[30 cal slob]

what next, assuming that SCOTUS grants cert (not a slam-dunk at this point) and, assuming the worst case, that SCOTUS rules for the collective rights interpretation of the 2A?

what are our (realistic) options next?

:evil::evil::evil::evil::evil:

p.s. does this count as a "SHTF" type of event? If so, what gun for SCOTUS SHTF? :neener:

[Regolith]

EDIT: Sorry, read your question backwards.


Worst case scenario for what happens if they read it as a collective rights? Revolution, followed by a massive crackdown and virtual slavery. Of course, thats absolute worst case scenario. Probably won't happen.

[General Geoff]

Realistic possibilities are as follows:

SHTF (possible, not likely though, at least not in the form we all imagine)

Political coup (slightly more plausible than a grass-roots rebellion)

Legitimate lawmaking to reestablish the protected RKBA

Spiral into a socialist state

[geekWithA.45]

All Bets Would Be Off.

The word is that the Supremes have been sabotaging cert on 2A for decades to prevent a collective ruling, and nothing has changed that balance. If cert's denied, that'll be the underlying reason.

[MinnMooney]

If the constitution's 2nd amendment gets inturpreted as a group right rather that an individual right, things will get much more Canadian/Australian-like with the Democrates in power.
We'll see gun registration, specific type bans, general catagory bans, lawsuits, taxes and a ton of restrictions.
Our reaction to the above? I have no guesses except that we'll probably take it lying down until the next election.

[JohnBT]

"What if..."

I guess I'll have to rely on the Virginia Constitution:

"“A well regulated militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is a proper, natural and safe defense for a free state; therefore, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.” "

[Prince Yamato]

I think firearm restrictions would just draw protest.

Firearm confiscation = bloodbath.

Judges may rule philosophically, but they're not stupid. As a judge you ARE accountable for your rulings and I doubt a judge would issue a ruling that would negatively affect so many innocent people, especially when that many innocents have the potential to "over-rule" you.

[cloudcroft]

Stop kidding yourselves...

Probably NOTHING would happen. People put up with all sorts of crap in this country and do nothing about it. And they'll do nothing all the way to the concentration camps.

As for me, and at the very least, Civil Disobedience has always been a valid option. I exercise it regularly.

As for SCOTUS, I don't care what it rules unless it is confirming a right we have. Otherwise, to hell with what those judges say.

-- John D.

[HiroProX]

More than likely, nothing will happen. Most "pro-gun" folks are conservatives, and conservatives will defend the status quo, no matter how screwed up it really is.

[tinygnat219]

Appeal is official

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=596&sid=1190227

[HUMONGO]

The age of SCOTUS Judges being personally accountable for their ruling has long since passed. Just look at how they ruled on personal property rights. I guess we can keep our guns until a corporation or township needs them for tax purposes...:barf:

One of the first things they teach you in Constitutional Law is how the Supreme Court is accountable and needs to carefully adjudicate the cases to reflect public sentiment (within the confines of interpretation of intent of the Founding Fathers). They have no police force. They have no military. There is no actual force behind their rulings.

If they continue to rule contrary to public opinion, they lose all credibility, thereby destroying any sense of checks and balances.

[ericman]

many states have individual arms bearing in their own constitutions, so in many places I dont think it would matter. In the long run I imagine it would cause some problems though.

[RPCVYemen]

The age of SCOTUS Judges being personally accountable for their ruling has long since passed.

When were Supreme Court Justices "held personally accountable" for their rulings? By whom, and why?

Mike

[HUMONGO]

When were Supreme Court Justices "held personally accountable" for their rulings? By whom, and why?

Public opinion, censure, etc. They may be there for life, but they aren't un-impeachable.

[Ric in Richmond]

JohnBT....I am right there with you...In Richmond.

I saw Levy, the parker atty speak at U of R earlier this year. Glad he is on our side. Hope it all works out well!!

Ric

[AJ Dual]

Personally, if Parker gets cert, my gut tells me we'll get a "win", the 2nd Amendment scholarship, even by liberal anti's who don't like their conclusions admitting it's an individual right is overwhelming. However, it will probably be a narrow ruling, that it's an individual right, but that "reasonable" restrictions are permitted.

Then both sides have standing to duke out what "reasonable" means, between single shot rifles kept at secure armories and gun clubs on one side, and pre-NFA '34 on the other, for the next 75 years until one side or another can find the "perfect storm" that allows us to drag the SCOTUS back into it, kicking and screaming.

One thing I'll note, looking at another "definitive" case by way of analogy, Roe V. Wade back in '73 did nothing to thwart the ardor of pro-life or pro-choice forces. And it's hard to say how much of the increase in abortion is solely from that decision, or how much the liberalization of social mores contributed etc. A Roe loss could have arguably left us with largely the same results we see today. Pro-choice forces could have fought harder at the state level, and the net result, especially in liberal states and liberal large urban areas, might still be the same today.

