Getting SCOTUS To Rule On AWB ???


PDA






7.62X25mm
November 22, 2008, 12:07 AM
Hypothetical scenario --

Let's say Pres. Elect Obama et al decides to pass an AWB; looking at his current Cabinet appointments and the Congress, he has his ducks all lined up.

And so how do we "make a Federal Case out of it" ???

Heller seems the wedge which might open the door to a SCOTUS ruling on an AWB, but what would be a legal strategy for getting the issue before the Court?

You know . . . "Article II" RKBA, "Article I" . . . "to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

If you enjoyed reading about "Getting SCOTUS To Rule On AWB ???" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Hoppy590
November 22, 2008, 01:04 AM
"make a Federal Case out of it" ???

you have to loose a case, loose appeals at the highest state court, file a writ of certiorari and HOPE they even care to listen to you.

7.62X25mm
November 22, 2008, 01:18 AM
You mean "lose the case, have appeals move up the judicial ladder."

-----------------

http://certiorari.search.ipupdater.com/certiroari

Certiorari

In English Law certiorari (Latin, "to inform") is a public law relief (i.e. something for which you ask the court in order to deal with an action of the Government, council or other (quasi)-governmental organisation.) See judicial review and writ. An order of certiorari is given by a senior court to reverse the actions of a lower court or other (quasi)-governmental organisation which has made a decision. The use of certiorari in the UK is declining, due to the changes to the remedies available for judicial review. Historically, certiorari was a prerogative writ used to direct a lower court or tribunal to certify for review the "record" in the case. In the U.S., certiorari is the writ that an appellate court issues to a lower court in order to review its judgment for legal error, where no appeal is available as a matter of right. Since most cases cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, for example, a party who wants that court to review a decision of a federal or state court files a "petition for a writ of certiorari" in the Supreme Court. If the court grants the petition, the case is scheduled for briefing and argument. That does not necessarily mean the Supreme Court has found anything wrong with the decision, merely that it wants to look at it for some reason. Four of the nine justices must vote to grant a writ of certiorari. The great majority of cases brought to the Supreme Court are denied certiorari, because the Supreme Court is generally careful to choose only cases in which it has jurisdiction and which it considers sufficiently important to merit the use of its limited resources. Certiorari is sometimes informally referred to as cert, and cases warranting the Supreme Court's attention as certworthy. One situation where the Supreme Court sometimes grants certiorari is when the federal appeals courts in two (or more) federal judicial circuits have ruled different ways in similar situations, and the Supreme Court wants to resolve that "circuit split" about how the law is supposed to apply to that kind of situation. Some U.S. state court systems use the same terminology, but in others, writ of review or leave to appeal is used in place of writ of certiorari as the name for discretionary review of a lower court's judgment. In the administrative law context, the common-law writ of certiorari was historically used by lower courts in the U.S. for judicial review of decisions made by an administrative agency after an adversarial hearing. Some states have retained this use of the writ of certiorari, while others have replaced it with statutory procedures. In the federal courts, this use of certiorari has been abolished, and replaced by a civil action under the Administrative Procedure Act in a United States District Court, or in some circumstances, a petition for review in a United States Court of Appeals. Category:Law Category:Prerogative

Hoppy590
November 22, 2008, 01:35 AM
haha yes, lose. damn my spelling.

Librarian
November 22, 2008, 01:55 AM
SCOTUS receives about 8,000 cert petitions annually, and has decided about 70 the last couple of years.

I can't find a decent discussion on what seems to influence them to accept a case for decision; generally a 'circuit split', where two or more federal circuit courts come to different decisions on the same point of federal law, is thought to increase the likelihood.

But Parker/Heller started in 2003.

BHP FAN
November 22, 2008, 02:52 AM
I just hope it doesn't come up,or failing that,and it does,that they find in our favor...

7.62X25mm
November 22, 2008, 02:23 PM
Pure speculation here --

In light of the recent Heller decision, I expect that SCOTUS might be inclined to further define the specifications and applicability of Article II.

