Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'In the News' started by Malum Prohibitum, Jul 20, 2007.
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com ... l_adv.html
Yes, my pretties......fall into the trap....muhahahahaha!
round n round we go where we stop nobody knows
Prexactly! The eventual ruling could be a good thing, a horrible thing or a very narrow thing.
As pointed in the CA article, it will be interesting to see who writes the majority opinion. It will also be interesting to see how many other opinions are written.
This particular can of worms concerns me. If the SCOTUS was inclined to rule in favor of Parker, why not just pass on it. It would have the same effect and a very narrow effect as it would only apply to DC. By agreeing to a review, they could open up the entire 2nd Amdnt. to reinterpretation. That could be bad. Possibly very, very bad...
I've always thought the court seemed to duck most issues and craft their decisions to cover as little as possible. To my untrained court-watching eye, this one looks like they want to review the entire 2nd/gun control ball of wax, not simply decide a simple ruling that only applies to DC.
How many justices have to agree before a case goes before the court? Five? Six? More? Less? I know I could look it up, but someone here will have the answer and, hopefully, an opinion.
Also, you SCOTUS junkies, what does the fact the court is reviewing Parker tell us?
That could be good or bad. They could be putting a nail in the 2nd Amendment coffin, or exactly the opposite.
I don't think the justices will put the country in a position where the rest of the amendments could be just as easily eroded however.
too late. The rest of are going, going, going, and gone without any involvement of SCOTUS. Just by executive orders. Remember the whole thing about 4th and 5th from yesterday?
I am very afraid, soon the 1st will be gone too, and we'll be just like any other 3rd world country.
Tace, I think you're correct. Unfortunately!
Who ever would have imagined a republican president would, by executive fiat, restrict and all but totally destroy so many of our rights? It's appalling, disgusting and scary! What's that about people who are willing to trade liberty for security end up with neither? I think we're just about there...
There are three possible outcomes-
If the SC denies cert., the CoA ruling stands and DC will be told, by implication at least, "We gave you extra time, more than the majority of cases, and you didn't convince us that the question rises to a Constitutional level." Win for the Constitution.
If the SC accepts and then rules to uphold the CoA, DC is reminded that it is a Federal District and may not go off and do its own thing, that local administration of the District is a matter of convienience for the Congress. Win for the Constitution.
If the SC accepts and then rules to overturn the CoA, there really is no change. DC residents will still be dis-enfranchised, and another group can try. (Maybe the NRA can work another of their compromises.) Status quo maintained.
Net result: two wins or an 'ehhh'.
Even if the SC overturns Parker I can't see bad comming out of this. I guess it would be bad for moral, PR, etc.
Basically, right now we have no 2nd Amendment right to a gun anyway (as interpreted).
The reason we can have a gun and carry it in GA is legislative in nature, the General Assembly allows it.
What would change if the ruling went against us?
To answer Macktee, it takes four SC Justices to agree to grant cert for the case to appear on their calendar.
I can see a potential fantastic postive coming out of this case. That being the SCOTUS not only affirming that the second amendment is an individual right and takes precedence over state laws and constitutions, but also that it is incorporated via the 14th amendment to all the states in the union. I think that is pretty much pie-in-the-sky, but I can dream.
In another thread that I can't find now, I predicted by justice how they would rule, but while I am really leaning towards an affirmation from the SC, I think it will be a narrowly construed opinion and won't have the impact that we all hope.
And if it is struck down, we are pretty much back where we are at now with each individual state having its own laws on the subject creating our current patchwork of firearms laws. Pretty much status quo, although I can hear the antis crowing on the top of the mountain now if that were to happen.
I don't think we will get incorporation out of this since DC is not a state BUT it could prime the judicial landscape for a later case that could lead to incorporation.
That would be mere dicta, and not binding on lower courts.
But do not worry, other organizations will be bringing well-planned lawsuits following Parker to bring about this second limited step in the process.
It MUST be narrowly construed, because the only issues presented are having and carrying functioning firearms (really, only pistols and shotguns) in the home, registered and licensed by the local government. Those are the facts of the case, and they were limited on purpose.
An individual rights ruling is the aim of the litigation.
A NARROW RULING was a part of the plan all along.
A lot could depend upon the language. If the court affirms and in its ruling affirms that the 2nd guarantees an individual's right to own firearms the ruling could be used by lower courts in making their rulings.
By narrowly construing I mean that the courts could affirm but do so on the basis that the District is a special area owing its oversight to the federal government so that the second applies to the district, and mention absolutely nothing about the application to the states.
In other words, agreeing with the appellate court, but limiting the ruling.
That is what I absolutely expect them to do. It would be improper for them to decide whether it applies as against the states.
This is another reason the Cato Institute chose DC, so that issue would not be presented.
In case I was not clear before, this litigation was meticulously planned from the beginning to be brought on the narrowest grounds possible.
But if they affirm an individual right, they don't even need the 14th ammendment to incorporate it to the state because an individual right would be a right of the people. The difference between the "right of the people ... shall not be infringed" and "Congress shall pass no law"
Nice idea but that isn't how it works I don't think. Look at the 4th Amendment for a second. It has the language, "The right of the people to be secure..." This amendment had to be incorporated through the 14th Amendment as well so...
Right, GAGunowner. Ever since Baltimore v. Maryland in 1833, which said the Bill of Rights was a restraint on Congress and not on the states.