Similarly, a Parker loss could just as easily ignite the RKBA-supporting public into a fervor, and we'll keep fighting as we've had to for the past 75 years, taking our losses and gains legislatively, under attack from those who deny the individual rights interpretation. So from the standpoint that we now operate under a de-facto "Parker Loss" climate, one way of looking at it says we've got nothing to lose.

[obxned]

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. I guess there will just be another 100,000,000 outlaws in the Peoples Republic of America.

[DixieTexian]

Texas entered by Treaty. :D

[byf43]

If the SCOTUS gives audience to the case, I believe that the 2nd Amendment will stand as 'The right of THE PEOPLE'.

However. . . nothing says that the SCOTUS has to 'hear' the case.
They may say that the Appeals Court ruling stands, or, 'We will not hear the case'.

As stated on another forum, across the street. . . .
My feelings right now are:

Elated
Fear
Elated
Fear
Elated
Fear
Elated
Fear

[pacodelahoya]

Personally, at this point, it really makes no never mind to me one way or the other. I am not giving up what I got and if they want to make em illegal or what ever, so be it.

[Cosmoline]

Wait a minute here, me boyos. If the Supreme Court holds that the Second is a collective right in this case, nothing happens apart from the DC ban getting put back in effect. That's it. The Court is not going to be ordering confiscations. All state protections would remain in place. The only difference would be, the whole nation would be in the same boat those of us in "collective rights" circuits have been in for many decades now.

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. I guess there will just be another 100,000,000 outlaws in the Peoples Republic of America.

This is truly bizarre. Where are you getting the idea that the Court is going to order confiscation or outlaw guns? Even a de facto elimination of the Second will not end in confiscation. The Court does not pass laws.

many states have individual arms bearing in their own constitutions, so in many places I dont think it would matter. In the long run I imagine it would cause some problems though.

That's right. The only places it will make a difference are those within federal circuits where the individual right interpretation has either held sway or held some significant ground. These will likely face reversal. The rest of the nation would be in the same boat as all the states in the 9th circuit, that's all.

[alucard0822]

Out of 100,000,000 gun owners, only 4%-6% care enough about their rights to join NRA, GOA, 2A or the local gun rights organization, There is no way short of widespread confiscation there would be a "revolution", even then it would probably just mean a surge in voting, and what the media would describe as "small groups of terrorists and insurgent copycats". A collective rights ruling would basically give the Feds, states and localities a blank check for any infringements they can pass which has basically been going on for a few decades now. it would probably just accelerate unless reps would risk losing an unacceptable number of votes. The constitution is just a piece of paper, its the will or apathy of the people that determine it's influence on our society.

[MikeJackmin]

Constitutional law gets pretty complicated once you start to really look into it. I'm no lawyer, but I think I can offer a few useful points here:

1) The 2nd is not (yet) "incorporated", basically meaning that it applies to the feds only, not the states. Currently, states (and cities) are free to ban guns as much as they like.

2) FEDERAL LAW TRUMPS STATE LAW. This means that you would have to follow the rules laid down by the feds even if you lived in a state with a state constitution that protected gun ownership. That state constitution would only prevent your state from enacting laws banning guns, and would not inhibit the feds from banning guns in your state.

3) If we lose big here, this would mean that the feds are free to ban guns in pretty much any way they like. Once the democrats get back, they might well take advantage of this.

So what would happen? If we get a democrat in '08, we could certainly expect a real push for some noxious federal gun laws - basically, they would pass whatever they thought they could get away with, and they would certainly want to tighten the rules even further over time. It would be a pretty unpleasant outcome.

So far as I can tell, a 'collective right' interpretation offers no individual protection whatsoever.

[pacodelahoya]

That's what I was talking about, Cosmoline, what MikeJackmin said.

Much like medical Cannabis in Califonia.

I realize that there will not be immediate consfications if it is decided to be a collective right. But we all know what happens when the .gov is given(or usurps) a little power.

Like I said before...whatever.

[Cosmoline]

3) If we lose big here, this would mean that the feds are free to ban guns in pretty much any way they like. Once the democrats get back, they might well take advantage of this.

How is that a change? The Supreme Court has done nothing to stop the feds anyway. They approved FDR's gun ban, and have failed to block or even limit all the bans and restrictions since, at least under the Second. Their holding in Lopez had to do with the commerce clause, and their limitation on the old NICS system was made moot.

Put another way--the floodgates are open and have been open for generations now. The worst that could happen is they stay open or open a little more. But if we WIN, those gates start to swing shut and THAT will be a potentially enormous shift.

Besides, I'm cautiously optimistic about this whole thing. The current Court is exceedingly conservative. It's one of the few good things GW has given us, and in the end it may make up for his many shortcomings. I cannot see them siding with the tired old collective rights interpretation. They may keep their holding limited. Indeed they probably will. But I think they'll come down on our side.

