How big is Heller vs. D.C.?

[usmarine0352_2005]

So, many people are saying that Heller vs. D.C. will be bigger then Roe vs. Wade and other cases.

How many people think this?

Will it's magnitude depend on whether it is found to be an individual or collective right?

 

[dave_pro2a]

To a pregnant woman who wants an abortion, Roe vs Wade is bigger than Heller.

To black parents enrolling their kids in school, Brown vs Board of Education is bigger than Heller.

To some folks who value gun rights and the Second Amendment, the Heller case is bigger than the others.

Just depends on perspective. Personally I think it's bigger, because something like Roe or Brown can't spell the end of America. Nullifying the Second Amendment could.

 

[Ivy Mike]

while it will give a supreme court answer on collective or individual rights, the scope will basically limit it to DC. It won't mean much to other states.

 

[au1776]

I doubt Heller will be as big as Roe. Of course, much of that depends on what you view as more important subject matter.

It really depends on how the Court approaches the case. During the latter days of the Rehnquist era, the Court often avoided issuing broad rulings, instead using a more limited rationale to affirm/overrule.

Ideally, the Court comes out and definitively rules that the individual right to own and bear arms is a fundamental right subject to strict scrutiny. If so, I think the DC law will most certainly have trouble on the last 2 prongs.

More likely, I think, is that the Court will overrule the law with similar reasoning, but without establishing individual, unrestricted gun ownership as a fundamental right. I'm not sure what level of scrutiny is generally thought to apply to gun ownership, but I think the Court will find that the law fails based on some lesser standard because it is not reasonably/substantially related to decreasing violent crime.

How do people think this will come out? My off-the-cuff, haven't researched any gun-related positions reaction is that it'll go 6-3, with a more narrow opinion. Breyer or Souter breaking and coming to the majority. Of course, I haven't had opportunity to do any research or even read the amicus briefs, so I'm quite possibly way off.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

And I'm under the impression this will have a very big impact on the current Presidential elections.

 

[mekender]

frankly, this is as big as it gets...

there are 3 laws at stake for DC... one that bans handguns not regestered before 1976... another that requires a permit for ANY carrying (even in your own house)... and a 3rd that requires guns to be disassembled and locked inside your house...

my guess is that the SCOTUS will kill the disassembly part... they will force the change of the permit part... and they will say that DC cant ban handguns that weren't registered before 1976... those rulings wont apply to much outside of DC but will lead to lots of challenges of other states laws

 

[GRIZ22]

while it will give a supreme court answer on collective or individual rights, the scope will basically limit it to DC. It won't mean much to other states.

Thank you Clean. A lot of people on this forum think if the Supreme Court agrees with the lower court decision it will mean every gun law will be found unconstituional. That is not the case. It will mean DC can still have registration, require you to go to a class or get a blood test to get a gun but they will have to let you have guns if you are not in a prohinited class.

 

[RP88]

this is pretty much the monument case for gun rights up to this point. Considering that legislation in other forms of anti-gun advocation are still constantly being fought over, it wont be the last. I bet something will surface very soon that gets the issue out of the grey area for good within the next twenty years if not sooner

but as said, it wont mean that every gun law is out the window. Those are here to stay, and will probably get worse, but the general fact is that the right to OWN guns cannot be banned if the ban is overruled.

 

[P. Plainsman]

those rulings wont apply to much outside of DC but will lead to lots of challenges of other states laws

Remember that Heller is basically about federal gun control. The Bill of Rights binds D.C. directly (without needing 14th Amdt. incorporation) because of DC's special status as a federal enclave.

Anything that SCOTUS's Heller opinion says that D.C. can't do, is thereby automatically something Congress can't do, either. Federal gun control statutes will become open to challenge under Heller anywhere in the country. (Notice I didn't say they'll all be struck down under Heller; just that citizens will be able to use the decision to bring challenges to federal gun laws regardless of where they live in the U.S.) This is why the ATF and the U.S. Solicitor General's Office are so freaked out.

But it will take another, distinct legal step -- incorporation of 2A through the 14th Amendment -- before the constitutional limits on gun control announced in the Heller decision (whatever they turn out to be) will also be extended to state and local gun laws.

If Heller wins, the logical next test case to bring up the issue of incorporation will be a challenge to Chicago's handgun ban -- basically a replay of Heller, but in Chicago.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

It'll be just big enough to spark a nice array of law suits. Call it "The Lawyer Enrichment and Employment Security Action". It would be too big of a lost opportunity for lawyers to secure big, high profile, high dollar cases if the Court simply declared all the infringing law unconstitutional at once.

Yeah, yeah. Call me cynical.

Woody

I see it clearly as fact. Words mean things - just as numbers have value and you can add, subtract, multiply and divide them. I just do the math. B.E. Wood

 

[Lucky]

Plainsman your post needs a sticky.

99% of the the THR readers didn't even realize the scope.

 

[RedLion]

The biggest issue I can foresee is the what the aftermath is.

If Heller wins I don't know how effective it will be at ridding the country of gun bans because the bans might go away, but in their place will be super strict registration and hefty taxes.

If Heller loses, you'd better take out the biggest loan you can afford and buy what you and your children will miss because our rights will be gone.