This whole area of the law has been systematically excluded from discussion by SCOTUS and it seems that the current Court may have opened the door to further considerations.

cbrgator
November 22, 2008, 02:26 PM
you have to loose a case, loose appeals at the highest state court, file a writ of certiorari and HOPE they even care to listen to you.

Not entirely true. A challenge to a Federal AWB could be brought directly to the SCOTUS. (See Art. III, Sec. 2)

7.62X25mm
November 23, 2008, 01:03 AM
Article III, Section 2 of WHAT ???

cbrgator
November 23, 2008, 01:11 AM
The Constitution

7.62X25mm
November 23, 2008, 01:20 AM
Ohhhhhhhhhhh, THAT Article III, Section 2 . . .

:D

cbrgator
November 23, 2008, 03:18 AM
Yes, now go read it ;)

Old Guy
November 23, 2008, 04:22 AM
The part of Heller that intrigued me, was the reference to the parallel between the weapons of the day.

The modern equivalent to the common rifle/musket being the civilian version of the Military Rifle, not full auto.

It also might not be a good idea to rock the boat with the power brokers from Chicago (the money men) seeing the challenges to their ban on CCW looming in the wings.

It will be interesting to see how the President Elect deals with his cabinet pick, when one of them screws up? I think they will be gone so quickly, the closing door will hit them in the bum!

They all most likely will sign an un-dated letter of resignation to make the process painless.

TAB
November 23, 2008, 05:02 AM
obama does not have the power to pass an AWB... That would be congress...

gitnsige
November 23, 2008, 06:35 AM
The modern equivalent to the common rifle/musket being the civilian version of the Military Rifle, not full auto.

i have brought this up to non-gunners who don't understand the whole gun rights issue. my argument is how can a militia be armed with hunting rifles when the 2nd amendment was written it had to be concerning the contemporary arms of the time, and EBRs are the equivalent, not shotguns and six shooters or torches and pitchforks.

Cyborg
December 1, 2008, 01:49 PM
Erm, excuse me for being dense (my Momma called me "baby boy" but I don't remember her calling me "son"). BUT:

cbrgator, referring to Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, urged: Yes, now go read it
OK. I read it. Couple of times. I still don't see where III,2 allows an appeal to be brought directly to the SCOTUS.

I saw where it says that in all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. And I saw that in all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. How does that give us the option of "direct appeal"??

PLUS, Even if we DO have the right of direct appeal, there is nothing to require SCOTUS to grant cert. If they do not grant cert or if they remand it to lower courts first, the the law will stand.

RIGHT??

Or did I miss something?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyborg
Burying your head in the sand only makes your a** a better target.

jerryrigger
December 1, 2008, 02:09 PM
I'm no lawyer and I certainly don't claim to understand the entirety, or for the most part, any of the Constitution to a level that would allow me to answer such a question definitively, but I believe the reason would be that SCOTUS has appellate jurisdiction over federal laws. Sure they have to be followed state to state, but I believe, or it would seem likely that a Federal AWB would be something SCOTUS is more likely to rule on than a State level court...Also, SCOTUS does have the ability to rule legislation as unconstitutional from the getgo, and never let it get off the ground. If I'm not mistaken, they hold a power similar to a presidential veto in that respect...And while Obama can't PASS said legislation, he certainly can introduce it to Congress (which I greatly hope that he will not)...Just a thought, but I am eagerly awaiting someone with more knowledge commenting on the question.

On another note, for whatever reason, I do not see a Fed. AWB coming, although looming might be a term I that could describe it...I think it is a Pandora's Box that the people in office, the President included, might feel is better left alone. I certainly hope that this feeling is correct.

cbrgator
December 1, 2008, 02:33 PM
Cyborg,

I wasn't referring to appellate jurisdiction. I was referring to original jurisdiction. I said that an AWB could be bright directly to the SCOTUS because of the first sentence of Sec. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

The AWB ban could be challenged directly as a violation of the Second Amendment under either "arising under this constitution" OR "the laws of the United States" as an AWB falls under both.

And you are absolutely right that they are not required to grant cert, but they aren't required to grant Cert in any case whatsoever. And yes, the law would stand unless and until they ruled it unconstitutional.

Does that clear it up at all?

