D.C. vs. Heller (Supreme Court and the 2A) - Mega Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
1986 Machine Gun Ban - isnt it strange how many supposedly liberal and anti consitution things happened under republican watch? Ban on carrying in national parks also happened under Reagan. Ike used the Federal military against southern states to enforce desegragation. Nixon greatly expanded the reach and size of the Federal government.

Who is the party of big government? Who ever is in power.
 
It wouldn't surprise me to see the supremes rule exactly as the appellate court dissenter did - ie, since DC is not a state, the 2nd ammendment doesn't apply.
Click to expand...

Second Amendment rights should be incorporated against the Washington, D.C. municipality via the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
 
I side with those who don't think this case is good news. Why would the court hear it unless somebody wants to reverse the lower court's ruling? Maybe I am confused, but it is my understanding that the Supreme Court has stayed out of the 2nd since Miller.

Let's pray for the best........
 
They are hearing it because there are conflicting cases in the lower courts. This needs to be resolved one way or the other.
 
I side with those who don't think this case is good news. Why would the court hear it unless somebody wants to reverse the lower court's ruling? Maybe I am confused, but it is my understanding that the Supreme Court has stayed out of the 2nd since Miller.

Let's pray for the best........
Click to expand...

Sadly, I must agree. As a student of the Supreme Court, I have seen our rights slowly eroded at over a few short decades. It's only a matter of time before they come after our first freedom. It will be interesting to see how Roberts and Alito come down on this. Look carefully, and you will notice the following pattern in Supreme Court decisions: The "conservative wing" typically defers to a governmental agency's actions. The "liberal wing" tends to be less deferential to an administrative agency's actions unless such action furthers their personal feelings. The justification for either side's decision is always the same line of b.s., "We don't sit here as a super legislature. . ."
 
The best we can hope for is a 5-4 decision in our favor on a limited ruling that does NOT EXPAND current gun control limitations. Don't count on a complete reversal of gun controls. I would say the odds are that it is more likely that the court opens the door to tighter controls or bans than it is that they would rule gun control unconstitutional.

We can only count on Scalia and Thomas. We HOPE that Alito and Roberts, BUSH appointees, are on our side. BUSH being the key word. Remember David Souter.

Assuming the latter two Bushies are with us, Kennedy seems to be the kind of guy who wants to do what is popular with the media elites when high profile cases come to light and this case could be the one that defines his tenure.
 
We can only count on Scalia and Thomas. We HOPE that Alito and Roberts, BUSH appointees, are on our side. BUSH being the key word. Remember David Souter.
Click to expand...

I hope you're right. I hope we can count on Scalia and Thomas. I hope we could count on all nine justices. But when you really look to Scalia's rulings on other matters of fundamental liberties and rights, you see a pattern of deference to administrative agencies - along the lines of his chief opposition Breyer. Hope I'm wrong. :(
 
XD40Tac said:
We can only count on Scalia and Thomas. We HOPE that Alito and Roberts...
Click to expand...
Thomas? yes. Same for Alito and Roberts. Scalia however, is big on precedent. Almost a sacred thing to him.

Remember Raich? He sided with the majority, so as not to have to revisit Wickard. I think if Rehnquist could have talked Scalia into it, Kennedy would have sided with them and it would have been a different ball game.

That said, I believe Scalia is on our side this time around. I believe also, that Ginsburg and Kennedy may be for Heller also. Stevens is anybodies guess.

That leaves Souter and Breyer as the two main dissenters... A solid 7-2 majority for Heller would be a nice change. However, I'm not sure enough to put money on it. Yet.
 
I believe also, that Ginsburg and Kennedy may be for Heller also. Stevens is anybodies guess.
Click to expand...

Ruther Bader Ginsburg? That would be a first for her to rule traditionally; not much guessing needed on Stevens either.

It comes down to Kennedy.
 
But when you really look to Scalia's rulings on other matters of fundamental liberties and rights, you see a pattern of deference to administrative agencies - along the lines of his chief opposition Breyer
Click to expand...

Scalia is an original intent judge especially on areas that are directly addressed in the BOR. You might be listening to democratic talking points on Scalia. Yeah he is against abortion because it is not in the constitution. He is against racial quota's because it is not in the constitution. He believes that the president has the power to protect against threats "both foreign and domestic" because it is in the constitution.
 
Antipitas:

Re your conclusion in post # 348, where you mentioned a 7-2 majority for Heller, I do hope you turn out to be correct. Such as result would be not simply nice, it would be a lovely thing to look upon.
 
Why would the court hear it unless somebody wants to reverse the lower court's ruling?
Click to expand...
DC is the party that made the appeal seeking to reverse their defeat in the lower courts.

And the Supreme Court has touched on the Second Amendment repeatedly since Miller, almost always referring to it in terms of an individual right.
 
It looks like arguments will be heard in the Supreme Court on Tuesday, March 18, at 10:00 a.m.

Our side (Heller's side) will file briefs on 2/4/08.

DC Gun Case Blog

In less than 2 months we should have more insights based on the questions from the judges and how it seemed to go.

When it's all done, it will be interesting to look back at this thread and compare prophecies with fact.

I hope we're all in happy-happy mode, not figuring out how to deal with the effects of a malevolent injustice perpetrated by politicians posing as judges.
 
Scalia is an original intent judge especially on areas that are directly addressed in the BOR. You might be listening to democratic talking points on Scalia.
Click to expand...