So don't expect the fight for the 2nd Amendment to disappear any time soon.

 

[69Chevy]

If the courts rule in favor of the individual right, what does it mean in regards to overturning the 86 ban on new machine guns? Is it possible that I will be able to legally install a switch in my AR sometime in my lifetime?

 

[Coronach]

The scope is truly massive, but it will not be readily apparent. Anyone expecting a win in Heller to wipe away 80 years of gun control will be sadly disappointed. A win will, however, lay the foundation for successive cases that can roll back a lot of nonsense. So, the case in and of itself will probably be very limited, but the doors it kicks open are the real issue.

A loss will be of similar scope. It will not, immediately, do anything but uphold the current law. But it will offer firm foundations for successive cases that argue that it is a collective right, not an individual one.

We win big, or we lose big.

Mike

 

[mek42]

Ok, I feel like an idiot. Does Plainsman's post mean that the 14th Amendment doesn't "just work"?

I thought (possibly erroneously) that the 14th Amendment meant that all Rights delineated in the US Constitution must also be protected (not abridged) by individual states in addition to the Federal government.

Does the 14th Amendment really mean something like, "States can feel free to trample the Rights delineated in the US Constitution until someone brings a case to SCOTUS and SCOTUS then tells the state to stop trampling on the Right in question."?

 

[Coronach]

If the courts rule in favor of the individual right, what does it mean in regards to overturning the 86 ban on new machine guns? Is it possible that I will be able to legally install a switch in my AR sometime in my lifetime?

Immediately? Nothing. But now you can make the argument that the government is infringing on YOUR INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear a machine gun. A court case upholding THAT would help you out immensely.

Mike

 

[Coronach]

Ok, I feel like an idiot. Does Plainsman's post mean that the 14th Amendment doesn't "just work"?

I thought (possibly erroneously) that the 14th Amendment meant that all Rights delineated in the US Constitution must also be protected (not abridged) by individual states in addition to the Federal government.

Does the 14th Amendment really mean something like, "States can feel free to trample the Rights delineated in the US Constitution until someone brings a case to SCOTUS and SCOTUS then tells the state to stop trampling on the Right in question."?

Basically. The court has taken the idea that a case is needed to "incorporate" the issue via the 14th amendment., essentially saying that here we have a right upheld at the federal level, and here we have a state law infringing it, and here we have an amendment forbidding this contradiction: 1+1+1=3, so knock it off.

No, I don't agree with this logic, but it doesn't matter what I think, since I'm not on the bench.

Mike

 

[Daemon688]

You know, as much as I would like to have the machinegun registry re opened, the number one 2nd amendment issue I want to see addressed is national CCW reciprocity. That is the biggest mess IMHO that needs to be fixed. We don't need some national ID card, but it should just be like drivers licenses. If you have one in your home state, you're good in all states.

Regardless 2008 is looking to be a VERY eventful year.

 

[green-grizzly]

It will be big, as in a big disapointment to gun owners I'm afraid.

 

[Ought Six]

Lawyers always find a way to game the system. No matter how our rights are secured under the law, the gun banners will come up with an end run. The only way to keep your rights is to fight for them at every turn, and work dilligently to reverse any successful erosion of your rights always.

It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.

—John Philpot Curran: Speech upon the Right of Election, 1790. (Speeches. Dublin, 1808.)

 

[bruss01]

Likely to be the biggest, most important, and far-reaching 2nd Amendment court case in our lifetimes. Not in terms of what it immediately accomplishes, but in terms of the precedent it sets and the foundation it lays for reclaiming the rest of our mitigated liberties.

I'm hoping for solid declaration of the individual right, plus incorporation and strict scrutiny. Hey, I can have a wish list, right? That would put us miles ahead in the fight for the 2nd.

 

[Deavis]

what does it mean in regards to overturning the 86 ban on new machine guns?

A totally new fight. Many of the briefs specifically mention that bans on MGs would be constitutional. I realize they are arguing hypotheticals since Heller will not decide that issue but the willingness to write briefs about how MGs would not pass a Miller Test is a little disappointing. Most revolve around the claim that MGs are in common use by citizens, well, kinda hard since they've basically been forbidden to people of normal means.

the number one 2nd amendment issue I want to see addressed is national CCW reciprocity.

I don't want national CCW reciprocity. I don't want the federal government sticking its fingers where they don't belong and telling states they have to accept the carrying of arms by people they don't approve of. This is a state issue and states have reciprocity agreements to govern the carrying of concealed weapons. Work within your state to get reciprocity with other states, don't ask King Kong to do it because while he might get it done the collateral damage is always high.

 

[Mall Ninja]

We win big, or we lose big.

...or they remand it back to the lower court and it languishes for another 70 years.

 

[ilbob]

the number one 2nd amendment issue I want to see addressed is national CCW reciprocity.

Just where in the constitution does congress have this power?

 

[romma]

Work within your state to get reciprocity with other states, don't ask King Kong to do it because while he might get it done the collateral damage is always high.

Have tried, and it hasn't worked...

If the feds say it is legal to carry State to State, via National Reciprocity, I will take them up on it...