A collective rights ruling would basically give the Feds, states and localities a blank check for any infringements they can pass which has basically been going on for a few decades now

It would not overturn existing state protections. So if state constitutional law gives an express RKBA, that won't be effected. As far as the feds--nobody has ever bounced their checks anyway. The only real limitation on them has been political, not legal.

[MIL-DOT]

i continue to be baffled at the level of dilusion exhibited here ( by some).
CLOUDCROFT's post was probably the most accurate (so far) ......
" Stop kidding yourselves...

Probably NOTHING would happen. People put up with all sorts of crap in this country and do nothing about it. And they'll do nothing all the way to the concentration camps."

seriously...SHTF ?? bloodbath ?? gimme a break,we've gotten too fat,happy and stupid,yours truly included. what, we're gonna take up arms against this sea of troubles. never gonna happen. even bringing up the subject of organizing en masse ,as the founding fathers intended should it become neccessary,and marching on washington to bring these bastages back under control will get you banned from this board,and scrutinized (or worse) by the federales. we shouldn't give up, should keep doing what we can,writing representatives, supporting the NRA, yadda.yadda, but the fact still remains....it's over when they say it's over.

[MikeJackmin]

It would not overturn existing state protections. So if state constitutional law gives an express RKBA, that won't be effected.

I'm sorry, but I'm quite sure that's not correct.
Consider the AWB - while it was in effect, in applied in every state. Federal law trumps state law. If the federal government passes a nasty gun ban, it applies to all of us, regardless of what state we live in.

[Cosmoline]

Consider the AWB - while it was in effect, in applied in every state. Federal law trumps state law. If the federal government passes a nasty gun ban, it applies to all of us, regardless of what state we live in.

You're mixing court rulings with congressional laws. If the Court decides the collective rights interpretation should apply, this will NOT change how the Alaska Supreme Court, for example, views our own RKBA in the state constitution. But, of course, Congress can pass a gun control law which trumps the state constitution pursuant to the supremacy clause.

[Standing Wolf]

Government looks after the interests of government first, last, and always.

[mnrivrat]

What if SCOTUS review of Parker vs. D.C. doesn't go our way?

I think that would clearly illuminate just how far away our republic has drifted from the intention of those who wrote the 2nd, and would clearly be a virus upon peoples rights over government control. A nation for ,and by the people , would therefore be little more than lip service. Having little to do with how this nation is actualy run.

To try to predict a post ruling reaction is a waste of time. No doubt however that it would likely mean more restrictions than what any of us desire to see.

[MikeJackmin]

You're mixing court rulings with congressional laws. If the Court decides the collective rights interpretation should apply, this will NOT change how the Alaska Supreme Court, for example, views our own RKBA in the state constitution. But, of course, Congress can pass a gun control law which trumps the state constitution pursuant to the supremacy clause.

Yes, exactly.

[Glockman17366]

If the ruling goes against the People's Right, I expect moves toward succession in some states...especially in the South and West.

[AirForceShooter]

Interesting thing about this case.
It doesn't involve a STATE.

AFS

[30 cal slob]

Matt King posted this most excellent article in the L&P thread. Many of the issues of what may happen in the decision process are outlined here:

http://www.motherjones.com/interview...bert_levy.html



Interview: Meet Dr. Robert Levy, the lawyer whose Second Amendment challenge to D.C.’s strict gun laws could deal a death blow to gun control nationwide.

By Leigh Ferrara

April 19, 2007


A little more than a month before Cho Seung-Hui went on a murderous rampage at Virginia Tech, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling in a landmark gun rights case, Parker v. District of Columbia, repealing the District’s stringent gun laws. Leading the Second Amendment challenge was Cato Institute senior fellow and constitutional lawyer Dr. Robert Levy, who, despite offers of financial assistance from Cato, has bankrolled the three-year effort himself. Levy wielded a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment to dissolve the strictest gun regulations on the books in any state (or district), arguing that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals, not just militias, to bear arms. Parker marked the first time in history that the Second Amendment broad interpretation has been used to overturn a state gun law. It’s likely that the Supreme Court will eventually review the decision and if the Court upholds the D.C. Circuit court opinion, it will have far-reaching implications nationwide—making state gun laws ever more vulnerable to legal challenges. Interestingly, Levy’s case has not only been a subject of concern among gun control advocates, but to the National Rifle Association as well, which fears the impact of a negative Supreme Court ruling.

From his home in Naples, Florida (where he claims he doesn’t need a gun), Levy talked to Mother Jones about his Second Amendment victory, his frustrations with the National Rifle Association, and the impact of the Virginia Tech shootings on the gun rights movement.

Mother Jones: For the past three years, this lawsuit has been your baby. What made you so passionate about challenging the gun laws in D.C.?

Robert Levy: I’m passionate about a lot of issues. I’ve done work on tort reform and tobacco litigation, post 9-11 civil liberties such as the Patriot act, detention of U.S. citizens, profiling, and NSA wire taps. So the Second Amendment is just one of the many issues that I feel passionate about.

