Updates on District of Columbia v. Heller?
- Thread starter nate392
- Start date
- Status
ctdonath
Member
Yes, they are. Hillary just sent out a pictorial flyer declaring herself much better on the subject than Obama.
UnknownSailor
Member
I believe the Heller case will be the pivotal event of our time.
I am not the only military member watching with extreme interest. This case has come up a few times in office conversation.
I am not the only military member watching with extreme interest. This case has come up a few times in office conversation.
usmarine0352_2005
member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,796
When SCOTUS says that the DC gun ban is unconstitutional and that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right (hopefully) then you will see:
1.) Hillary goes on a hunting trip with John Kerry. And to show us how she went hunting with her dad as a child.
2.) Obama and Hillary both say that they've "ALWAYS" supported gun rights. (albeit with "reasonable" restrictions.)
:banghead:
1.) Hillary goes on a hunting trip with John Kerry. And to show us how she went hunting with her dad as a child.
2.) Obama and Hillary both say that they've "ALWAYS" supported gun rights. (albeit with "reasonable" restrictions.)
:banghead:
Shadow1198
Member
The very first thing we will see/hear is liberals hand wringing over the streets filling with blood, when in reality the ~31yr bloodbath will actually probably start declining as more people buy guns there. Well, not quite, but you get the idea.
You just know the anti's are gonna whine about it and make a big mess out of it in the media though.Igloodude
Member
spitfyre said:
Close to zero. California's laws won't be affected unless SCOTUS "incorporates" 2A rights, and most people that know what they're talking about think SCOTUS will wait for another case to do that.
And by the way, welcome to THR!
Consider this:
When the SCOTUS decision is finally delivered two things will immediately take place.
1) We'll have the verdict.
2) We'll start the chicken dance of media, experts, and other pundants interpretting the ruling and what it will mean for the future of civil rights (or lack thereof).
And fwiw, I'll go with 9 June.
When the SCOTUS decision is finally delivered two things will immediately take place.
1) We'll have the verdict.
2) We'll start the chicken dance of media, experts, and other pundants interpretting the ruling and what it will mean for the future of civil rights (or lack thereof).
And fwiw, I'll go with 9 June.
It would not completely surprise me if the court came back with a decision that took 2 or 3 decades of court cases to resolve.
OTOH, there really is almost nothing set in stone with this case, since the precedents are almost non-existent, so that might tempt them to be a little bolder in their ruling.
OTOH, there really is almost nothing set in stone with this case, since the precedents are almost non-existent, so that might tempt them to be a little bolder in their ruling.
Dahwg
Member
June 23, 7-2 Individual Right. 5-4 DC Ban unconstitutional, something less than strict scrutiny. 14A incorporation, But they won't actually give enough guidlines to immedieatley overturn The Republik of California, NYC and Chicago, we'll have to win each of those individually.
csmkersh
Member
Me neither since they are still misreading Miller.
IllHunter
Member
I think not.
TexasRifleman said:
TexasRifleman said:
What do you think John McCain wil bring up when he addresses the NRA convention on Friday (May16)? Last I saw he was "one of the candidates", I say it's 3-2 that he addresses Heller. Any takers? I also lay 2-1 that USSC finds 6-3 to uphold the appeals court with strict scrutiny. For bonus points I give even odds, June 16th since we're planning a rally in Chicago on Friday June 11th (Projected aotm)
woerm
Member
I'm going w/ early release
I have a hard time, after reading the transcript again, seeing any protracted debate in the conferences.
I'm calling May 27, with a 6-3 on individual right, 5-4 on strict scrutiny
If Souter finds a brain it may well be 7-2 on individual right.
I can't fathom taking this long to write a decision.
I figured maybe a weekend to find the right quotes from 'Common Sense' and the 'Federalist Papers' and one afternoon making sure all the 'tee's were crossed and the 'eye's dotted.
I am holding a slim hope they toss Miller and find incorporation too but I won't be surprised to see about twenty years of litigation
look at Brown v board and it was over a decade til it made any real difference at all in 'real world' legal results.
r
note Brown v board was also the culmination of over twenty years of civil rights litigation.
r
I have a hard time, after reading the transcript again, seeing any protracted debate in the conferences.
I'm calling May 27, with a 6-3 on individual right, 5-4 on strict scrutiny
If Souter finds a brain it may well be 7-2 on individual right.
