NJCSD predicts SCOTUS decision

Status
Not open for further replies.

NJCSD

Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
10
NJCSD Predicts Supreme Court Will Acknowledge 2nd Amendment as Individual Right

May 5th, 2008; Washington Township, NJ
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Media Contact: Robert Kreisler

In a stunning first-of-its-kind announcement, the New Jersey Coalition for Self Defense (NJCSD) predicts that the Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) will confirm an individual right interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in Heller vs. DC, foreshadowing an end to decades of acrimonious debate over the meaning of what is widely considered to be a core principle for many Americans.

Using an advanced market research method known as a KJ analysis (named after its creator, Kawakita Jiro) a team of five analysts independently reviewed the statements made by the Justices during testimony in the Heller vs. DC case to arrive at this conclusion. The KJ method was developed as a way to examine complex problems where differing interpretations may exist and has become popular in business for its effectiveness.

The project was conceived and led by Joe Ficalora of SBTI Inc., a Texas-based management consulting firm. This is the first known time such an analysis has been applied to a contemporary legal issue and represents a groundbreaking implementation of this method. “Though we've been painstaking in our analysis, there’s always the remote possibility we may be surprised,” said Ficalora. “However, my experience indicates that the Supreme Court will confirm an individual right interpretation. I’m willing to stake my reputation on this in public, and in front of my colleagues in this industry.”

For many years, anti-gun factions have argued that an earlier decision by the Supreme Court in US vs. Miller established that the 2nd Amendment implied a collective right, meaning that private citizens had no individual right to own or carry firearms for self-defense or home protection.

“We're relieved that the hard facts point to what we've known all along - that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a personal right guaranteed to the American people as our legacy of freedom, preserved for us by our Founders and does not apply solely to the military or National Guard as some mistakenly believe," said Robert Kreisler, President of the NJCSD. “While we don’t mean to be presumptuous by leading the Supreme Court with this announcement, it is important to give America hope that our nation has not swung hopelessly toward socialism and that there are still those who support a traditional view of our Constitution and the liberties it was intended to enshrine through all ages.”

Arthur Rosbury-Yoder, NJCSD’s Executive Director, added, "This is just one example of the out-of-the-box kind of thinking we try to do at the NJCSD. Our organization exists to overcome the fear and ignorance perpetuated by liberals and socialist zealots who appear determined to eliminate our natural rights and by a mass media by a liberal bias against core principles of liberty, especially when it comes to gun rights and self-defense. When was the last time you heard the media put out a positive gun story of any kind?”

The New Jersey Coalition for Self Defense is a not-for-profit organization which has a focus on self-defense and Second Amendment rights. For more information please visit www.njcsd.org or call 877-690-5460.
 
foreshadowing an end to decades of acrimonious debate over the meaning of what is widely considered to be a core principle for many Americans.

Well you are wrong already......it's just the beginning. Good thing is it won't matter as much :)

But I think the prediction of the ruling will turn out to be right.
 
Good news which will cause the antis to shriek in horror. To them, I say :neener:
 
I agree, we'll get an individual rights ruling with Kennedy as the swing.

HOWEVER, Kennedy has a bug up his butt regarding full auto. So the question is, how will they get to where they want to go while screwing the rattatattatatta crowd?

If they simply strengthen and clarify Miller, we get a right to full auto. So they have to overturn Miller and take off in a new direction. Two theories there:

1) They set up some kind of new standard of review somewhere between strict scrutiny and rational basis. Under this model, basic personal self defense has to be possible, yet SOME restrictions are allowed.

2) Re-interpret the 14th Amendment and claim that it de-coupled the 2nd from militia service. The scholarly trail on this is actually pretty solid - John Bingham was indeed trying to arm the newly freed blacks in 1868 against the proto-Klan, yet at that time blacks had civil rights but no political rights (voting, jury service, militia service). Under this thinking, you don't have to give people a right to militia-grade weapons, but you do need to allow self defense. (Of course, we know that the personal defense rights were clarified under the 14th but the original "militia purpose" never went away. That will be a later fight...)

The bad news about #2 above is that it screws us on full rock'n'roll; the good news is that it immediately overturns a raft of ghastly state laws. Discretionary CCW wouldn't survive for a second, neither would zero-issue...
 