No, I'm banking my conclusion on my years of legal studies. "Original intent" and "Strict constructionism" are two different theories of Constitutional interpretation that are confused by the general public. Nobody knows the original intent of a document. Five different legislators may have five different reasons for passing a law. Sometimes they are conflicting. Founding documents, letters, et. al., may shed some light on the meaning of a text, but only the words become law. There are other problems with applying the lens of "original intent" to the Constitution - nobody knows what it is. Five different legal scholars will reach five different conclusions on what the original intent of a statute is. Get the wrong judge, and he/she may determine that the original intent of the Second Amendment applied only to a well regulated militia and not private citizens. If we simply apply the plain language meaning of the 2nd Amendment, it is exceptionally clear that every American citizen has the right to keep and bear arms. End of discussion. There are no two ways about this, apply original intent and lose your rights with the wrong judge. Apply the plain text of the statute and keep your rights.
 
Scalia is an original intent judge especially on areas that are directly addressed in the BOR. You might be listening to democratic talking points on Scalia.
Click to expand...


Or perhaps some of us just read Scalia's concurrence with the lefty majority opinion on the scope of the commerce clause. I don't think the Founders intended to create the kind of broad regulatory powers the federal government has assumed under the commerce clause, nor do I think a strict interpretation of the words "regulate commerce among the several states" can really include a homegrown cannabis plant or machine gun for personal consumption. It seems to me that Scalia has been listening to too many Democrat talking points, because he disagrees.
 
Scalia has always struck me as a little too willing to hand over power to the gov't...

The bottom line is even those justices we think should support a literal reading of the 2A are often just as likely NOT to support the reduction of governmental power... Then there is always the "precedent" cop out. I never understood how precedent could be such an important factor. Precedent said lots of horrendous things, and still does, but that does not make it right. Precedent says the town may force me out of my home and take my land so they can let a developer put up a commercial property which generates more tax revenue. Does that mean no justices should oppose precedent?
 
Scalia is very much a fair weather originalist, and he's not the least bit shy about telling you how important he regards precedent, even bad precedent. Counting on him to uphold the 2nd amendment, when doing so threatens a 70 year accumulation of gun control laws, is pretty iffy. He's on my "maybe" list, the only one I'm reasonably certain of is Thomas.

I was in favor of taking this case to the Supreme court, not because I'm sure Truth and Justice will win the day, (I give that maybe one chance in three.) but because the Court isn't gonna get better than this, and we aren't gonna get stronger than this. Even if it's a bad chance, this is our best chance.

The 2nd amendment is going to the Supreme court sooner or later, and if it's not on our terms, it will be on their terms, with a case perfectly designed for the 2nd amendment to lose. After President Clinton or Barak has appointed a few 'Justices', and the Brady center finances some rapist's legal challenge.

It's fight now, or fight when the odds are worse. That's all.
 
Not to rain on everyones parade, but precedent has its place.

Precedent allows a court to not have to re-invent the wheel every time a decision is being made.

But for decisions that are just plain bad, precedent should not be given any thought at all, other than to overturn it (and the decision(s) it was based upon).

Wickard was a bad decision. It expanded the commerce clause far beyond the, then current, reach of Federal power. The precedent Wickard set has been used over the intervening years as the forge to increase Federal power far beyond the scope envisioned by the founders (i.e: a government of limited and express powers).

In another case, the decision in the Slaughterhouse Cases, set a precedent that completely gutted the "privileges and immunities" clause of the 14th amendment. We are living with the repercussions of that decision, every day. It's called selective incorporation. That's the issue most anti-gunners fear with the instant case.
 
Rep. Goode asks Bush to withdraw the DOJ brief on the Heller case.

Is there any point in the rest of us doing this?

Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) has sent the following letter to the White
House asking them to undo the huge harm they have caused the Second
Amendment with the brief they filed in the DC gun ban case.

-------------------------------------

Dear President Bush:

Your Solicitor General has just filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme
Court in the D.C. v. Heller case arguing that categorical gun bans of
virtually all self-defense firearms are constitutional if a court
determines they are "reasonable" -- the lowest standard of
constitutional review.

If this view prevails, a national ban on all firearms -- including
hunting rifles -- could be constitutional, even if the court decides
-- on ample historical evidence -- that the Founders intended the
Second Amendment as an individual right.

I would ask that you direct the Justice Department to withdraw this
unfortunate brief and to replace it with an opinion which reflects
the right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms.

Thank you for your consideration.
Click to expand...

So at least someone thinks we should be contacting our own representatives on this. I'm going to do it ... what do y'all think? Is it even possible to withdraw? At the very least it lets the republican know where we stand.

Rep. Goode is following up his action by circulating the letter among
his colleagues. He is asking other members of Congress to add their
signatures in anticipation of sending President Bush another copy of
the letter.

Your help is needed immediately to convince your Representative to
join with Rep. Goode.

Please go to the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send a pre-written message
urging your Rep. to be a part of this important initiative. If you
prefer to contact your Representative in another fashion, here is the
text we are using:

Dear Representative:

Please join with Rep. Virgil Good in signing a letter to the White
House urging the President to withdraw the Solicitor General's very
ill-advised brief in the D.C. gun ban case, D.C. v. Heller.

Gun Owners of America will be keeping me posted about the members of
the House who have joined with Representative Goode.

Thank you very much.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top