MJ: Why D.C.?

RL: The reason deals with incorporation. When the Constitution was originally ratified for the Bill of Rights, it only applied to the federal government. All of that changed after the Civil War when the 14th amendment was ratified. And since that time, it’s been pretty well settled that most of the Bill of Rights can be applied to the states as well as the federal government, but it hasn’t been resolved whether the Second Amendment applies to the states. To avoid having to deal with that issue, we chose D.C., because it is not a state.

MJ: Are you a gun owner?

RL: No.

MJ: Are you a hunter, or a target shooter?

RL: Nope. I haven’t had a gun since I was in the Air Force in the 1960s.

MJ: From the beginning, were you considering that the Second Amendment challenge to this one law would have such far-reaching implications?

RL: Oh sure. We knew that it would have far-reaching implications because the Supreme Court had not dealt with a Second Amendment case since 1939. Meanwhile, 10 of the 12 judicial circuits, all except the 5th Circuit in Texas and the D.C. Circuit, had determined that Second Amendment did not secure individual right, instead that it applied only to members of the militia. And in some cases they determined that the Second Amendment didn’t apply to states. So we knew that if we were to win in D.C., it would be a major victory with profound implications across the country.

MJ: How likely is it that Parker vs. District of Columbia will go before the Supreme Court?

RL: It is highly likely for a number of reasons—most importantly, this is a very big issue. In addition, this D.C. opinion was the very first opinion of any appellate court in history to overturn a gun control regulation based on the Second Amendment. And it also is highlighted by the fact that all the other circuits, with the exception of the 5th Circuit in Texas, disagree.

MJ: A circuit split is one of the main reasons a case would go before the Supreme Court?

RL: That’s correct. You have a circuit split which means you have different laws that are now applicable across the country. The Supreme Court ordinarily will try to resolve that sort of thing so we have uniform laws across the country.

MJ: If the Supreme Court upholds the decision, how would this ruling affect gun laws on the books in states throughout the nation?

RL: First, we need to look at how will it affect D.C. If they uphold the appellate decision (D.C. has applied for a petition to have the case go before the full-judge panel of the circuit court—the case was heard before a three-judge panel originally), it will say that the D.C. gun ban is unconstitutional.

The task after Parker, assuming Parker is upheld, will be twofold. The first is to determine whether the Second Amendment applies to the states. Assuming the Second Amendment does apply to the states, the next question will be what regulations are permissible and what restrictions are not permissible.

Even the NRA concedes that you can’t have mad men running around with weapons of mass destruction. So there are some restrictions that are permissible and it will be the task of the legislature and the courts to ferret all of that out and draw the lines. I am sure, though, that outright bans on handguns like they have in D.C. won’t be permitted. That is not a reasonable restriction under anybody’s characterization. It is not a restriction, it’s a prohibition.

MJ: Regarding the Parker case, the six plaintiffs were carefully chosen. Can you discuss your selection process?

RL: We wanted gender, racial, economic, and age diversity. We weren’t looking for criminals. We didn’t want a crack head coming into the court as a poster boy for the Second Amendment. Most importantly, we wanted compelling cases.

MJ: You said that Parker v. District of Columbia is the first case where a broad interpretation of the restriction has overturned a state gun law. Have there been previous challenges?

RL: Yes, there have been a ton of challenges. There have been 30, maybe even 40 in the district alone, but they are challenges brought by criminals protesting the fact that they have been charged with a felony in possession of a firearm or that they have committed a crime like robbing a bank and their sentence has been enhanced because they carried a gun. These criminals charge that they should not have their sentence enhanced because they have a Second Amendment right to carry a gun. These cases are nonsense and the courts have properly thrown them out. So this is the first challenge that was compelling on its facts and where folks went out of their way to find plaintiffs with the requisite characteristics that I mentioned.

MJ: Are there similar cases pending in D.C. and in other states?

RL: There are all kinds of cases pending, but I do not know of any case that is imminent and is similar to ours in that it is law-abiding citizens with compelling facts who simply just want to be able to defend themselves.

MJ: Could you talk about the longstanding controversy that has existed over the interpretation of the Second Amendment?

RL: The controversy boils down to this: Does the Second Amendment secure the right of individuals to keep and bear arms or does it simply apply to the right of states to arm the members of their militia? This controversy has raged since 1939 and, of course, it existed even before then.

MJ: Even if the case doesn’t go before the Supreme Court, doesn’t it pretty much turn gun control legislation upside down?

RL: In D.C., something is going to have to be done with existing gun laws. Secondly, and I think more importantly, since D.C. is the residence of the federal government, it means that the federal government can be sued in D.C. no matter where an injury or rights violation takes place. Any challenge to federal gun laws can be brought in D.C. and will be governed by the law in D.C. That means that D.C. has a much bigger impact than other locations.

