New insight - NRA on Parker v. DC

[Titan6]

Not a penny.

This is probably just an exercise in wishfull thinking on my part that someone who is libertarian in some ways maybe that could extend to others.

 

[Bubbles]

I'm hearing rumblings that the DC Appeals Court is not inclined to grant DC's request for an en banc hearing. Anyone else getting this info?

 

[awkx]

Supreme Court Justices on RKBA

In the Parker decision, the Circuit Court of Appeals noted that some of the liberal justices (Ginsburg and Souter) have indicated in passing that the phrase "bear arms" in the Second Amendment does not mean "bear arms as a member of a military force", unlike some lower court rulings (e.g., Aymette v. State, 1840). I quote from the slip opinion, page 27:

We also note that at least three current members (and one
former member) of the Supreme Court have read “bear Arms”
in the Second Amendment to have meaning beyond mere
soldiering: “Surely a most familiar meaning [of ‘carries a
firearm’] is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment (‘keep
and bear Arms’) and Black’s Law Dictionary . . . indicate:
‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in
a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for
offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another
person.” Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998)
(Ginsburg, J., dissenting, joined by Rehnquist, C.J., Scalia, J.,
and Souter, J.) (emphasis in original). Based on the foregoing,
we think the operative clause includes a private meaning for
“bear Arms.”

So hopefully there is a good chance the Supreme Court will make the correct decision on this case.

 

[ctdonath]

Bubbles,
Keep us informed.
Kinda makes sense, as they know it's going to be appealed to SCOTUS anyway and will likely be taken, and any attempt to write a counter-ruling that viably trumps the current one would be a tour-de-force of illogic.

DC would be wise, regardless of political view, to shut up and cope with what they've got. For them to win is really a pretty small victory, while a subsequent loss would be HUGE.

 

[Sam Adams]

Kinda makes sense, as they know it's going to be appealed to SCOTUS anyway and will likely be taken, and any attempt to write a counter-ruling that viably trumps the current one would be a tour-de-force of illogic.

It is only able to go to SCOTUS if the NRA doesn't moot it out by pushing the DC Personal Protection Act through the Congress. I really hope that they don't do this, as I think that Parker will be upheld. The part that I'm particularly concerned to see upheld states that the 2nd Amendment protects a pre-existing individual right and, of course, the ruling that absolute prohibitions of one's right to own a firearm are, themselves, prohibited under the 2nd. If that happens, Section 922(o) will have a stake driven through its black heart not too long thereafter.

 

[Bubbles]

It is only able to go to SCOTUS if the NRA doesn't moot it out by pushing the DC Personal Protection Act through the Congress.

Given the current political climate and last week's VT tragedy, I think any bill before Congress concerning firearms is DOA. The only one that might possibly have a chance is the one that "improves" NICS data-input and even that will fail if the folks who back medical privacy laws (think HIPPA) get involved. I could even see the ACLU taking a stand on that one.

 

[Sylvan-Forge]

I did not think I would ever think something like this, but here it is..

The NRA wants to have its cake and eat it too.

Job security.

Not unlike congress.

 

[Coronach]

Yeah, sure. Because if the NRA won this round, all gun control would instantly vanish in a poof of faerie dust and the NRA would have no reason to exist.

Sure.

Mike