Cyborg
December 1, 2008, 03:18 PM
I said that an AWB could be bright directly to the SCOTUS because of the first sentence of Sec. 2.
But my understanding of the terms "original" and "appellate" jurisdiction is that SCOTUS only has appellate jurisdiction over laws passed by congress and that was what I was asking about. So any law passed by Congress has to be ruled upon by lower courts before it can be considered by/argued before SCOTUS since SCOTUS only has "original" jurisdiction on matters "affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party". Of course I am not a legal scholar - hardly a scholar of any sort - and could be badly mistaken on the definitions of different types of jurisdiction.

I do expect Barama to get a new AWB passed fairly soon. I would be surprised if the recent tragedy in Mumbai did not figure heavily in the rhetoric used to sell the new legislation. If something happens that can be spun to be a "terrorist incident" here in the U.S. it will only make it easier to get a new AWB passed.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyborg
Burying your head in the sand only makes your a** a better target.

cbrgator
December 1, 2008, 03:22 PM
My apologies, I left one essential part out. Challenging the AWB would make the United States a party.

JImbothefiveth
December 1, 2008, 03:48 PM
I fear the current court might rule that they are constitutional, but then again, that won't change anything from how it is now.

cbrgator
December 1, 2008, 04:05 PM
Well, here is a paragraph from the opinion I always thought was heavily in our favor regarding an AWB.


It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

I think the 4 conservatives would hold an AWB unconstitutional but Kennedy might jump ship and cost us. No way to know until it happens.

Sinixstar
December 2, 2008, 12:13 AM
Pure speculation here --

In light of the recent Heller decision, I expect that SCOTUS might be inclined to further define the specifications and applicability of Article II.

This whole area of the law has been systematically excluded from discussion by SCOTUS and it seems that the current Court may have opened the door to further considerations.

Or this might have just been the "yea yea, alright, here i made a decision on the issue - now leave me alone about it for awhile..." kinda case...

Frank Ettin
December 26, 2008, 08:33 PM
...Also, SCOTUS does have the ability to rule legislation as unconstitutional from the getgo, and never let it get off the ground. If I'm not mistaken, they hold a power similar to a presidential veto in that respect...
Nope, SCOTUS is a court, and like all courts decides cases. They will not "head off" a law, and they have no veto power. They in theory may, but virtually never, by pass intermediate levels of appeal.

cbrgator
December 26, 2008, 08:41 PM
Or this might have just been the "yea yea, alright, here i made a decision on the issue - now leave me alone about it for awhile..." kinda case...

Totally untrue. Scalia said in the opinion itself that this was only one case and that they couldn't decide the full scope of the 2nd amendment with just this opinion and that it would take additional cases to further define the limits.

It might be mentioned elsewhere but here is at least part of what I'm talking about.
JUSTICE BREYER chides us for leaving so many applications
of the right to keep and bear arms in doubt, and for
not providing extensive historical justification for those
regulations of the right that we describe as permissible.
See post, at 42–43. But since this case represents this
Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment,
one should not expect it to clarify the entire field,
any more than Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145
(1879), our first in-depth Free Exercise Clause case, left
that area in a state of utter certainty. And there will be
time enough to expound upon the historical justifications
for the exceptions we have mentioned if and when those
exceptions come before us.

Frank Ettin
December 26, 2008, 08:51 PM
...Scalia said in the opinion itself that this was only one case and that they couldn't decide the full scope of the 2nd amendment with just this opinion and that it would take additional cases to further define the limits.
Absolutely correct. The Court could not go beyond the issues presented by the case before it.