MJ: Considering the district has the most stringent gun laws on the books, what message does this send out to pro-gun rights people and anti-gun rights people. Does this not show other states the way? Could there be some kind of ripple effect?

RL: This will depend on whether the Second Amendment even applies to states. This is going to be next big issue that comes before the court. My own view is that the arguments are compelling—that the Second Amendment, like every other part of the Bill of Rights, will apply to the state governments. Assuming that’s the case, the state governments will be on notice, just like D.C. is on notice.

MJ: What impact will the Virginia Tech shootings have on your case?

RL: Logically, it shouldn’t have any impact. In Parker, we are not addressing concealed carry and the outdoor usage of guns. We’re talking about a gun in the home for self-defense. And that’s it. So as a matter of cold law, the situation at Virginia Tech is not relevant in terms of the Parker litigation.

Now could it have an effect? Well, of course. People can’t read about an experience of this kind of horror without being affected by it. And judges in the courts are no different. People’s views about gun control, about self-defense, and the Second Amendment are certainly impacted by these practical, real-life experiences. After all, that’s why we look for these compelling facts. We’re not dealing with just an abstract Second Amendment. We’re dealing with a Second Amendment that applies to real-life people, and so I suspect that there will be some effect.

Now the next question is, what effect is it likely to have? There will be one camp that says, “The events at Virginia Tech prove that we have too many guns in the country and what we need is tighter gun control.” And there will be a second camp that is equally vigorous and equally outspoken, and I will be part of it, that says, “What happened at Virginia Tech proves that what we need is for people to be able to defend themselves.”

After all, it is hard to stop somebody from open firing and killing someone. But you sure as heck can stop someone from doing number 31, 32, and 33. Who knows how many lives would have been saved if somebody who had a valid state-issued permit was carrying a gun and put an end to this guy? As to whether it will be read in that manner by judges on the D.C. Circuit or in the Supreme Court, I just don’t know.

MJ: If not more stringent gun control, what do you think makes a difference in the likelihood that a tragedy like this could occur?

RL: With respect to the root causes of violence, I’m no expert but, among other things, it’s illegitimacy, unemployment, dysfunctional schools, teenage pregnancy, and drug and alcohol abuse. And in this case, it was probably none of the above. It was probably just a crazy person. I mean you can’t eliminate all crazy people.

MJ: Are you a proponent of any gun laws?

RL: I’m a proponent of a lot of gun control laws. I support regulations on some type of weapons. We can’t have people having shoulder-launched missiles in every home. That’s ridiculous. I support regulations on some types of persons, the obvious one being felons, the mentally incompetent, and people that are young. I would obviously permit regulations on some types of uses, like murder. It’s clear that these types of regulations have to exist. Where should the line be drawn, what age should it be? I don’t know. I’d have to think about that and I’d like to see more evidence.

MJ: How do you think the Virginia Tech shootings will affect gun rights efforts nationwide?

RL: The laws ought to be changed so that people are able to defend themselves. There will be clamor from the usual suspects to go in the other direction, to have tighter laws. I think the people on the Virginia Tech campus and all the other campuses should be able to do the same thing they do anywhere else in the state of Virginia. And that is if they qualify for a concealed carry permit, they should be able to carry one on campus. And this regulation has not turned Virginia into Dodge City. The real violence has occurred where they can’t have guns, namely on the campus not where they can have guns, namely off the campus.

And it’s not that everybody will rush out to carry a gun. They won’t. In all the states—and as I mentioned there are 45 that have concealed carry rights—only five percent of the population takes out gun permits. The other 95 percent benefit because criminals don’t know who is armed. So a guy who is contemplating an act like what happened on Monday and he thinks the first guy he’s going to encounter is going to blow his brains out, he’s a little hesitant to engage in these sorts of activities. You can’t stop it all, but you can certainly stop some of it, and you could certainly have stopped the multiple killings that occurred systematically at Virginia Tech.

MJ: The media has been all over lawmakers and presidential candidates claiming that an incident like this has no bearing on the political landscape surrounding gun control. Essentially, they are claiming, the tragedy at Virginia Tech will disappear without a legislative trace.

RL: Democrats, who tend to be in favor of stronger gun controls—first of all I think they’re wrong, but even if they’re right—they don’t have the courage of their conviction, because they are politically craven and they are not willing to take a stance on this because they fear their electoral prospects will be impeded. A lot of people who are gun owners and believe in gun ownership are not going to vote for a lawmaker or presidential candidate if they come out foursquare against gun control.

MJ: Is there a tragedy of any magnitude that could change the equation?

RL: Sure, but the question is, in what direction? Does it change the equation in the sense that it convinces people to go for tighter gun laws when the guy’s already violating several gun laws that already exist. I mean, what’s another gun law? He’s violated the law against carrying a gun on campus, violated the law by obliterating the serial number on his gun, and he has violated the law against murder. None of those laws seemed to matter to this guy. So another law is unlikely to make any difference.

