Supreme Court and Parker

Discussion in 'Off-topic' started by Malum Prohibitum, Mar 12, 2007.

  1. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,395
    395
    83
    So, what is the outcome if this goes to the S. Ct.?

    Reliable votes for Second Amendment = individual right:

    (1) Thomas (of course)

    (2) Scalia (pretty sure)

    (3) Alito (Again, pretty sure)

    (4) Roberts (probably).


    That is 4, which is a minority, not a majority. Will the opinion be decided and crafted by Kennedy as the fith vote?

    In Parker, the DC Court of Appeals quotes Ruth Bader Ginsburg, from an opinion she wrote on another issue stating that in the Second Amendment "the people" means the same thing as the other amendments stating "the people." I do not think, however, that this interpretation by her is a sure bet when faced squarely with the question.
     
  2. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0
    My thoughts:

    1) Thomas - he wrote the dissent from denial years ago. He's on board.

    2) Scalia - used to ride subway with guns. Stated originalist. Has deference to prior S Ct. precedents, but the 70 years of bad state law won't bother him a bit. Has stated that we need to get back to a time when people are not afraid of firearms.

    3) Alito - good conservative and strong on limited powers. Also a skeet and trap shooter. Commerce clause and machine gun discussion in his hearings have nothing to do with this.

    4) Roberts - said in his confirmation that he believe in the individual right.

    5) Kennedy - who knows? He is more conservative than O'Connor, but likes to split the baby

    6) Ginsburg - Bingo, here's the one. I bet someone a beer on this today. She holds her nose and votes individual rights, even though she hates it. ACLU lady and all, if she undercuts the structure of the Bill of Rights by parsing 'the people', she doesn't help her people one bit. Same as Larry Tribe's logic.

    7) Stephens, Breyer, Souter - who knows?

    My money (wishful thinking?) is on a 7-2 or 6-3 for individual rights.
     

  3. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    All I know is that I can't wait to hear the oral arguments on this one.
     
  4. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,395
    395
    83
    May I get some sources or discussion of the above quotes? I find them intriguing, but I have not seen them.
     
  5. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    24,342
    120
    63
    Doesn't Matter

    In the big picture, it doesn't really matter if the Second Amendment is considered an "individual" or "collective" right. Even if it is an individual right, this Supreme Court and all other courts considering gun control cases will find that the 2nd Amendment allows for reasonable restrictions on guns for the legitimate purpose of crime control and prevention of terrorism (and keeping kids safe, don't you know!).

    And while overall there are relatively few infringements on the First Amendment that courts permit, the fact that they upheld the campaign finance reform act (the free speech gag law that is blatantly unconstitutional) shows that they are willing to have heavy-handed restrictions on even fundamental rights that are explicitly protected in our Constititon.

    I think it'll go exactly the way Scalia wouldn't want it to... PARKER will be affirmed in its narrow holding of a 2nd Amendment right for law-abiding citizens to own ordinary and common guns in their own homes, with a permit, following an extensive backgrond check and months of waiting for approval. Heck, the Court might even allow a complete ban on HANDGUNS, since they are not as common as rifles, and since their concealability and portability don't matter so much when the issue is just self-defense in and around one's home.
     
  6. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    Re: Doesn't Matter

    I know what you are saying, but it will still be fun to watch.

    HANDGUNS, I don't think so. This ruling was on handguns and the individual right to keep one. Even if they keep a military view of an individual right, handguns are a military weapon. As stated by the majority, even the militia laws of the past required certain members to have pistols.
     
  7. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0
    Good question. I don't have the time to look them up at the moment, but here's what I remember: 2) I have heard the Scalia subway thing several times, even once from him on TV, as I recall, perhaps in that ACLU debate he held last year. 3) Alito's wife was interviewed during his confirmation hearings about what they do for fun. She said her husband likes to go skeet shooting and 'he can even shoot doubles' I can specifically remember her saying. 4) The Roberts quote was discussed at some length in the comments to the posts over on Volokh. Apparently it was a direct answer to a question by a Senator. Basically point-blank without ambiguity is what I took away from the discussion.
     
  8. S&W 40

    S&W 40 Active Member

    2,205
    0
    36
    How long can we expect this to take if/when it goes to the SCOTUS? If you look at the dates, this took years to get to this point, last I knew of the highest court they are not exatly speedy. [-o<
     
  9. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,395
    395
    83
    I did not get to see that whole debate. The part I did see had to do with the Fourteenth Amendment, and the ACLU lawyer was going on about liberty interests protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and "substantive due process," and, when she finished, Scalia said something like, "The Constitution does not say that. It does not say you can't deprive liberty, it says you cannot deprive liberty without due process."

    The ACLU could care less what the document actually says. This reminds me of the sodomy debate right here on this board. "Liberty" is not in the bill of rights, per se. All criminal laws intrude upon liberty to one extent or another. The Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed that you will be afforded due process when deprived of liberty for violating the law, something southern states were not allowing to the newly freed slaves.

    Is there a way to shoot skeet without shooting doubles?

    Well, good! :D
     
  10. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,395
    395
    83
    My guess is a year and a half, but I expect that not to start until DC asks for a rehearing en banc, and the DC Circuit decides whether to grant it, and, if they do, to re-hear it.

    If they do re-hear it en banc, I guess Janice Rogers Brown will get some input.
     
  11. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0
    The info on Volokh went something like: denial of rehearing en banc petition in DC Circuit, June 2007. Cert petitions due, September 2007. Responses, amici, conference & grant, November 2007. Oral arguments, spring 2008. Decision, June 2008? Individual right, priceless.
     
  12. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,395
    395
    83
    This article predicts summer of 2008, just in time to create a lightning rod of controversy for the Democrats to show their true colors on the Second Amendment before elections.
     
  13. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0
  14. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,395
    395
    83
    One year ago - speech to the National Wild Turkey Federation's annual convention.
     
  15. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0
    DC plans for file a petition for rehearing en banc on 4/9.

    http://dc.gov/mayor/news/advisory.asp?id=869&mon=200704

    Conventional wisdom is that, while they may have the votes for rehearing, they will certainly not have the votes to overturn. This could create some delay in Sup Ct hearing if en banc is granted.