Supreme Court Second Amendment Case Could Overrule Heller Decision in 2017

[Aim1]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...t-second-amendment-case-overrule-heller-2017/

Supreme Court Second Amendment Case Could Overrule Heller Decision in 2017

by KEN KLUKOWSKI20 Sep 2016

WASHINGTON—For the first time in U.S. history, a federal appeals court on Friday struck down a federal gun-control law for violating the Second Amendment, meaning that next year the Supreme Court will hear a case that includes the opportunity to abolish citizens’ right to bear arms by overruling the Court’s famous Heller precedent.
Clifford Tyler is a law-abiding and peaceful citizen living in Grand Rapids, Michigan. In 1985, his wife of 23 years was having an adulterous affair. She ran off with the other man and took all of Clifford’s money with her. His daughters found him so upset and depressed, banging his head on the floor, that they called the authorities, fearing he might harm himself.

As important as the Sixth Circuit’s Tyler decision is, that is not the most newsworthy aspect of this case. Because now a federal appeals court has struck down an Act of Congress on constitutional grounds.

That means the Obama administration’s solicitor general will now petition the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari to review this case. Under these rare circumstances, it is virtually 100 percent certain that the justices will grant review and hear the case.

 

[Red Wind]

I await with Bated Breath!

 

[MAKster]

These threads make me shake my head. The Court rules that the law violated the 2nd amendment, so instead of cheering this victory the article makes a huge speculative leap and declares the sky is falling.

 

[Red Wind]

That is correct. Heller will prevail.

 

[Hypnogator]

I await with Bated Breath!

While I await with breath that smells like bait!

 

[Liberty1776]

I must respectfully disagree with this wording....

the Supreme Court will hear a case that includes the opportunity to abolish citizens’ right to bear arms by overruling the Court’s famous Heller precedent.

The right is given neither by the Constitution, nor the Bill of Rights, nor the Supreme Court. It is, however, enumerated in the Bill of Rights. It is not a man-made law that can be taken away, but a natural and God-given right. THE SUPREME COURT CANNOT ABOLISH THIS RIGHT. They can write words that may say so, but that does not make it so...

 

[denton]

I'm not an attorney, but I think I know good reasoning and writing when I see it. The Heller decision is a prime example of both.

As far as I know, the Supreme Court will only reverse a former decision if it was gravely wrong. I think it would be unlikely for them to even take the case.

 

[IlikeSA]

It's my understanding that even if they did take it, and came to a 4-4 conclusion, the lower courts ruling stands.

 

[barnbwt]

The right is given neither by the Constitution, nor the Bill of Rights, nor the Supreme Court. It is, however, enumerated in the Bill of Rights. It is not a man-made law that can be taken away, but a natural and God-given right. THE SUPREME COURT CANNOT ABOLISH THIS RIGHT. They can write words that may say so, but that does not make it so..

Much like Dred Scott v Sandford, at some point, ill-founded Supreme Court rulings will accomplish nothing but its own annihilation (this case, discovered many years later to be illegally influenced by none other than the President, was basically the final straw for southern citizens' losing all respect for the US federal government as an institution before the Civil War). Until that happens, we just have to have faith that the court won't be so stupid as to try disenfranchising a third of the adult population, even with illegal influence brought to bear (sadly, recent rulings suggest this will not be the case)

I'm not an attorney, but I think I know good reasoning and writing when I see it. The Heller decision is a prime example of both.

It's an elegant, brave, and thorough legal 'proof' (as in a mathematical proof) of the right to freely own handguns & firearms in general, that has "1+1=Potato" conspicuously tossed in for good measure (the "common use" and "reasonable restrictions" clauses that directly contradict the entire supporting argument before and after in the opinion). Many theories as to why such an otherwise brilliant jewel of jurisprudence has such glaring and fatal flaws, but it is what it is (by which I mean that Heller is for all intents and purposes irrelevant for the most part. Whether the next court upholds it or strikes it down, that will be the controlling opinion going forward, not Heller)

TCB

 

[reddog81]

1+1=Potato... That's a good one.

If we had the same ruling in the early hours 1980's you could have banned the semi auto high capacity wonder 9's because they weren't in common use. For the first couple of years after the expiration of the 1994 assault weapons ban you could have made the argument the AR-15 wasn't in common use. Who knows what will be disallowed in the future due to it being labeled as not in common use.

At this point I think it's hard to predict what the future could bring for the court.

 

[MEHavey]

The future will bring.....
... whatever the next Presidential election brings to the SCOTUS bench.

Unfortunately we are at that tipping point in American Law-as-Written (vs) Law as It-Ought-to-Be.
I stand by to be pleasantly surprised if not....