Geneseo1911
December 26, 2008, 11:55 PM
Did not the SCOTUS decline to hear challenges to the '94 ban?

cbrgator
December 27, 2008, 12:31 AM
Did not the SCOTUS decline to hear challenges to the '94 ban?
No clue. But, even if they did refuse cert to any of those petitions, it might be different this time around with Heller on our side. They may not rule in our favor but I think they'd be far more likely to hear the case.

mgregg85
December 27, 2008, 12:38 AM
If they do address the AWB, it will probably take several years, and by then obama might have filled the court with justices of his ilk. We might not want the AWB to be decided by SCOTUS in that case as it will be a political decision.

cbrgator
December 27, 2008, 12:57 AM
They are always political decisions. It's just a matter of whether or not your on the same side as the majority.

outerlimit
December 27, 2008, 05:00 AM
The part that scares me the most is this:

"An individual right 'is not being infringed if reasonable restrictions are placed upon it,' Chief Justice John Roberts said"

That's like equating the AWB to restrictions on 1st Amendment rights such as someone falsely yelling 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater.

They are not equivalent.

Obviously someone who does this, is doing it in malice, and is doing it to cause harm to others. Someone who buys an AR-15 does not likely intend to commit a crime with it and they are not doing it with bad intentions.

And this is one of the so called conservative Justices that voted 5-4.

kolob10
December 27, 2008, 10:20 AM
Gentlemen, All the discussion of an assualt weapon ban scare the pants off me. We are in perilous times. I cannot depend on the local police to defend my rights as I live in a rural area and the response time for local police help is probably around 20-30 minutes at best. The Founders I believe intended us to be armed to defend our rights from an unrighteous and corrupt government! Should we not be armed in like manner? It is probably safe to say that we all here enjoy similar feelings toward the intent of the Founders concerning the 2nd Ammendment. The question remains - What is our best course of action currently to influence a future decision on a AWB? Yes, all decisions concerning the interpretation of the Articles of the Constitution are political as it seems. What happened to government of the people, by the people and for the people? I for one am feeling rather frustrated not only by our current political agendas but more by the inaction of the people. We need more political activism by the majority!! Or maybe the founders were correct in wanting only those who own real property to have the right to vote? I'm not a barrister but have enjoyed the previous comments. Goos shooting.

Mike OTDP
December 27, 2008, 10:33 AM
Back to the OP....

The smartest tactic to use is to file suit at the Federal level...in the most strongly pro-gun circuit, with the most appealing plaintiff available. Which means the 5th Circuit, and a woman who is a NRA Service Rifle competitor. Then use previous 5th Circuit rulings and the Heller ruling to win.

Then file similar suits in slightly less friendly Circuits...using the previous decision as a precedent. Win those.

Follow up with cases in hostile circuits. This may or may not work. If we win...we win. If not, it produces a split that guarantees that SCOTUS will take the case...but with most Circuits ruling in our favor, it's an open-and-shut case.

This is precisely the strategy that was used to win the civil rights cases in the 1950s and 1960s. It's a winner, if you have the patience to use it.

cbrgator
December 27, 2008, 10:41 AM
It's a winner, if you have the patience to use it.
If I've learned one thing so far in law school its that NOTHING is a sure thing. Every case has two sides with two technically sound arguments. I'm not saying your course of action is wrong, I think its great, but never be that confident when it comes to the law.

JImbothefiveth
December 27, 2008, 11:09 AM
One thing that should be kept in mind before anyone proposes challenging an AWB is that by the time the case reaches the court, Obama may have appointed a few of his goons from Chicago as justices.

legaleagle_45
December 27, 2008, 11:51 AM
Nope, SCOTUS is a court, and like all courts decides cases.

SCOTUS, and all other federal courts are constitutionaly constrained to hear and decide only "cases and controversies". This means that they can only involve themselves in actual disputes between actual adversaries and has led to legal terms of art which touch upon this constitutioal requirement, such as standing, ripeness and mootness... not all courts are thus constrained. Some states have given thier highest court the ability to issue "advisory opinions" in which the court is allowed to decide issues without real adversries being involved. This can be dangerous because in those situations, the court does not have the benefit of hearing effective argument from all sides having a stake in the outcome of the decision... it could be a set up a situation where only one side provides analysis and argument... which is sorta what happened in US v Miller.

everallm
December 28, 2008, 10:41 AM
Before we start debating the paths for raising a non existent and currently only potential "Son of AWB" people should really look at the current legal and political landscape first.

Some examples from the Legal landscape

First off, read the whole bloody Heller verdict and not someone else's cherry picked support for their own prejudices, wants, fears and desires. When the court says things like

"The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places ......."

