Second Amendment case headed to Supreme Court

[JThompson]

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/arch...d_amendmen.html

Admin: If this fits better somewhere else, move it.

JT

Edited July 16, 2007 by JThompson

[Genghis]

Mayor Adrian M. Fenty : "We have made the determination that this law can and should be defended and we are willing to take our case to the highest court in the land to protect the city's residents. Our handgun law has saved countless lives -- keeping guns out of the hands of those who would hurt others or themselves."

How, pray tell, would it make it more dangerous to let law-abiding people keep guns in their own houses? That's all the ruling recognized as being protected by the Constitution. Are the criminals going to lure people into their homes and rob them?

[AikiDale]

If I were a betting rabbit I'd guess the SCOTUS will deny Cert and let the DC Circuit finding stand.

[dajarrel]

If I were a betting rabbit I'd guess the SCOTUS will deny Cert and let the DC Circuit finding stand.

I agree....

FWIW

dj

[Carlos]

I will go out on a limb & say they grant cert (hear the case). Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas have said that such a decision is overdue - though who can say if they think Parker is the "right" case to hear?

Whatever happens, D.C.'s restrictions are not likely to change much at all. The real impact of a Parker win would be National - not so much for D.C.

Sad too, since D.C. sits 1/2 way between my work & my wife's employer - it would be a convenient place to live but for the crime, taxes and unconstitutional gun laws.

Edited July 17, 2007 by Carlos

[The Law]

If I were a betting rabbit I'd guess the SCOTUS will deny Cert and let the DC Circuit finding stand.

I'll take that bet.

Parker has a couple things going for it:

(1) There is a division amongst the Circuits regarding the 2A (individual vs. collective right). SCOTUS prefers to resolve these conflicts when given the opportunity.

(2) This is the first 2A case the Court has heard in decades. They may not get another chance anytime soon. Parker gives them a rare opportunity to interpret a part of the Constitution that is seldom addressed. This also provides the opportunity to leave a legacy (a la Roe v. Wade, although some people may not see it as major a decision, I'd disagree).

I think (and hope) cert. is granted. The "Rule of Four" is all that's required. I'd think there's four Justices on either side of the ideological divide that would want to take this on.

[Genghis]

I hope Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito would want to deny cert and let the ruling stand, unless they know they can pick up another vote. Getting a decision from the Supremes on the 2nd Amendment would be a great thing if we had the five votes, and a terrible thing if we fell short. Not to open up a can of worms, but look at the legacy of a case like Roe which was pure fiction but now carries the weight of precedent. A bad ruling on 2A could haunt us for decades.

Another concern is whether Thomas is really dedicated to the correct interpretation of 2A. I thought he was solid until I read his terrible travesty of an opinion in Bean. That was the case where a guy accidentally left 200 rounds of ammo in his vehicle when he entered Mexico. He got convicted in a Mexican court of importing ammo and sentenced to 5 years, then released early. Thomas allowed the Mexican conviction for doing something constitutionally protected in the US to be used to deny the man his constitutional rights when he returned to the US. That's the equivalent of denying a Chinese dissident his First Amendment rights because he was jailed for speaking out against the Communist government in his home country. It doesn't appear that this argument was raised (I didn't read the briefs), but I really question whether someone who believes in the Constitution could have written that opinion.

[EDITED to add:] However, Parker would give the Supremes the opportunity to make an incremental ruling on the 2nd Amendment (i.e. people have a right to keep guns in their homes) without making a sweeping ruling that would cause the opposition to explode.

Edited July 17, 2007 by Genghis

[The Law]

* * *

[EDITED to add:] However, Parker would give the Supremes the opportunity to make an incremental ruling on the 2nd Amendment (i.e. people have a right to keep guns in their homes) without making a sweeping ruling that would cause the opposition to explode.

I think this gets lost in all the excitement over Parker. This is likely the most probably outcome. But anything positive from SCOTUS would help.

[Alan Meek]

IMHO the one thing really going for this is the lower courts ruled that the individuals in the Parker case had no constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme court will rule on that. I am hoping for the best from the Supremes.

[BritinUSA]

[EDITED to add:] However, Parker would give the Supremes the opportunity to make an incremental ruling on the 2nd Amendment (i.e. people have a right to keep guns in their homes) without making a sweeping ruling that would cause the opposition to explode.

I'm not so sure, if they (the supreme court) rule that there is a right to own a gun in the 2nd amendment and that it applies to individuals then the rest of the amendment would also apply, namely the bit about bearing arms. They can't pick and choose which parts of the amendment that applies... It's all or nothing.

If they decide that the amendment means what it says that we have a right to own them then DC has no right to stipulate that the right applies only to the home.

[996fan2007]

I see Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito going our way . . . anyone see a fifth? If not, we might be in trouble if cert is granted.

[Nik Habicht]

I'm not so sure, if they (the supreme court) rule that there is a right to own a gun in the 2nd amendment and that it applies to individuals then the rest of the amendment would also apply, namely the bit about bearing arms. They can't pick and choose which parts of the amendment that applies... It's all or nothing.

If they decide that the amendment means what it says that we have a right to own them then DC has no right to stipulate that the right applies only to the home.

Hmmm, there's plenty of legal restrictions on free speech --- i.e. no yelling "Fire" when there isn't something ablaze, so a case could be made that reasonable restrictions would not violate the constitution....

[XRe]

If not, we might be in trouble if cert is granted.

That's what bugs me about the whole thing, too....

[The Law]

I see Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito going our way . . . anyone see a fifth?

Kennedy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19244921/

Roberts-Kennedy alignment

"Justice Kennedy and the chief justice are thinking along similar lines," Kmiec said. "I don't think that's an accident. I believe it is a conscious result of the respect the new Chief Justice has given Justice Kennedy and the simple fact that they like each other."

He added that when Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whom Alito replaced, was on the court, "Kennedy was largely in conversation with her. She was the one with whom he would bargain over terminology. In her absence, Justice Kennedy, of course, has been pursued by both sides of the court, but in virtually every case, Justice Kennedy has discovered that he is more in affinity with the Roberts-Alito side of legal thought."

Edited July 18, 2007 by The Law