DC GETS Its Delay!

Discussion in 'In the News' started by Malum Prohibitum, Jul 20, 2007.

  1. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,047
    238
    63
    :evil:

    http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/a ... rge_1.html

     
  2. ber950

    ber950 Active Member

    3,559
    1
    38
    :x :evil: :roll:

    When they say the wheels of justice grind slowly....
     

  3. Tinkerhell

    Tinkerhell Active Member

    2,417
    1
    38
    I can't read the whole article but this bit here sounds kind of sucky. Specially since Roberts is one that we hope will support the decision...
     
  4. merlock

    merlock New Member

    2,513
    0
    0
    Does this mean that the injunction stays in place as well?
     
  5. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    Damn you Roberts!

    [​IMG]

    (that is the best angry old man shaking a fist picture I could find)
     
  6. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,047
    238
    63
    Yes.
     
  7. budder

    budder Moderator Staff Member

    You need to take a picture of Macktee next time he sees his groups at the range!
     
  8. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    lol!
     
  9. Wiley

    Wiley New Member

    2,609
    0
    0
    It also gives the SC extra time to figure out how to overturn the CoA ruling without looking stupid(er).
     
  10. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,047
    238
    63
    Wiley, you pessimist.

    They are going to affirm.
     
  11. Sharky

    Sharky New Member

    4,981
    0
    0
    #-o

    Man macktee is getting all kinds of heck lately. I think we should keep score with Macktee and Ramm. Who gets more hassling.
     
  12. Wiley

    Wiley New Member

    2,609
    0
    0
    Place your bets! Place your bets! The Supreme Casino is now open!!

    Who can get us the line from the bookies in Vegas...?

    :rotfl2:
     
  13. budder

    budder Moderator Staff Member

    Well, they're the oldest and youngest (I think). It makes sense to mock the ones that can't harm us ;)
     
  14. Thorsen

    Thorsen New Member

    4,226
    0
    0
    I think they will affirm, but I also think the SC will find a way to narrowly construe their opinion so as not to upset the current apple-cart.
     
  15. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,047
    238
    63
    There is no way to narrowly affirm.
     
  16. Thorsen

    Thorsen New Member

    4,226
    0
    0
    They can agree with the appellate court, but disagree with the way they came to that conclusion.
     
  17. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,047
    238
    63
    If they agree that the Second Amendment is an individual right (people means, well, people!) that is violated by the DC gun law regarding possessing or carrying locked or nonfunctioning firearms in the home . . . how are they going to "disagree with the way they came to that conclusion?"
     
  18. ber950

    ber950 Active Member

    3,559
    1
    38
    I don't know what there going to do. I don't think they even know what they are going to do.


    But I think they know its an important case and a real hot potato.
     
  19. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,047
    238
    63
    I bet Justice Thomas knows what HE is going to do. :wink:


    The Second Amendment . . . appears to contain an express limitation on the government's authority. That Amendment provides: "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This Court has not had recent occasion to consider the nature of the substantive right safeguarded by the Second Amendment. [fn1] If, however, the Second Amendment is read to confer a personal right to "keep and bear arms," a colorable argument exists that the Federal Government's regulatory scheme, at least as it pertains to the purely intrastate sale or possession of firearms, runs afoul of that Amendment's protections. [fn2] As the parties did not raise this argument, however, we need not consider it here. Perhaps, at some future date, this Court will have the opportunity to determine whether Justice Story was correct when he wrote that the right to bear arms "has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic."

    [fn1] Our most recent treatment of the Second Amendment occurred in United States v. Miller, in which we reversed the District Court's invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934. In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense." The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment.


    [fn2] Marshaling an impressive array of historical evidence, a growing body of scholarly commentary indicates that the "right to keep and bear arms" is, as the Amendment's text suggests, a personal right. [Citing various books and articles.] Other scholars, however, argue that the Second Amendment does not secure a personal right to keep or to bear arms. [Citing various other articles.] Although somewhat overlooked in our jurisprudence, the Amendment has certainly engendered considerable academic, as well as public, debate.



    Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 937–39 (1997)
     
  20. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,047
    238
    63
    Justice Scalia, too. :wink:

    Justice Scalia, in extra–judicial writing, has sided with the individual rights interpretation of the Amendment. See Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation, Federal Courts and the Law, 136–37 n.13 (A. Gutmann, ed., 1997) (responding to Professor Tribe’s critique of “my interpretation of the Second Amendment as a guarantee that the federal government will not interfere with the individual’s right to bear arms for self–defenseâ€).