Ok, I have a couple of questions:

1) How much did this analysis cost?

2) Given that we'll actually have the decision in a month or so, could there have been better ways to spend that money, especially in light that it seemed fairly obvious which way it would go?
 
Of course they will - that's a foregone conclusion (essentially) -the ONLY question which is important is, what level of legal scrutiny to apply to gun laws: Strict? (nearly all laws fall), Rational basis (all laws stand), or somewhere in between.
 
I'm afraid that the decision will be mostly meaningless. Everyone, including the lawyers arguing against the DC law (you know, the guys who were SUPPOSED to be on OUR side), acknowledged that the government can enact and enforce restrictions on gun ownership. The only thing they opposed was a total ban on guns. Any other sort of law is OK, just not a "total ban."

Fine. You can own 22 caliber revolvers with at least 8" barrels that hold no more than 5 rounds.

This is not a total ban so it's legal and Constitutional, according to the lawyers, the judges (lawyers in black robes) and the people making the laws (mostly lawyers). All of those restrictions on types of guns, magazine capacity, etc. are just fine as far as the lawyers are concerned.
 
That so-called NEWS announcement by the NJCSD really bothers me.

Look, friends, from 10 minutes after SCOTUS held it's open session on the subject, EVERYBODY has agreed they will go with an Individual rights ruling. The only questions left relate to how firm they will want the enforcement rules to be, how well the ruling will be written/worded, and what the dissenting side will have to say on the subject.

To have NJCSD make a "Stunning, First-of-its-Kind" announcement to that effect at this time is simply noisy nonsense. What that news "thing" is -- is pat-themselves-on-the-back "Ain't We Great!!!!" Bragadillo.

We of the pro-gun movement have always prided ourselves as being the side with the calm, sane, RATIONAL presentations --- the FACTS.

This announcement sounds like something the Million Mom March bunch would put out. Something Al Sharpton would do.
I don't appreciate it.

Fud
 
Old Fud:
The remarkability isnt the prediction, but how they came to it.

The problem is that Justices will ask false questions or questions they believe another Justice would like to ask, but rephrased in a different way to show the error in that argument. Its political theater and chess mixed together, so nothing can be taken at face value.

Kharn
 
Any other sort of law is OK, just not a "total ban."
Thing is, Heller addresses a total categorical ban and the verdict will probably prohibit such a beast ... but the thing scaring Kennedy is that 922(o) is exactly the same beast: a total categorical ban. SCOTUS can't disallow a categorical ban while allowing a categorical ban!
 
Everyone, including the lawyers arguing against the DC law (you know, the guys who were SUPPOSED to be on OUR side), acknowledged that the government can enact and enforce restrictions on gun ownership.

Who in this case is supposed to be on your side? If you're Dick Heller and don't like how you're being represented by your attorneys, fire them.

Otherwise you're getting a free ride and it would be real smart not to complain about it not being quite to your tastes.
 
To those who expressed concern that money was wasted on this method of determining the SCOTUS decision:

No, we spent nothing on this - all that we do is pretty much donated intellectual capital by Patriots desiring to move the cause forward.

One of our members (noted in the release) is an expert in this field. He is, quite literally, a rocket scientist, turned management consultant after his tenure with the federal government came to term.

We thought it interresting that this kind of "rocket science" was being applied to the fight to Keep and Bear Arms.

I apologize for not formally introducing myself. I've been on various gun boards for so long, I guess I thought I just belonged here. Mia Culpa.

Bonnie Schulz a/k/a Hellin Petticoats, SASS #14120, NRA, ANJRPC, SAS, NJCSD, SBSS
 
Ladies and Gentlemen,

Let me chime in here to address some concerns and set the record straight.

Some of you may recognize my User ID, and though I've kept a low profile for a long time, now, have been quietly working behind-the-scenes to move RKBA forward in New Jersey in whatever small way I can.

This new User ID that's been created will be consistent across the various firearms related forums (THR, TFL, ARFCOM, etc.) so that we can better communicate with like-minded patriots both in the state of New Jersey and elsewhere.

We have appointed a volunteer who has generously donated her time to bring news of interest to you with this ID, and so that you're aware of how bad things can get, and why we need your help. Please be kind, and when you have a question or comment, do try to not be confrontational... remember we're all after the same thing here and nobody gains by shooting the messenger.

