Titan6
member
It will be interesting to see if anyone "retires" between now and then....
...the most conservative justices in a while too.
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.
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).
If this does go on to the Supreme Court, does anyone have an idea of how long we're looking at before a ruling?
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.
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)
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.
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).
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 dollars machine guns.
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.
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 said: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.