MJ: In an op-ed in the Washington Examiner, you wrote of repeated attempts by the NRA to derail your litigation. What form did these attempts take and why would the nation’s foremost gun lobby work against litigation that was clearly in line with its interests?

RL: I want to know too. I don’t know the answer to that, but relationships have been smoothed and we are working with the NRA now. The NRA says that they support the Parker litigation and don’t intend to do anything that would derail the litigation. They have said that they think it ought to go to the Supreme Court and that it ought to win. And I am willing to accept their words as gospel until I have reason to believe otherwise.

MJ: You say relationships have been smoothed? What were the disputes?

RL: In 2002, when we first contemplated this suit, their emissaries came to me to try to dissuade me from filing the suit. The asserted reason was they thought it was a good suit and had a good chance of winning. Therefore, it would likely go to the Supreme Court and they didn’t think they had sufficient horsepower in the Supreme Court. They didn’t want to take that gamble.

We didn’t buy that argument because we thought by the time the suit went up to the Supreme Court, the court would look a lot better. We were right. The substitution of Justice Alito for Justice O’Connor is a step in the right direction for those who believe in gun rights. The court looks better than it is going to look for a while with the likely Democratic administration.

MJ: What is the timeline for this case as it heads to Supreme Court?

RL: A petition for the case to be reheard before the full judge panel of the D.C. Circuit court has been filed. If it gets granted, that’s going to add another three to six months onto the case because a lot depends on whether there is going to be a new briefing or whether they are going to use the existing briefs. There are a whole lot of imponderables there. If it doesn’t get granted or if the court doesn’t vote to rehear the case, then the petition to file cert (a document that the losing party files asking the Supreme Court to review a decision by a lower court) will be filed and ruled on over the summer. That means the Supreme Court will hear the case sometime after October of this year and would probably decide the case between January and June of 2008.

MJ: Are you certified to go before the Supreme Court?

RL: Yes, I’m a member of the Supreme Court bar.

MJ: So, you’ll be taking it all the way?

RL: That’s our intent. And we have a very good chance. I think that it is very unlikely that five justices on the Supreme Court are going to say that the Second Amendment means nothing. That’s what they would have to say to uphold the total ban on handguns that exists in Washington D.C.

It is also especially unlikely during the heat of the 2008 election—and that is when it is going to happen—because it would be a rallying cry for the whole pro-gun committee. Just like an abortion decision that overturned Roe v. Wade would animate the pro-choice folks. That kind of political turmoil is something the court is sensitive to.

Leigh Ferrara is the senior Washington fellow at Mother Jones.

[romma]

What if SCOTUS review of Parker vs. D.C. doesn't go our way?


Gun-grabbing socialists will be dancing in the streets, that's what will happen..

Much in the same way we would if our side wins...

Mark my words, I will dance in the streets if our side wins. It will be a tremendous victory for freedom and liberty which this country desperately needs right now to slow or stop its slide into a slave country...

Oh, there will be firearms collection stations organized in short time.

[Cosmoline]

Interesting thing about this case.
It doesn't involve a STATE.

That's true, so the Court may not even get around to deciding if the 2nd is applicable to states.

I think we have a lot more to gain than we do to lose with Parker. If we lose, we go back to the way things were for many long decades. The fight will remain on the political front, not the legal one. If we win, the movement towards recognizing the Second will be given force of law across the nation's federal courts and we will have a whole new means of attacking gun laws on top of the existing political mechanisms.

[jpk1md]

Cos, it unfortunately does involve the States.....but only as follows: "Do the States have the right to regulate RKBA's?"

[ozwyn]

if the language of the constitution used for the first and second amendment are indentical in terms of the individual scope, then allowing the states the right to regulate the 2nd amendment means they could and/or should regulate the first?

the defeat of the 2nd amendment as a individual right would spell a terrible precedent for first amendment encroachments. And that is how to attack it for followup political actions

[JeffKnox]

Worst case scenario: Status Quo.

Politicians have been operating under the "collective right" interpretation for 50 years and this is the FIRST time any of their laws has been thrown out on 2A grounds.
A big loss would mean that we would have to be even more diligent about keeping ignorant hoplophobes out of office.
Losing this case would take the threat of repealing a gun law through the courts out of our tool box, but since this is basically the first time it has ever been done, can we really say that it's been an important part of our tool set low these many years? It's been good debate fodder, but it hasn't had much impact on what the elected do.

[Cosmoline]

Cos, it unfortunately does involve the States.....but only as follows: "Do the States have the right to regulate RKBA's?"

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If they decide on a collective rights approach to the Second, that's not going to directly change how any state interprets its own constitution. If they decide on a broad individual rights approach, they still have to decide if the Second applies to the states via the 14th. And I don't think that's going to happen this time.

[Ric]

IF the court decides to hear it.
two words "reasonable restrictions" is always up to political interpretation.

