2nd Amendment proponents losing cases since Heller?

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's not so much that the gun-rights advocates have been on a losing streak. It's that the lower courts desperately want guidance from the Supreme Court. The Heller case raised as many questions as it answered.
 
Not really surprising, overall I think we're, for the short term anyways, better off losing in the LOWER courts. If we win there, then the rulings made only apply to that specific courts jurisdictions. The main idea is to try to get a lot of these cases us to the supreme court so the rulings are hopefully in our favor and apply to the whole nation.
 
I can't see where we're better off losing. Each decided case establishes law to some degree and the more of it on our side the better.

Also, I'd speculate the Supremes have done about all they intend to do on the 2A for the forseeable future and are now content to let the lower courts establish a body of case law based on the very broad guidelines they provided. If enough 'tension' (conflicting decisions) arises in out years they may pick a case to re-visit with the intent to clarify, but I'll be surprised if that's anytime soon.

Pray hard the next Supreme vacancy is one of the anti's. If not all bets are off we are in for serious trouble.
 
And you're taking a Brady-sourced article as gospel? A number of the lower court cases - not all - were designed to be appealed. Can't get them before SCOTUS if they don't get appealed at lower levels, and generally only the loser gets to appeal.
But if neither Williams nor Masciandaro strikes the court as the right opportunity for the next round of Second Amendment jurisprudence, Gura assures that there are more cases on the way.
Click to expand...
 
You have it figured pretty good.
We need to get these cases to SCOTUS to make a difference. That requires losing and appeals from one side or the other...
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morton_Grove,_Illinois#Handgun_ban

Handgun ban

In 1981, Morton Grove became the first town in America to prohibit the possession of handguns. Victor Quilici, a local lawyer, sued the city (Quilici v. Morton Grove). The federal district court as well as the Appellate Court ruled the Morton Grove ordinance to be constitutional, thus upholding the gun ban. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case, letting the lower court decision stand.

The ban stood as village code 6-2-3. However in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark 2008 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller.[3] it appeared likely that the village would drop the ban. On July 28, 2008 the city dropped its prohibition on handguns. The village board voted 5-1 in favor of removing the ban.[4]

3.^ Nick Katz (2008-07-01). "Village likely to lift gun ban after Supreme Court ruling". Morton Grove Champion (Sun-Times Group). Retrieved 2008-07-02.[dead link]
4.^ NRA-ILA (2008-07-18). "Village of Morton Grove to Repeal Gun Ban". NRA-ILA News. Retrieved 2008-07-19.
Click to expand...
 
The vast majority of gun rights cases are losers and they will always be.

Every felon convicted of a gun crime will run into court with a crayon written habeas petition or appeal saying that according to Heller his rights were violated when he shot his ex-wife. Competent Federal Prosecutors and City Attorneys take the worst of these cases on appeal as far as they can so that the appellate courts basically have no choice but to rule against firearms. If the case is even the slightest bit meritorious the government will bury it. To a lesser extent a lot of incompetent, but non-felon, A-holes run to court and file stupid lawsuits and get their back-sides handed to them by the same Competent Federal Prosecutors and City Attorneys.

Unfortunately second amendment law is shaped by a race to the courthouse, and various governmental interests are well fueled by incompetent lawsuits. There are only a handful of dedicated strategic civil rights attorneys that really know how to handle a case like this. Alan Gura is one of the best. Cato and the Institute for Justice have them too. However they don’t get anywhere near enough support from Gun owners. 99% of everyone else who files a second amendment case will screw it up, (putting flame suit on) including the NRA.
 
I agree with gbw; I think SCOTUS will sit back and see how the case law develops for now. They will come back to the 2A, but only after getting conflicting rulings in the appellate (circuit) courts.

