagrees with you:
Because we have no direct precedent—either in this court or the Supreme Court—that provides us with a square holding on the question, [individual vs collective right --WB] we turn first to the text of the Amendment
and, later:
We have noted that there is no unequivocal precedent that dictates the outcome of this case. This Court has never decided whether the Second Amendment protects an individual or collective right to keep and bear arms...The Supreme Court has not decided this issue either.
This is why they explicitly stated in their decision that it was an individual right:
In sum, the phrase “the right of the people,” when read
intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us
to conclude that the right in question is individual.
Now, SCOTUS is in a position to either agree or disagree. I don't think there's much chance of the latter, but I'm not a lawyer.
In sum, the phrase “the right of the people,” when read
intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us
to conclude that the right in question is individual.
Obviously. I think Miller makes it abundantly clear that it's an individual right, and the District court agrees. I don't understand their earlier equivocation.
United States v. Miller gives a good definition of "milita";
http://www.law.cornell.edu/
supct...07_0174_ZO.html
The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
"...these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time"
Which, by my reading, means its my constitutional right to own a selective fire rifle...just like the one the au-thor-a-tays carry in their cruisers or infantrymen carry when on duty.
I'd be delighted with such a ruling...but I won't hold my breath.
The question that Miller addressed was not whether people had the right to arms in the first place; it was implied that they did. It only dealt with the types of weapons and circumstances under which they were allowed. The problem was that Miller also implied that the right existed within the scope of the militia; as you just noted, everything they talked about was in the context of the militia, which did not historically use sawed-off shotguns.
And as the Miller opinion also stated:
Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed in these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed. [emphasis mine --WB]
They alluded to the differences in the scope of the right (all people vs people in the militia), but failed to directly address it themselves. And this fuzziness is what the DC court is/was attempting to clear up.
PORCUS: "Which, by my reading, means its my constitutional right to own a selective fire rifle"
And I fully support your right to do do so.
somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed.
I took that to mean the types of weapons allowed - "the kind in common use at the time" being, at best, somewhat nebulous. Miller was very clear that the militia consisted of all able-bodied men. Today we'd be a bit more PC and say everyone from eight to eighty, blind, crippled or crazy - or words to that effect.
I can't understand how anyone could read Miller and think they meant something other than "every adult is allowed to own firearms", obvious exceptions excepted. The argument, which Miller allows, is over which types of firearms are legal for civilians. Miller specifically does not address this, but uses intentionally vague "common use" phrases, which I'd agree with. I'd hate to be restricted to recoil and clips when electric powered belt-fed is an option.
Bill: "I can't understand how anyone could read Miller and think they meant something other than "every adult is allowed to own firearms""
You ever heard the axiom, "Every answer raises even more questions"? Same thing happened with Miller -- by answering the question "Which weapons are allowed?" with the answer "Anything the Militia has", it just raised the question "So, you have to be in the Militia to have them?"
Miller didn't answer it. Parker did.
No one read Miller. The press doesn't read decisions. The convictions were upheld, that meant that the government can regulate firearms. Why or How meant nothing to the press...and the rest of the country believed what the press reported.
Look at the article I sited. The press is STILL reporting it that way.
Commenting by HaloScan
