Supreme Court could take guns case

[legaleagle_45]

What if they "re-write" the question, so that they can answer it, without addressing whether or not it is a 2nd Amendment case?

That way, they can make their decision, and avoid a "Individual vs. Collective" decision.

Something like this:

"Does the eighth amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments prohibit us from stringing out our decision on the 2nd amendment?"

 

[k_dawg]

I think it is because several lack the balls do to what is right and moral.

We have a direct violation of the basic human rights of all citizens in the united states. We know it, they know it.

They are simply afraid to acknowledge it.

HOPEFULLY, one justice is standing up tall,a nd trying to chide the rest into doing what is moral and just..

but I fear the worst.

 

[ctdonath]

Doesn't mean they haven't considered it. To the contrary, there very well may be some seriously heated debate going on behind closed doors. However they rule, this will be a landmark case with long-ranging consequences - not something they take lightly after just one day to consider it (among other stuff).

Methinks the main problem is that the case really needs to be taken, but the appellant worded the question rather maliciously. They can't take the case until they've decided what the actual question is.

 

[ctdonath]

What if they "re-write" the question,

They MUST re-write the question. The question, as DC presented it, is maliciously biased.

 

[yesit'sloaded]

I think they are scared of the consequences either way. If they rule in our favor, every gun grabber in the country will go nuts and scream bloody murder. If they rule against us in a bad way, they just ticked off millions of people with guns. A ruling going badly against us would worst case scenario start revolutionary activity. With an army away at war across the world, it might not be pretty. It's not a position anyone would want to be in. A local ruling will still end up with handguns in DC and more bloody murder from the left. There isn't a ruling they could make that would please anyone, and it is a difficult position to be in. The longer they put it off, the more ineffective the court looks.

 

[jfh]

I rarely post the same thing twice--

But for all of you intently reading tea-leaves, here's what I wrote in the other thread in Legal:

Nonsense. It was a three-day weekend. No matter how diligent the Justices and other relevant employees (clerks) are, they had a three-day weekend. It may even have been stretched into a three-and-a-half or four-day weekend for some with the use of accrued vacation time.
​

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Jim H.

 

[yesit'sloaded]

At this point only time will tell. I hope you are right and that they grant cert.

 

[ctdonath]

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

Yup.
They only had at most a few hours to consider the case, which as presented is hardly an easy up-or-down decision (considering the malicious wording by the plaintiff).

 

[legaleagle_45]

It may even have been stretched into a three-and-a-half or four-day weekend for some with the use of accrued vacation time.

Yeah, but the next scheduled conference is just before Thanksgiving...

So if they play true to form, no decision on the 26th either, with the next scheduled conference being Dec 24th.....

 

[yesit'sloaded]

So realistically we are looking at mid January at best?

 

[legaleagle_45]

So realistically we are looking at mid January at best?

I was just joking about the next conference being Dec 24th... although I was not joking about the conference scheduled just prior to thanksgiving. I think we will have a decision on cert by the 26th....










Of April, 2008.

 

[yesit'sloaded]

The more I think about it the more I wouldn't mind it going wither way, I would so join a state militia. That is, if it isn't an individual right, we would have to form state militias.

 

[hellinpetticoats]

I'm in no hurry for SCOTUS to rule on 2nd A. What if they ignore all the commas and the meaning of "militia," and focus on "bear?"

 

[k_dawg]

Justice Delayed, is Justice Denied

 

[Art Eatman]

Note Heller update sticky at top of Legal Forum page.

 

[The Annoyed Man]

Thanks Art.

 

[rdhood]

The more I think about it the more I wouldn't mind it going wither way, I would so join a state militia. That is, if it isn't an individual right, we would have to form state militias.

The 2nd doesn't say anything about state militias. One presumably could form a militia, and meet once a week or month for practice (well regulated), and bring the arms of choice (whatever the military is using).


If the 2nd is not an individual right, all common sense is lost. There will be no private ownership of firearms unless you are in a militia. Look to gun grabbers to start IMMEDIATELY enacting strict gun control across the country. Tyranny ensues.

if the 2nd is an individual right, I see no barriers to arming with nearly anything the common soldier might carry... including automatic weapons and grenades. A lot of gun control law will be immediately invalidated. Once again, though, some poor sap will have to risk felony imprisonment for years in order to test the new limits of the 2nd.

The either/or situation has been brought about because the SCOTUS has failed to act in the past. Had they acted in defense of the 2nd in other cases, much of the current gun control law would not have been passed... or would have been much more in keeping with the law abiding citizen's right to keep and bear arms. Or, if they had ruled against the indivdual... there would not be so many guns in the U.S. This failure to act in the past has created an anarchy vs. tyranny situation. Failing to rule now will only postpone this situation to sometime in the future.