Remember what happens here can hurt you out there.
 
Introduction & comment

Hi folks, I just joined the forum after seeing some of the comments here.

I apologize to anyone who feels we are in any way overstepping the bounds. Not the best way to make a first impression perhaps. However, in defense of the volunteers on the team I do feel compelled to say a few things. Since the organizations with all of our collective monies were mostly tap-dancing around this (possibly with good reason), we saw a way to apply a state-of-the-art text analysis method to help predict a few things where an uncertain outcome exists.

All the volunteers went through the 91 pages of discussion, the 221 phrases uttered by the justices and helped boil that down to the 100+ key statements to associate into key groups. That took in excess of 20 hours per person, plus the additional work to organize it and put it into a format required of the technique. These folks took time away from families and range time or other pursuits to do this, on behalf of gun owners in the USA. Looking around the forums, there is a lot of negativity based on past experiences with lawyers and judges, and rightly so in a lot of cases. We believed in this case there is plenty to be hopeful about, and we will find out shortly.

About the technique - with a team of 5 and no ability to validate the work by interviewing the justices, a good guess would be about 75% accurate, plus or minus about 10%. There is more on the forum at this link if you want to take the time: http://www.njcsd.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1750

Yes we could be wrong, but we hope not. We took a chance on using rational techniques, in a legal setting which is new to be sure. And the justices can certainly change their minds from what they asked or said on March 18th, but again we hope not, lest we all suffer the consequences. I may be relatively new to firearms and some of the divisiveness amongst us, but I am quite familiar with the techniques used and the efforts put forth. Don't let the anti-gunners divide us, ever!

Peace to my brothers and sisters in arms. Joe C.
 
When Obama is going around saying he thinks there is an individual right BUT local juridictions also have the right to blah blah, it is pretty easy to predict the court will affirm an individual right. But then what comes after the court's BUT? As for this technique, I doubt text analysis is really applicable to something like this - but you can make it look effective if you test it on scenarios where you already know the outcome based on some other technique - like the Obama method :)
 
All the volunteers went through the 91 pages of discussion, the 221 phrases uttered by the justices and helped boil that down to the 100+ key statements to associate into key groups. That took in excess of 20 hours per person, plus the additional work to organize it and put it into a format required of the technique. These folks took time away from families and range time or other pursuits to do this, on behalf of gun owners in the USA.

Sounds like a tremendous amount of work - but I don't see the point. How does predicting a Supreme Court decision help or hurt gun owners any way?

If someone else predicts the Supremes will go the other way, are our rights hurt in any way?

Seems like an odd way to spend your time. Each to his own, I guess.

Mike
 
Sounds like a tremendous amount of work - but I don't see the point. How does predicting a Supreme Court decision help or hurt gun owners any way?

If someone else predicts the Supremes will go the other way, are our rights hurt in any way?

A prediction can help in that it allows people to begin getting their ducks in a row for the next fight. If/when the prediction turns out to be true, they can then strike early in an attempt to keep the enemy off balance while still reeling from a loss. Smart tactics.

The devil is going to be in how the court words the decision. They may very well come out in favor of individual rights. But they could still hose us even with a favorable decision.


-T.
 
Last edited:
RPC - the value of a prediction is perhaps questionable if it does not affect you either way. If it does, it allows some planning in advance, like perhaps challenging NJ's horrendously poor gun laws and restrictions, and lack of 'shall issue'. Secondly, it provided a sense of hope where a lot of negativity existed. Lastly, it beats sitting on our collective rear-ends while anti-gunners get all the free press they want.

Husbandofaromanion - the analysis doesn't work that way, it's designed to hit the broad consensus. However, I did a count of positive negative statements which is also on NJCSD, and it came out 4-3-1 with 4 positive(Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Alito), 3 negative(Breyer, Stevens, Ginsburg) and 1 who could go either way(Souter) based on the amount of positive/negative statements. Justice Thomas said nothing and so by the March 18th hearing measure is unpredicted. However, others have pointed out he is pro second amendment from earlier statements. That being the case, either 5-4 or 6-3 would be the likely outcomes here.
 
Last edited:
If they are right, this will be great publicity for this stochastic method.
If not, then they are screwed, blued and tatooed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top