Supreme Court To Decide Whether To Hear D.C. Gun Ban Case On Nov. 9

This will be interesting to say the least.

Good, one way or another, I'll be able to start breathing again on 10 Nov.

Then I'll get to hold my breath until they issue a ruling.......

So, if they refuse to hear the case, then the ban is overturned, correct?

Yes, at least for the District of Columbia Circuit. But if the Supreme Court refuses review, I think the other circuit courts would get the message also. Just guessing (IANAL).

We win this one either way, but if SCOTUS takes it, we stand to win BIG, and on a much broader scale.

Waiting to hear if they'll take it has been harder than waiting on an extra spiffy new pistol when you're on a 10-day.

If the Court rules against us, then we are back pretty much where we are now.

Click to expand...

I have a hunch if the Supreme Court rules against the Second Amendment, leftist extremists from coast to coast will see the ruling as a blessing upon further predations.

I'm very much afraid government is going to look after the interests of government.

If it need be said, I hope I'm wrong.

SCOTUS knows the politics of this, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if they decline to hear the case . . . that means the DC ban will remain dead, but it will take court fights in other districts to strike down their bans.

I only see SCOTUS actually rendering a decision if another district court hands down a contradictory ruling - for example, upholding Chicago's ban. Then we'd have two courts in conflict, and SCOTUS would pretty much have to deliver a verdict.

I hope I'm wrong, and SCOTUS decides a verdict in our favor. All the credible scholarship is on our side, but when you've got idiot justices like Ginsberg deciding matters of US law based on foreign practice, who knows?

------quote------
I think the other circuit courts would get the message also
-----------------

Somehow, I think the 9th Circus - the source of the "only applies to the militia, and there is no militia" interpretation of the 2nd - will take a lot more persuading than that.

------quote------
If the Court rules against us, then we are back pretty much where we are now.
-----------------

I like your optimism and wish I could share it, but I don't see it that way. I think if the Supremes were to rule against us - establishing something like the 9th Circus opinion above - it will be a major victory for the antis. Even if it is only a psychological victory, it will be a boost for them and it would pave the way for any kind of restriction anyone wanted to pass.

I think the most likely scenario if they hear the case is a very narrow ruling that doesn't go very far beyond the DC case. About the best we can realistically hope for would be a ruling that seems to open the door to challenge other infringements one by one.

I really do not think we are going to get some kind of super-favorable ruling where the SCOTUS rules on Monday, striking down all the restrictive laws in one fell swoop, and we're all out buying M2's on Tuesday. I'd like to see that happen, but I am not holding my breath.

Keep in mind the Silberman decision specifically recognized the ability of jurisdictions to impose various gun controls. It just said a de facto outright ban was unconstitutional. If SCOTUS doesn't take the case, and the Silberman decision stands, look for D.C. to write an ALMOST outright ban, with criteria that would be impossible for the average citizen to meet.

I really giggled when I read the DC comment of

“drastically departs from the mainstream of American jurisprudence,”

This comment assumes that the law and Consitution are static items and that settled/established law is both inviolate and inherently right.

I assume they have forgotten that

1. This is the 2nd AMENDMENT, and one of many other amendments...guess what living document that changes. I won't even go down the route of the 14th amendment that overturned and continues to over turn previously "settled" law. Lets see, can we say emanicapation and slavery.....

2. Settled, non constitutional law is always in change depending upon ethical, cultural, moral and legal grounds. Examples where once accepted LEGAL actions or activities have changed might include

Miranda, "insider trading", torture, sorry vigorous questioning in the War on Terror, Prohibition, abortion etc.

The Supreme Court is in general both interperative and conservative (as in slow to change, not necessarily politically). However they can and have made substantial changes where there is apparent and appropriate need.

I personally feel they the Supremes are not looking forward to ruling on this but they understand that the Miller case was never settled with any degree of clarity. As the SC they do not have any love for gray and fuzzy and the DC arguments are masterpieces of both.

I also see one possible area that hasn't discusses particularly when folks do their guesstimate of the voting along "liberal"/"conservative" lines.

Many of the more liberal side, whilst in many cases being at best agnostic on 2A, have a far more pressing concern with the continuing destruction of civil rights in the name of the War on Terror. There is a continuing disquiet over matters such as the profligate use of Executive Orders, Guantanamo and Extraordinary Rendition, PATRIOT Act abuses etc.


It would not be outside the real of possibility to see the SC's looking more deeply at the whole issue of the unorganised miltia and 2A as a buttress of civil rights in an every more uncertain world.

Well, we live in hope....