 

[pintler]

I don't see Heller getting explicitly overturned; anti gun types don't want to deal with the political blowback from that. But you can get almost the same result by simply finding that almost any restriction is allowed under Heller. That is, in fact, what's mostly happening. Alan Gura, who knows a bit about the Heller case, writes:

"In sum, the Second Amendment vision pervading federal courts today allows banning any weapon, regardless of its function or popularity, if doing so makes people feel better; the prohibition on bearing arms by anyone unless the local police think it’s a good idea, and in just about any location subject to description by the English language; levying taxes and fees on firearms in any amount, if the money collected is put to a wholesome purpose; and the “heightened scrutiny” of any law implicating “fundamental” Second Amendment rights by deferring to the legislature’s view of what’s constitutional."

Read the Whole Thing:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/09/t...ve-justice-may-not-save-the-second-amendment/

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

I don't see how Heller is in any danger. Heller specifically allows that certain restrictions are allowed. Even if SCOTUS swings anti-gun, a likely finding would state that the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) are such allowed restrictions. Overturning Heller would be quite a stretch.

Second, I don't see even an anti-gun SCOTUS striking down anything based on this case. It's pretty clear case where there is no ability in place to grant relief or restoration... which is a big constitutional no-no. I would not be surprise if SCOTUS refuses to hear this case.

 

[Yo Mama]

So I just read the article, and was coming here to see if there was a current discussion, so Aim1 you beat me to it!

1. Supreme Court decisions are extremely narrow in the scope of rulings. It's a detail in the grand scope of a larger issue. For them to go off of the current case and make sweeping legislative decisions would be unbelievable.

2. Breitbart needs to keep editorials in the editorial section, and news in the news section.

 

[stonecutter2]

Fearmongering to attempt to turn out more voters on election day simply to get the next pick of a justic.

The sky is not falling.

The next president may choose some supreme court justice(s), but that should only be one factor in voting for someone for the highest office in the land, in my opinion.

 

[MEHavey]

Don't worry.
It can never happen here.

 

[plodder]

Fearmongering to attempt to turn out more voters on election day simply to get the next pick of a justic.

The sky is not falling.

The next president may choose some supreme court justice(s), but that should only be one factor in voting for someone for the highest office in the land, in my opinion.

True, but unfortunately the next President's pick of SJ Justices will be around with the potential to cause mayhem and further degrade our country long after that next President is buried.

 

[barnbwt]

Fearmongering to attempt to turn out more voters on election day simply to get the next pick of a justice.

The sky is not falling.

Oh, the sky has definitely lost some altitude, alright; that's why we're even faced with this situation. The foolishness is thinking a single election of a single officer will be the critical factor. A much, much longer view on the situation is in order, but sadly too many cannot see past their immediate desires.

TCB

 

[stonecutter2]

True, but unfortunately the next President's pick of SJ Justices will be around with the potential to cause mayhem and further degrade our country long after that next President is buried.

It's only "potential mayhem and degradation" if you disagree with those justices picked. As the GOP has demonstrated, they need to get through the Senate first, so I have a feeling that from here on out, if the Senate is not the party in the White House, the picks will have to be fairly moderate. Hence control of the Senate is as important as whoever is elected president.

 

[berettaprofessor]

Won't hurt if someone would take Roberts or Kennedy out skeet shooting or whatever else they might enjoy along the lines of shooting sports.

 

[barnbwt]

Well, we lost the one guy on the bench who would do that. Pretty significant, honestly, because it's not exactly a walk in the park to "take up shooting" legally in the District, these days, what with all the licensing, expense, arbitrary granting of rights, registration, and clear and present danger of legal liability every moment you continue to be a gun owner. I know if I was forced to live there for my job, I likely wouldn't put up with it (being a gun owner, or continuing to live there; pick one)

TCB

 

[CapnMac]

Breitbart has managed to leap to an avocados=armadillos conclusion.

First off, there is a beautifully terse discussion of the actual circuit court decision over in Legal.

Said decision holds that (g)(4), which creates a lifetime prohibition without recourse is in erro, and cannot survive intermediate scrutiny. The decision also gave a simple answer to this "problem"--the State of Michigan merely needs to create a review process (allowed under the NICS Improvement Act) which can evaluate the present danger a (g)(4) prohibited person represents versus and previous danger. assessed.

If the State of Michigan (if I understand the actors correctly) takes this before SCOTUS, only two things can happen. 1, the appellate decision is overturned, and the State has to do nothing, and (g)(4) remains a life-long prohibition (except in 13 states were relief can be sought).

Or, 2, the appellate court will be upheld, in which case, Michigan and 36 other States will have to decide how to handle prohibited persons under (g)(4) as not being lifetime prohibited.

Nothing in this would "overtunr" Heller, nor much change 2a jurisprudence.

That is, unless SCOTUS wishes to revisit all of 18 USC 922's Prohibited Persons categories as permanent bans in all cases. I do not see SCOTUS entertaining notions like felons who have served their time having their rights restored, for one.