Keep in mind that Justice Kennedy will be the deciding vote, and he's a moderate. I can't foresee him making the right to carry national, at least not yet. Perhaps after a few more years without any problems with CCW he will be amenable, but I believe there's a better than even chance CCW would not be incorporated if SCOTUS (Kennedy) were to review the issue now. SCOTUS is keenly aware they were practicing judicial activism in the Heller & McDonald decisions and the Court usually tries to avoid this. Stare decisis is a pretty big thing in legal circles, and for good reason.

I believe our wisest option is to consolidate our gains, keep showing register CCW permit holders are responsible and to bring a CCW case in 2-3 years. Incrementalism is our friend; we can't swallow the apple in one bite, but we can in a few.

We shouldn't wait more than 4 years however as Scalia & Kennedy are both 75 yrs. old now. Neither is likely to retire with a Democratic Pres. in office and the odds favor Obama to be re-elected. Justice Ginsburg is 78 now, and her replacement (with a sitting Dem. Pres.) would change nothing. Even Justice Kennedy's replacement could still leave the Court with a moderate (swing vote) since Obama isn't much of a fighter and he compromises at the drop of a hat. I doubt he'd try a recess appointment for SCOTUS, that would not be a popular move and Obama watches the polls as he wants to appeal to independent voters.

In no way are we better off losing cases in the lower federal courts.
 
The Supreme Court will decide the extent of the 2A over the next several years/decades just as they did with the 1A and 4A.

Don't let lower court rulings bother you. This issue and its nuances will be decided by our nation's highest court. Let's just hope the justices keep finding in our favor.
 
Heller and McDonald answered almost all the most important questions, but left a lot of other questions unanswered.

I tend to think that odds are about 50-50 there will at some point be recognized a right to carry a gun, but I have serious doubts a right to concealed carry will ever be found in the second amendment.

NFA and GCA aren't going anywhere, 86 ban might be overturned someday but not on 2A grounds, rather because it is a tax that is imposed but that the government won't accept payment of.

Heller was a nearly perfect decision, and McDonald did not disappoint.

Just as in the past though, in the future, expanding gun rights is something primarily and most importantly done through the legislatures.
 
I tend to think that odds are about 50-50 there will at some point be recognized a right to carry a gun, but I have serious doubts a right to concealed carry will ever be found in the second amendment.
Click to expand...

It is generally believed the Supreme Court will find that carrying a gun is protected by the 2A, but the manner of carry will be subject to regulation.

Basically, this means that fed/state/local governments could ban open or concealed carry, but not both.
 
.


We definitely need to win some more major cases from SCOTUS before the make-up of the judges is changed against us.
.
 
Each one of those lower court cases "lost" are an opportunity to take the fight to higher courts and eventually bring the proper cases before the US Supreme Court. Here's a partial list of court cases compiled by CalGuns. The cases on the list tend to be those that will eventually most affect California gun law but they all apply to some degree to the entire nation.

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Litigation_Past_and_Present
 
...the two most recent additions to the Supremes are anti-gun and both ladies are judicial activists who make it up [the law] as they go...
 
An activist Court is sometimes a good thing. Both the Heller & McDonald decisions are considered "activist" decisions by legal scholars. Overturning over 200 years of constitutional understanding is as activist as it can get. That's the very definition of judicial activism.

Not incorporating the 2A to the states follows the "original itent" school of consitutional interpretation.
 
...they both voted twice against cases involving gun rights. ...that kind of activism we do not need.

...exactly what don't they both understand about the 2A, which says, ...."the right to keep and bear arms"
 
Remember that anyone accused of breaking a gun law has nothing to lose by trying to use Heller. Criminal defendants are permitted to make even ridiculous arguments, though they are likely to get overturned. So it's not unexpected that most of the lower court cases are refusing to expand on Heller.
 
Anyone proposing the idea that gun rights litigation isn't working has to be in complete denial of the 7th circuit's decision in Ezell v. City of Chicago last month. The analysis of appropriate scrutiny for 2A issues is just priceless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top