It means, this is not part of the original case and so we're not ruling on it, not it can never be raised.

There continues to be much "Oh my God, it was only a 5-4 verdict, we're close to being dooooooomed". What we ACTUALLY had was 5 in full signed off support and a range of opinions in the 4 from close to far far away. A very different thing.

"Oh my God, Obama will replace/appoint new Justices and reverse it......We're doooooooomed". Please read the actual appointment/approval process for a SC justice and then have a look at how various "shoo-in" left and right wing justices have gone their own sweet way and confounded their original supporters.

Statistically speaking the justices most likely to die or retire are from the "controller" side and if they are replaced like for like it's a wash. The only other way would be for Obama to propose and send to the House a bill to increase the overall numbers of SC Justices, get that passed then propose and get passed at least another 9 justices, all with lifetime tenure and hope they vote the way he wants........All for one bill.......I find that somewhat unlikely.

All judges and most particularly SC justices are inherently conservative (small C) in that they do not look happily on legal reversal on a dime. It took them over 70 years to opine after Miller. Reversal of Heller is simply not going to happen, not because it's 2A but because judges cannot let themselves be seen to swing with the wind.

Incorporation of 2A, one way or the other is eventually going to happen, it is, by it's very nature, the 14th amendments "elephant in the room" that everyone has been politely ignoring for a long time. The issue is not incorporation but how the "reasonable" regulations and restrictions are crafted and what level of scrutiny is applied. I wait the Nordyke ruling with a profound mixture of both optimism and apprehension.

Some politics.....(but not the IBTL type.....)

Everyone has an opinion on Obama but no one should think he's either naive or politically stupid. The man got to Harvard Law and made his way without apparent major taint through the world of Chicago machine politics. He defeated Clinton and has now neutered her potential to cause trouble by removing her from a power base in the Senate and placing her in a position at the pleasure and favor of the President. If, in 12 months time, as part of a Cabinet reshuffle he axes her, she has no immediate fall back option.

What is the fundamental desire of a politician, other than holding power over others.......It's to be re-elected.
Obama has a huge expectation from the electorate that he will fix the fundamentals in the US, economy, housing, pensions, health care, crappy infrastructure etc etc.
He has a substantial but time decaying amount of political capital to spend and will conserve and spend it so he can acquire more to replace that which has gone.
An AWB will need political capital to be spent like a drunken sailor on shore leave at every stage of the bills process and will generate minimal positive capital earn.

The time to be concerned would be in a potential second term when he doesn't have to worry about being re-elected, wants to burnish his legacy and can spend capital freely.

An AWB is unlikely to ever get out of committee, ammunition serialization, mandatory child proofing, increases in tax revenue streams etc, here we need to really worry.

ServiceSoon
December 28, 2008, 12:01 PM
Very good post everallm. I would add "requiring background checks for all firearms sales" as a threat.

Cyborg
December 28, 2008, 12:23 PM
legaleagle and fiddletown correct me if I am mistaken but any 5-4 SCOTUS is a good one irrespective of whether or not you agree with the majority because it means that the matter was settled at the proper level. There will often be times when honest, honorable men (and women, of course) will disagree on something. In such a case SOMEone must decide one way or the other. For all legal disputes at the national level SCOTUS exists to do that. 5-4 decisions or at worst 6-3 should be the norm. Any decision decided 7-2 or 8-1 should never have gotten that far. A unanimous SCOTUS decision is the legal equivalent of a slam dunk. Those should NEVER get to SCOTUS and do so only because the Justices realize that the only way to end the squabbling is to rule on the matter.

For the record, Bush v Gore, the SCOTUS decision that allegedly gave GW the Presidency, was not a 5-4 ruling. The vote was 5-4 to GRANT CERT. The actual decision was decided 7-2 meaning it should have never gotten to that level. If you want to get the full story on the 2000 election, I suggest you read Bill Sammon's excellent "At Any Cost".