[TEDDY]

you do know that the gun laws of 1934 was based on the commerce clause.as a tax bill.every thing after has followed on the 1934 law.one of the newer scotus has remarked that its time to review the laws.he is progun.sooo they may take it on.my outlook.
:uhoh: :confused: :)

[heypete]

I agree with the others who think that things would pretty much remain the same.

Still, any argument about a "collective/state militia rights" position is easily countered with reality. There are hundreds of millions of guns in the US owned by 100 million gun owners. Various laws are set up regulating (but still allowing) the manufacturer, distribution, sale, and purchase of firearms by private citizens. Even restrictive laws like the NFA still allow for the private ownership of machineguns (though 922(o) is a pain due to no new MGs), silencers, explosives, and other stuff without going so far as to actually ban them (again, 922(o) excepted). Clearly, if people didn't have a right to own these items, they would have been simply banned outright. The fact that they weren't banned outright strongly suggests that people have the right to own them.

Same thing with handguns, EBRs, or anything else. The fact that people in the majority of localities today can purchase these items suggests that people have a right to purchase them. The fact that this right is being infringed in some areas doesn't make it any less of a right.

I have the feeling the Supreme Court will have similar thoughts to these going through their head: "Well, the text in the Constitution is clear to us , and has been interpreted this way by legal and Congressional scholars since the amendment was written. Legal precedence in most of the country suggests that it protects an individual right. The majority of Americans believe it protects an individual right. It seems like the answer's pretty clear: the Second Amendment protects an individual right."

Even anti-gun scholars have come to the conclusion that it protects an individual right. I can't really see how someone remotely interested in justice (and the Supreme Court is very interested in justice and propriety) and Constitutional law (again, their specialty) could come to the conclusion that it [I]doesn't protect an individual right.

I doubt the pro-gun folks would get a unanimous decision, but I have a very strong suspicion that the court will rule in the pro-gun side's favor.

[alucard0822]

Same thing with handguns, EBRs, or anything else. The fact that people in the majority of localities today can purchase these items suggests that people have a right to purchase them. The fact that this right is being infringed in some areas doesn't make it any less of a right.

Basically the way I see it is that the right to self defense
and preservation , and the means therof, weither it be against criminals, tyranical governments, or to put food on the table is a natural right that predates the constitution. The fact that there are extensive barriers to own weapons compatible to those carried by the infantry, and even pistols in some localities are an infringement, since 1934 our "right" has become a privelage. I don't think even a unanimous decision in our favor would put a stop to all of the 20,000+ gun laws across the country, but it would help us to build momentum, and may even wake up a few gun owners to follow the debate and vote acordingly, afterall we need all the help we can get heading into the 2008 elections, AKA"battle of the gun grabbers"

[jpk1md]

Cos, it unfortunately does involve the States.....but only as follows: "Do the States have the right to regulate RKBA's?"

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If they decide on a collective rights approach to the Second, that's not going to directly change how any state interprets its own constitution. If they decide on a broad individual rights approach, they still have to decide if the Second applies to the states via the 14th. And I don't think that's going to happen this time.

Cos, I guess what I'm getting at is a notion where the court could decide that the States do not have the right/power to Regulate Firearms Ownership.....that it is a Federal Right similar to regulation of Interstate Commerce.

[Cosmoline]

notion where the court could decide that the States do not have the right/power to Regulate Firearms Ownership.....that it is a Federal Right similar to regulation of Interstate Commerce.

No, that's not going to happen. There are only a very small number of areas where states CANNOT make laws. They cannot make treaties with foreign nations, for example. And they can't impose their own customs duties on imports or exports. Health and safety have always been valid grounds for states to pass laws. Indeed, the states have a far STRONGER basis for regulating firearm use than the feds ever have. Before Prohibition, federal criminal law barely existed. And there's scant basis for it in the Constitution, apart from perhaps the Marshal service and postal inspectors.

[ozwyn]

If the supreme court throws out parker, it might wake up 90% of the gun owners it the country and anger them enough to get involved.

which in and of itself may be victory

[gunsmith]

we will be able to force NYC/NJ/CA etc to recognize our ccw's and we will be
able to have AR15's in those places as well.
I expect that we will be able to buy 1000 dollar brand new MP5's again in cool States.:D

[Bartholomew Roberts]

A bad decision on Parker would make the backlash on the Kelo look pale by comparison. It might actually wake up the millions of gun owners who think everything is peachy to hear a Supreme Court declare that the Second Amendment means the government can ban any firearm it wants. I predict it would be a huge election issue and because such a decision would be 5-4, it would be a decision that would be reversed later IF gun owners actually maintained their anger and got involved in the political process on a major level.

To be honest, I am more scared about what a win means than a loss means. I think we have very little to lose and the announcement of such a loss would galvanize a lot of people who aren't paying attention right now. A win on the other hand means "an individual right subject to reasonable restrictions" and 30-40 years of court battles over what a "reasonable restriction" means. A win means the real fight just started.