I can't fathom taking this long to write a decision.
I figured maybe a weekend to find the right quotes from 'Common Sense' and the 'Federalist Papers' and one afternoon making sure all the 'tee's were crossed and the 'eye's dotted.
I am holding a slim hope they toss Miller and find incorporation too but I won't be surprised to see about twenty years of litigation
look at Brown v board and it was over a decade til it made any real difference at all in 'real world' legal results.
r
note Brown v board was also the culmination of over twenty years of civil rights litigation.
r
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
I thought it was fairly clear that I meant the anti candidates. Rarely has there been any "damage" done to a candidate for taking a pro gun stance, but many documented incidences of the opposite.
RoadkingLarry
Member
I still can't shake the feeling that we are gonna get hosed.
I don't think I would be real surprised if the court ruled its an individual right 9-0. The amendment is not all that obtuse. I suspect 7-2 or 6-3 that the DC law is unconstitutional is not an unreasonable expectation. But you never know with the courts. Keep in mind there is long precedent that any right that is inconvenient to government can be swept away without too much trouble, even if the courts recognize a right exists and is being trampled on.
The details of just what an "arm" is, what "keep" means, and the extent of what "bear" entails will keep the courts busy for a long time even if it is 9-0 on both issues.
The details of just what an "arm" is, what "keep" means, and the extent of what "bear" entails will keep the courts busy for a long time even if it is 9-0 on both issues.
romma
Member
Well I hope the government keeps in mind that the whole point is so they can be swept away. Trouble or no trouble...
ctdonath
Member
If you read some of their decisions, you'll understand - long, complex, precise elaborations & explanations. Every word will, in future, be picked apart and used/abused to facilitate decisions in other courts. One wrong phrase can cause misunderstandings/misuse for decades to come thru thousands of cases.
The decision might not take too long, but the writing of the decision could take quite awhile.
As the above poster said, this needs to be done exactly right, and the SC knows that.
I don't know where all you guys are getting your optimism from on the strict scrutiny thing, but here's my bet:
6-3 or 5-4 for individual right.
3, maybe 4 votes for strict scrutiny, but not enough. I feel this may be reworked to a new standard somewhere in between strict and intermediate scrutiny.
No incorporation
Formal de-linking of militia service from "keep & bear"
I have nightmares about our strict scrutiny votes going to intermediate just to protect the individual rights majority (or for any of a number of other reasons).
Am I the only one dreading an intermediate scrutiny ruling? I'm kind of surprised.
Reid
As the above poster said, this needs to be done exactly right, and the SC knows that.
I don't know where all you guys are getting your optimism from on the strict scrutiny thing, but here's my bet:
6-3 or 5-4 for individual right.
3, maybe 4 votes for strict scrutiny, but not enough. I feel this may be reworked to a new standard somewhere in between strict and intermediate scrutiny.
No incorporation
Formal de-linking of militia service from "keep & bear"
I have nightmares about our strict scrutiny votes going to intermediate just to protect the individual rights majority (or for any of a number of other reasons).
Am I the only one dreading an intermediate scrutiny ruling? I'm kind of surprised.
Reid
speedracer81
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 87
hey guys, where can I find a synopsis on this topic? I'm very interested since our fine Ga legislature just got HB 89 passed. now if you will excuse me, I have to go catch the bus (armed)
I sure hope they don't make up some kind of different level of scrutiny just for this one right. Its already confusing enough to the average citizent that different rights have different levels of scrutiny based on completely arbitrary factors.
Especially for an enumerated right, the level of scrutiny should be very high.
Especially for an enumerated right, the level of scrutiny should be very high.
They may not even rule on scrutiny at all. Instead they may rule that the laws in question are so far over the top that they would not be constitutional no matter what level of scrutiny is applied. Therefore making the scrutiny question mote in this case.
Conservative courts, like the current SCOTUS, like to issue rulings that are very narrow and if they can avoid making the ruling broader then they will. I personally think they are more likely to not rule on scrutiny this time around and that they will leave this question to be decided at a latter date or to be defined in a incremental way over time.
This issue is not being contested in this case and will not be ruled on one way or the other. If the court throws out the DC law then a suit filed against Chicago or NYC will be the follow on that will get a ruling on incorporation. But it WILL NOT happen in this case.
- Status