Consequences of Heller...

[nobody_special]

Assume, for a moment, that the Supreme Court overturns the appeals court decision in Heller, recognizing an individual right but not holding it to strict scrutiny. I think there is a fair chance of this outcome. Let's assume that the D.C. ban is upheld. See, e.g., here and here.

Further, let's assume (again, reasonable IMHO) that such a decision does not significantly alter the upcoming election, and the Democrats are likely to win both the presidency and a majority in both houses of congress. In other words, political pressure on a national level is unlikely to produce positive results, at least for a while. I'd like to limit this discussion to legal rather than political strategies.

What then? Are there any further legal approaches that might help?

Presumably a case could still be made for incorporation, and for "bearing" arms. I presume the district courts that previously found only a collective right would re-examine their decisions; however all restrictions and regulations may be maintained under a low standard of scrutiny.

(Yeah, I'm worried...)

Edited to add: Mods, I thought this might merit a separate discussion from the main Heller thread, as it discusses consequences of a particular possible outcome, rather than Heller itself. My apologies if this is out of order.

 

[Al Norris]

Not out of order at all. Such a discussion on the possible consequences is seperate from the discussion that is stickied.

 

[publius42]

It must be embarrassing to Tribe to have to resort to misrepresenting the case in order to make his point. Let's see..

The case involves a city resident who contends that the District is violating his rights under the Second Amendment with a citywide ban on handguns.

No, that's not all it involves. The actual question to be decided is:

Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?

Opponents of the District's flat ban on handgun possession have cited my words to the court and in newspaper editorials in their support.

That's the second time he's referenced the "ban" and this time with the word "flat" to add emphasis. This conveniently ignores the fact that pre-ban gun owners are still allowed to keep their guns, but it does help us to later draw the parallel to the "flat ban" we have on machine guns.

The lower court's decision in this case -- the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals found the District's ban on concealable handguns in a densely populated area to be unconstitutional -- went overboard. Under any plausible standard of review, a legislature's choice to limit the citizenry to rifles, shotguns and other weapons less likely to augment urban violence need not, and should not, be viewed as an unconstitutional abridgment of the right of the people to keep or bear arms.

If you can't win the argument, throw up distractions. How humiliating for Tribe. The Court talks about handguns and other weapons being kept in private homes, obviously bringing up the issue that DC laws insist that long guns be disabled, and Tribe has to run away by acting as if the issue is about concealed weapons and DC actually lets citizens keep FUNCTIONAL firearms for private use in their homes, neither of which is true, and he knows it.

Wow. Mr. Harvard Law Professor has to run from the facts and issues of the case and invent his own to make his point. Utterly pathetic.

 

[RDak]

Once again Tribe fails to deal with the rights of law abiding citizens to combat crime in crime ridden areas. The rights of law abiding citizens are, as usual, discounted to a very low level by Tribe (i.e., a typical, although very well read, anti-gunner).

Typical anti-gun jibberish. Just another way of allowing the anti-gunners to achieve their goal of totally prohibiting the private ownership of firearms. (This is a typical "end-run" around a decision they "know" will go seriously against them IMHO.)

We've all heard this type of faulty reasoning all our lives from anti-gunners.

SCOTUS, IMHO, will dismiss arguments like that quickly.

We have to remember Pub that DC's total firearms ban has been an abysmal failure, (i.e.,based on actual statistics). The SCOTUS will recognize this in a heartbeat IMHO.

I am not pessimistic Pub, I hope I'm right!?

 

[Al Norris]

None of which, has to do about the consequences of a ruling for or against Heller.

This is precisely why we have a stickied thread on Heller. Discussions of specific amicus briefs are on topic there, not here.

 

[RDak]

Whoops, sorry Anti!