[30 cal slob]

A bad decision on Parker would make the backlash on the Kelo look pale by comparison. It might actually wake up the millions of gun owners who think everything is peachy to hear a Supreme Court declare that the Second Amendment means the government can ban any firearm it wants. I predict it would be a huge election issue and because such a decision would be 5-4, it would be a decision that would be reversed later IF gun owners actually maintained their anger and got involved in the political process on a major level.

To be honest, I am more scared about what a win means than a loss means. I think we have very little to lose and the announcement of such a loss would galvanize a lot of people who aren't paying attention right now. A win on the other hand means "an individual right subject to reasonable restrictions" and 30-40 years of court battles over what a "reasonable restriction" means. A win means the real fight just started.

Almost along the lines of Carthago non delenda est - Carthage must not be destroyed because we need a strong enemy to survive.

[geekWithA.45]

would be a decision that would be reversed later IF gun owners actually maintained their anger and got involved in the political process on a major level.

I don't think so.

When has SCOTUS ever reversed a bad, erroneous ruling in a short timeframe?

A bad ruling would stand for at least 50 years. Face it, it's the 21st century, and we're still dealing with the aftermath of Kruikshank, and a host of other bad rulings that took place in the 19th century, nevermind the travesties of the 20th.

If SCOTUS takes cert, it's either Victory or Death (of the Republic).

[Bartholomew Roberts]

When has SCOTUS ever reversed a bad, erroneous ruling in a short timeframe?

SCOTUS doesn't tend to reverse bad rulings in a short timeframe because the life appointment process tends to mean slow changes on the court. In this case though, we would almost certainly see new justices replacing collective rights justices within one or two election cycles.

Two new justices appointed by a President and Congress elected by angry gunowners would change the dynamic of that decision drastically - and SCOTUS doesn't necessarily need to reverse. They can always do the non-reversal, reversal - witness the doctrine of "Substantive Due Process" for example. After the 14th Amendment was passed to extend the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states, the Supreme Court ruled in the Slaughterhouse cases that effectively the 14th amendment did not extend the Bill of Rights to the states buy only minor "privileges and immunities."

Today, that same ruling is essentially still good law on that point; but the later development of substantive due process and incorporation has effectively neutered the Slaughterhouse ruling. A 6-3 or 7-2 court can do that with a negative ruling in Parker just as easily; but I think this may be one of the few cases where they would just flat out overturn the earlier ruling.

[geekWithA.45]

hmmmm.


Still, I judge a position of legal negation to be worse than our current state of legal ambiguity.

True, a negative ruling might fire up a base of complacency, but how certain are we that this is the case? How much do we trust that the majority of our overall population has an understanding of, nevermind "abiding belief" in the value of a militarily credible armed citizenry? How much of our 2A support is of the soft "hunting, sports, and _maybe_ self defense" variety? If the middle of the road support is the majority case, they might be all too happy to settle on RKBA as a highly conditional privilege, rather than a right and that would be a disaster. We'd lose it for all time.

The reason I'm skeptical here, frankly, is my electoral experience in the Dark & Fascist state of NJ, where populist support of nannyism is rampant, and my theory of the "untapped reservoir of sanity" proved false.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

30 Cal, I think that is a bad analogy because we don't need an enemy to survive. A better analogy might be that a loss here might prompt people who are currently doing nothing to fight. A win on the other hand may well provoke apathy just when we need everyone to be fighting.

geek...no question that TX and NJ are worlds apart in culture on that issue. So you may have a point.

[fletcher]

Is there a site where we can find regular updates on this?

[jpk1md]

There was a good thread in Legal and Politics but the forum is shut down for poor behavior....hope they open it up again soon b/c there was a lot of good info and discussion on L&P Issues.

[hamourkiller]

After Ruby Ridge and Waco, Radical militias increase thier memberships to several 100,000's. Then Oklahoma City. Action and reaction. HOW the laws are enforced will determine if things get bloody or not.

I think they have more to worry about with the Muslims right now. The Federal nightmare is an alliance between the Muslims and the Right Wing Militias. They will placate one group while hammering the other.
Notice after New Orleans confiscation how fast laws were passed to stop such actions at a local level.
I dont think they wanted to stoke that fire at this time.
Just my guess but I have been wrong before.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

There are no updates to make. D.C. has indicated they will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court and SCOTUS has given them an extension on the appeal until Sept. 5 IIRC.

[JeffKnox]

I keep a pretty close eye on this kind of thing and keep my subscribers informed to developments - on Parker and other gun issues. I think I was the first "major" Alerts List to report the DC decision to appeal and the first to post a fairly thorough analysis of the situation on the web.
We only send out an alert when there is something to report so members don't get flooded with inane, irrelevant BS all the time. And we never sell or share our members' information with anyone.
Anyone who'd like to receive our e-mail Alerts can opt-in by clicking "Alerts" on our web site at www.FirearmsCoalition.org and then following the sub-menu that appears under it to subscribe.

Jeff