RE:Please read the actual appointment/approval process for a SC justice and then have a look at how various "shoo-in" left and right wing justices have gone their own sweet way and confounded their original supporters.
That may have been so in the past (althogh I suspect it was more that "conservative" AJ candidates went in a path not expected than "liberal" candidates) but these days, the left is (or to this observer appears to be) increasingly applying ideological litmus tests to such people. In the current political climate, I would expect any AJ's confirmed to be strongly and actively leftist. I would also expect the oldest current leftist AJs to announce their intent to retire soon after Barama is sworn in.

I would not be surprised if one or more of the true conservative AJs did not expire of sudden medical or accidental causes during the next 4 years. It would only take the untimely death of one conservative AJ to swing things to the left's favor. If it were CJ Robert's passing, then the left would have an enormous advantage since the CJ has a gread deal of power/influence in setting agendae for SCOTUS. And before everallm jumps in to accuse me of being a "chicken little" or of following Grandpa Vanderboegh's "advice" When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. I would remind you that the left is famous for its "ends justify means" operational philosophy. Also there is an 11th beatitude that runs something like Blessed is the man who expects the worst for to him life is full of pleasant surprises. I would say "blessed is the man who expects AND PREPARES FOR the worst".

Excuse me. Gotta get back to working on my list of stuff to stockpile when I see the storm brewing on the horizon. Lessee, hum, . . . .

Cyborg

jdc1244
December 28, 2008, 12:27 PM
The time to be concerned would be in a potential second term when he doesn't have to worry about being re-elected, wants to burnish his legacy and can spend capital freely.

Perhaps – but since 1961 all three ‘successful’ presidents have had problematic second terms to the extent that the political capital is mostly spent by that time and desired goals not realized. Also, all three of these re-elected presidents spent all or part of their second terms with Congress controlled by the opposition party. Significant gun control may not make the final cut in the President’s overall legacy if it means sacrificing other goals he considers more important.

everallm
December 29, 2008, 09:04 AM
Cyborg,

I don't belittle your stance, I've been through situations that went from "It's golden" to "What the F**K" more than I want to count......8-)

Like yourself, I generally work on the 7P principle, Proper Prior Preparation Prevents Piss Poor Performance myself.

My thesis is more towards the high volume, high noise, low signal tendency, low information integrity individuals amongst us. Such as one charming gentleman who took umbrage to my refuting him on his dubious and unsubstantiated "facts". Apparently that makes me a paid disinformation tool of the New World Order.......

Yes there is a possibility that

1. Obama could decide to support an aggressive AWB, spending political capital hand over fist to the detriment of other programs,

2. Where 2 or more non "controller" SC justices retire or die and are replaced by AWB friendly members

3. Where the electorate passively accepts their immediate urgent concerns being ignored

4. Where the SC goes against it's own recent established ruling and reverses Heller.

Etc.

Each is possible, but each has a low probability and as a whole it is improbable but not impossible.

Frank Ettin
December 29, 2008, 11:43 AM
legaleagle and fiddletown correct me if I am mistaken but any 5-4 SCOTUS is a good one irrespective of whether or not you agree with the majority because it means that the matter was settled at the proper level. There will often be times when honest, honorable men (and women, of course) will disagree on something. In such a case SOMEone must decide one way or the other. For all legal disputes at the national level SCOTUS exists to do that. 5-4 decisions or at worst 6-3 should be the norm. Any decision decided 7-2 or 8-1 should never have gotten that far. A unanimous SCOTUS decision is the legal equivalent of a slam dunk. Those should NEVER get to SCOTUS and do so only because the Justices realize that the only way to end the squabbling is to rule on the matter.....
I can't really agree with all of this. The decision in Heller was good because it was what we wanted and probably the best we could get given the nature and reach of the case, but I'm not all that happy that it was only 5 to 4. And I really don't think that one can categorize Supreme Court decisions in quite the way you've done.

There's room for an awful lot of speculation about how things will unfold in the future. But it's just that -- speculation.

We'll need to control things the best we can. Pick the battles to engage. Fight those battles as they arise. And lay the best foundations we can for future trips to the Supreme Court. In any event, one case is not enough. We need to build a body of decisional law.

If you enjoyed reading about "Getting SCOTUS To Rule On AWB ???" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!