D.C. Court of Appeals denies en banc hearing in Parker

[Titan6]

It will be interesting to see if anyone "retires" between now and then....

 

[Sam Adams]

...the most conservative justices in a while too.

Let's note that Justice Stevens just turned 87. While as a human being I wish no harm to him, the fact is that it'll be about a year until such a case is heard and decided upon (assuming Cert. is given), and lots of things can happen (including his voluntary retirement at the end of this session on/about 6/30 - which is a traditional time for such announcements).

Let's all hope that Justice Stevens decides to give himself a lot more time to enjoy his family.

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

Some minor regulation (such as background checks) and simple registration (if with the purpose of keeping of how well armed the populace is for purposes of defense against invasion) would under the ruling be allowed as I read it, but not the type of regulation the NFA uses (a high tax, pile of paperwork, fingerprints, CLEO approval, extensive FBI check, long wait, and of course as it stands now, the 86 ban on MG's). So, if a half decent ruling is made, the NFA (or at least some parts of it) will be a prime target for attack.

In the case of MGs, I dont mind registration as I dont want MGs to start to become as common as snub-nose .38s. But youre right, as it stands it is draconian.

As for how confident I am? I'm not sure, it could go either way, but we've got the best chance in a long time, the most conservative justices in a while too. Granted, they may go against us, but they're not as likely to go against us as the radical leftists. Plus, even if they hate it, they may make the correct ruling anyways in accordance with the Constitution, to avoid the problems making a bad ruling will bring (like someone else said, a bad ruling here means the republic is truly dead and the system broken beyond repair, I'm sure they realize how dangerous an anti-second ammendment ruling may be, I'm sure they saw the risks in ticking off the population after the Kelo ruling on eminent domain).

I really hope youre right about the SCOTUS. At times they seem to be a beaming source of light and good (brown v board of education for instance)..and lets hope that even the liberal justices do whats right. The majority of the public agrees with individual rights (and might laugh if explained the collective right theory)

 

[Mazeman]

If this does go on to the Supreme Court, does anyone have an idea of how long we're looking at before a ruling?

Here's a summary of the predictions from Volokh.

He thinks there's a >50% chance SCOTUS will hear it. Here's his section on the timing:

Timing: I assume that the District of Columbia will petition for certiorari; it has 90 days to do this, so the petition will likely be filed in mid-August. That would mean the Supreme Court will decide in late September whether to hear the case — and if it does agree to hear the case ("grant cert"), it will hear it in early 2008, with a decision handed down by early July of 2008.

 

[Sam Adams]

I really hope youre right about the SCOTUS. At times they seem to be a beaming source of light and good (brown v board of education for instance)..and lets hope that even the liberal justices do whats right. The majority of the public agrees with individual rights (and might laugh if explained the collective right theory)

The irony might be that several liberal justices may join us, on the theory (proposed by Alan Dershowitz) that if the 2nd can be read as a "collective" (i.e. non-existent) right, then so can others that are more dear to libs. The irony might be compounded by statist conservative judges (in the mold of Robert Bork), who think nearly any law is a proper thing since the people's will was asserted through the actions of their legislators.

I'm cautiously optimistic.

 

[JLelli]

In the case of MGs, I dont mind registration as I dont want MGs to start to become as common as snub-nose .38s. But youre right, as it stands it is draconian.

Snub-nose .38s, historically, have been used in far more crimes than all full-autos combined. Even in the days when you could buy a Thompson SMG through a mail-order catalogue, the bad guys preferred small, concealable revolvers to machine guns by a large margin.

 

[rlb]

Sam Adams: thanks for the link. Reading the US brief, it does seem to argue that the right to keep and bear arms is "collective," but it only actually supports that argument with references saying that the right to bear arms is collective.

This distinction might be a great place for compromise, actually. If the liberals say the right has to be subject to "reasonable" regulation, we give on regulation as to bearing arms, but not as to keeping them.