 

[woof]

The courts is not going to over-rule the lower court and say there is no individual right. If they can't round up all the illegal aliens how can they round up all the guns? But there will be no invalidation of existing laws (except in extreme DC type cases). Regulation of guns will still be legal as it should be.

 

[ilbob]

The 2nd doesn't say anything about state militias. One presumably could form a militia, and meet once a week or month for practice (well regulated), and bring the arms of choice (whatever the military is using).

"One" cannot just form a militia. Only a state can form a militia in constitutional sense. there is no constitutional authority whatsoever for any other entity to do so.

 

[SWMAN]

"One" cannot just form a militia. Only a state can form a militia in constitutional sense. there is no constitutional authority whatsoever for any other entity to do so.

I don't seem to recall in my history lessons that the Royal Gov of Mass. authorized and formed a colonial militia just prior to April 1775.

 

[everallm]

Opinion only.

"Holy Crap, you mean they are really serious about us interpreting the Constitution! I thought we only had to deal with stuff like

The rate of recovery of the costs of paralegal services when a winning party in a case seeks attorney fees. The issue is whether paralegal services are to be paid at the market rate for such services, or only at the level of their actual cost.

(I promise not to make nasty comments about the law helping the legal professions billing lust)

"I'm afraid so, quick, throw another intern on the fire, we need to have a plan"

"Not to worry, I have a cunning plan, In fact it's more cunning than a cunning thing with extra cunning sauce on top."

"Pardon....."

"What we'll do is we'll not say that we haven't decided whether we've decided to decide to look at it yet"

"Capital plan, pass the port, that'll give us another couple of weeks to not say that we haven't decided whether we've decided to decide to look at it yet. But what then?"

"No worries, at that point they'll be looking at the run up to the election and we'll say we've decided to decide to look at it in the fullness of time and with the gravitas such a matter deserves."

"Excellent, Oh could you pass me some of that Foie Gras, goes so well with the sherry. Sorry little distracted by the dessert cart, and then"

"Well at that point, based upon the federal deficit we'll say budget constraints have limited the use and accessibility of comma's and semi-colons and we can't decide until the dollar at least reaches parity with the Canadian. Should give us at least another year....Oh Creme Brulee, I shouldn't really....Oh you've twisted my arm..... At that point, rinse and repeat......."

 

[ilbob]

"One" cannot just form a militia. Only a state can form a militia in constitutional sense. there is no constitutional authority whatsoever for any other entity to do so.

I don't seem to recall in my history lessons that the Royal Gov of Mass. authorized and formed a colonial militia just prior to April 1775.

Constitution did not exist in 1775.

 

[Igloodude]

If the 2nd is not an individual right, all common sense is lost. There will be no private ownership of firearms unless you are in a militia. Look to gun grabbers to start IMMEDIATELY enacting strict gun control across the country. Tyranny ensues.

I don't get this. We've been fighting the battle on all fronts for three or four decades, and by and large gun control bills have been defeated and gun control laws negated or removed based on pure political muscle. The fights have been in the legislatures and executive offices, by and large. If SCOTUS has a Kelo-esque collective brainfart, then the battle stays where it is. If SCOTUS goes our way to any degree at all (including simply not granting cert), then we open up a new front in the war, one where the gun-banners previously ruled unchallenged. So tyranny in the short or medium term (outside of the instabilities caused by gun owners that see the SCOTUS decision as casus belli) seems unlikely to me.

 

[rdhood]

Constitution did not exist in 1775.

Exactly.... but militias DID... which means that a government authority is not required to form a militia as the founding fathers new them (militias). There is no reason to believe that the definition of a militia changed in the 25-30 years from 1775.

 

[ilbob]

Constitution did not exist in 1775.

Exactly.... but militias DID... which means that a government authority is not required to form a militia as the founding fathers new them (militias). There is no reason to believe that the definition of a militia changed in the 25-30 years from 1775.

The militias that existed in colonial times were under the authority of the royal governor, who received his authority from the king. In many cases the chain was a bit murky, as militia officer commissions were handed out as political favors or to prominent people, and it was rare that a commission was ever revoked.

<added>
Before someone points this out, I am aware that some of the colonies did not actually have royal governors, as some colonies were commericial enterprises. They all had some kind of charter or other approval from the crown for the colony though, and the authority to grant militia commisisons passed from the king somehow.