They must have realized how weak that argument was as against keeping [i.e., possession] because the bulk of the argument is against the ownership of sawed off shotguns as not being "militia" weapons. The Court of course said in its decision that it wanted proof the shotgun had utility as a militia weapon.

Very interesting, and it's really fascinating how the times have changed. I couldn't imagine anybody signing off on such a weak brief these days.

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

Let's note that Justice Stevens just turned 87. While as a human being I wish no harm to him, the fact is that it'll be about a year until such a case is heard and decided upon (assuming Cert. is given), and lots of things can happen (including his voluntary retirement at the end of this session on/about 6/30 - which is a traditional time for such announcements).

Heh, maybe he intends to beat William O. Douglas's record.

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

Snub-nose .38s, historically, have been used in far more crimes than all full-autos combined. Even in the days when you could buy a Thompson SMG through a mail-order catalogue, the bad guys preferred small, concealable revolvers to machine guns by a large margin.

Dont worry im not arguing an anti position, i am saying ANYTHING is better than the current situation of 15,000 dollar machine guns.

 

[JLelli]

Dont worry im not arguing an anti position, i am saying ANYTHING is better than the current situation of 15,000 dollars machine guns.

Amen to that. The only thing worse than a $4,000 Cobray MAC-11 is a $40,000 MAC-11, which is where we're headed if the ban is never repealed/overturned.

 

[Dan from MI]

I'm cautiously optimistic. That's counting on Scalia, Alito, and Thomas on our side. I think Roberts may go our way. That means we need one of Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. I'm counting on Stevens going against us.

We'll see. I'd rather wait for Stevens to be replaced, but I'd much rather have this now than with O'Connor as the swing.

 

[jpk1md]

Kennedy's recent position on Abortion was surprising to me...one never knows.

 

[AntiqueCollector]

Yeah, Stevens could be replaced very soon, but it could be a real fight to put a real conservative justice on the bench right now. And, if he live long enough, he may wait to retire when he knows another liberal will be put in if the election goes to the dems, meaning he'll be a justice when the case is heard if it goes to the SCOTUS.

 

[SoCalShooter]

Now the $64K question - will DC appeal to SCOTUS, or will the Brady bunch looking to prevent the 'damage' from spreading nationwide convince Mayor Fenty to swallow the Parker decision?

I do not believe the brady bunch knows when to come out of the rain, from having watched the interviews on TV with their presidente I think they want to go for the juggular shot and see what happens.

 

[Titan6]

I do not believe the brady bunch knows when to come out of the rain, from having watched the interviews on TV with their presidente I think they want to go for the juggular shot and see what happens.

It can still go either way. The Brady's have more to fall back on. This will only stop clear bans not regulation.

 

[jpk1md]

SoCal, what after all do the Brady's have to lose even if SCOTUS conveys their worst fears.

Parker Case has ALREADY affirmed that 2A is an Individual Right but like the 1A it is subject to REGULATION.

REGULATION is pretty broad and the exact scope of it is not likely to be addressed by SCOTUS even if they take up the case.

Brady has little to lose and everything to gain so why not go for broke?

 

[Gifted]

Regulation would be strict scrutiny. Registering guns doesn't stop crime, or any of that crap, so it's out. NICS can be argued to have done it's job, so it'll probably stay. 922o has done nothing, so it's out. Import ban? out. AWB, ammo restrictions...The NFA tax will need work. Prohibition through taxation is no good, so that'll be cut to size.

Even with a slightly lower test someone mentioned being indicated for this amendment, there's not much they can do.

 

[Titan6]

Registration would not be unheard of for the "milita" arguement.

 

[Cosmoline]

At times they seem to be a beaming source of light and good (brown v board of education for instance)..and lets hope that even the liberal justices do whats right

I take some issue with this. I think one of the big problems with Brown *WAS* the fact that the supremes were trying to do "what's right" and looking for a way to do it. I don't want them to do what they think is right. I want them to interpret the Constitution correctly and craft sound doctrines regarding the Bill of Rights.

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

I take some issue with this. I think one of the big problems with Brown *WAS* the fact that the supremes were trying to do "what's right" and looking for a way to do it. I don't want them to do what they think is right. I want them to interpret the Constitution correctly and craft sound doctrines regarding the Bill of Rights.

True enough, it was flawed, but I do agree with the end means. However I would have preferred it reached in a better manner.

 

[Igloodude]

Do you feel that confident? I know some of you guys accused the NRA of sabotaging this but I understand their reasoning - a loss for us in SCOTUS would be disastrous.

If SCOTUS declared the 2nd Amendment a dead letter, how would it negatively impact us? As it stands now (well, pre-March 2007), the feds or any state legislature can pass a de facto ban. The pro-gun fight has always been at the ballot box. If the Second Amendment were effectively lined out, that wouldn't change - we'd still be fighting legislatively.

If SCOTUS upholds Parker in any way, we suddenly have judicial options available to us, at least at the federal level, and potentially (assuming incorporation, or state courts deciding to adopt SCOTUS' interpretation of 2A's text) within some or all of the state courts too.

It's a huge practical upside, against little more than a morale downside.

 

[illspirit]

If SCOTUS upholds the registration language from Parker as a legitimate state interest (to wit: knowing which militia members are prepared to muster), would simply re-opening the MG registry as opposed to dumping the entire NFA be that bad? The main argument against registration has always been that it will (and did) lead to confiscation during a future ban. But if total bans are ruled illegal, wouldn't the potential, subsequent confiscations become illegal as well?

Should it ever get to the point where the government decides to forcibly and illegally confiscate arms, will any other law on paper really stop them? Even if it were illegal for them to register us, there are other laws they could break while feloniously stealing our property; including, but not limited to: stealing member lists from the NRA/GOA/JPFO/et al, spying on gunny websites, tracking your credit card purchases, or old fashioned door-to-door violations of the Fourth Amendment.

Note, I'm not advocating registration or compromise here. It's just that after Parker (and assuming SCOTUS deices in favor of liberty), it could be a whole different ball game.

 

[Waitone]

The idea of taking Parker to the top court gives me a nervous rash.

Kelo didn't work out like handicappers predicted.

 

[Cosmoline]

Well it's been generations now. At some point this is an issue they're going to have to reach. And it's not like the court's makeup stands a huge chance of becoming *MORE* conservative in the next 8 years. This case is as good as it's ever going to get as far as a new Second Amendment opinion from the SCT.

 

[GHF]

The Key To SCOUS Ruling

The key to reviewing the SCOUS ruling is to look for what is called the Stringent Test.

This test is most most frequently employed involving the First Amendment, the supreme individual right. It asks about the goverment's request to prohibit an activity to see if it poses a clear and present danger of resulting in damage to a legitimate government interest.

Most often, the clear and present danger doctrine has applied to prior restraints on the publication of materials thought to threaten national security. This test was first expressed by Justice Holmes in the Schenck case. Charles T. Schenck was charged with violating the Espionage Act (Tit. 1, §§ 3, 4 [Comp. St. 1918, §§ 10212c, 10212d]) by distributing pamphlets urging insubordination among members of the military. The Court held that his activities created "a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Imagine that test against Sullivan in NYC or the rules in Daleyland put against this standard. Owning/carrying a firearm is - by itself - a clear and present danger of what in this environment?

That does not mean branishing would be ok, or people who should not be allowed out in public without supervision could be armed, or perhaps violent felons still would not be allowed to have guns.

Currently, gun grabbers work from a legal concept that there a great deal freedom for the government to regulate guns, because it is NOT a individual right, but fits into the scheme of things like zoning regulations.

Making the Second an Individual Right - on the level with the 1st, 4th, and 5th puts a totally different spin on things. Just because some government drone and/or idealoge wants to regulate/ban something, a stringent test stops the effort. Every current and future regulation would face this test.