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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Since the Court generally hears two and sometimes three cases in a day, but in this case, Heller is the only case being heard, I suspect that the Court has anticipated this.

Remember also, that technically, the DOJ did not come out for either side. So we shouldn't be surprised at this move.
 
The DoJ brief, and request for oral arguments, bothers me. "Strict" scrutiny often isn't very strict; take, for example, the fact that we have border patrol inspection stations on the interstate here in New Mexico. Sensible, right? Well... not when they're stopping all traffic for potential searches 95 miles north of the border -- for example on I-25 north of Truth or Consequences and on I-10 near Los Cruces. Violation of the 4th Amendment, federal interference in interstate and intra-state travel? Not according to the Supreme Court.

And "strict" scrutiny is used for the 4th amendment. :rolleyes:
 
The DOJ is asking the Court to consider what MAY happen to other laws in other cases while they are deciding this case.

Is that appropriate? Or even legal?

I was reading something yesterday suggesting it is neither appropriate nor legal, and that makes sense to me. What do other potential future cases have to do with this one anyway? The problems future courts may face are not Heller's responsibility.
 
Should the NRA have been able to file a brief and make oral arguments before the Court in the Raich case? The precedent in that case was immediately (and predictably) applied to firearms in the Stewart case, so that means the NRA had a legitimate interest in the Raich case, and their arguments should have been considered in deciding the case.

In fact, I was planning on designing and building my own machine gun if we got a different outcome in those cases, so I should have had oral argument time before the Court as well! :rolleyes:
 
"I was reading something yesterday suggesting it is neither appropriate nor legal, and that makes sense to me. What do other potential future cases have to do with this one anyway? The problems future courts may face are not Heller's responsibility."

It IS the Supreme Courts resonsability though.

I had a law professor years ago that said when the decision on a particular case seems strange, look to the impact of the ruling on OTHER decisions.

The entire system is supposed to try and maintain a certain consistancy.

Look up 'stare decisis'
 
Stare decisis is why it took 5 court cases and nearly 50 years to determine that professional baseball is interstate commerce. Its good is that it creates consistency; it's downfall is that it locks in bad decisions.
 
In terms of impacts ... I don't think I've seen this discussed here, but the anti's are claiming that a pro-2nd amendment ruling in this case will ignite a firestorm of people in prison demanding retrials over weapons charges.

I imagine that is true, as the sudden observance of a right is going to take a lot of court cases to determine how far that right goes. And people imprisoned for laws that defy that right should challenge their imprisonment.
 
In terms of impacts ... I don't think I've seen this discussed here, but the anti's are claiming that a pro-2nd amendment ruling in this case will ignite a firestorm of people in prison demanding retrials over weapons charges.

I imagine that is true, as the sudden observance of a right is going to take a lot of court cases to determine how far that right goes. And people imprisoned for laws that defy that right should challenge their imprisonment.
Click to expand...

Are there a lot of people in prison solely for possessing a handgun?

Of course, even if there were that would be a poor reason for dtermineing this case. Dred Scott saved lots on judicial resources but we paid for it in other ways.
 
The entire system is supposed to try and maintain a certain consistancy.

Look up 'stare decisis'
Click to expand...

That refers to maintaining some consistency by looking BACK at what WAS ruled. A sensible policy.

What the DOJ is asking the SC to do is to look AHEAD at what MIGHT one day be ruled, and use their prediction to inform their ruling in Heller's case.

Is that really their responsibility? Is it even sensible?
 
What the DOJ is asking the SC to do is to look AHEAD at what MIGHT one day be ruled, and use their prediction to inform their ruling in Heller's case.

Is that really their responsibility? Is it even sensible?
Click to expand...

They have done it many times before.
It plays with stare decisis in trying to keep an internally consistent system.
 
Are there a lot of people in prison solely for possessing a handgun?
Click to expand...

If there are, that's even more reason to overturn it
Click to expand...

I agree. But ...

I would assume in DC there are any number of people doing time simply for handgun position. Same in NYC, where IIRC they have a mandatory minimum 1 year sentence for possession of an "illegal" handgun (which includes any handgun I might take there, for instance, since few handguns are ever legal and I have no permit).

The sad thing is ... assuming the above is true, and I haven't checked actual court records, chances are many of these people are criminals who were prosecuted on the gun charge because it was easier, and if they are suddenly released from prison with their records expunged or whatever ... not a good thing. Might even cause a noticable "blip" on the crime statistics the anti's will use against us as an "I told ya so."

As a nation we have to do the right thing irregardless, of course.
 
the anti's are claiming that a pro-2nd amendment ruling in this case will ignite a firestorm of people in prison demanding retrials over weapons charges.
Click to expand...
We shouldn't have political prisoners in the first place. Besides, the country seems to have survived the firestorm of retrials related to Jim Crow laws and the DNA evidence firestorm. Turning loose innocent people probably helps the nation as a whole, makes us look less barbaric in the eyes of the rest of the world.:)
 
Turning loose innocent people probably helps the nation as a whole, makes us look less barbaric in the eyes of the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but probably not in this case. I get the impression much of the world thinks handgun owners should be jailed. They don't look very innocent to foreign eyes, and it would probably make our justice system look as "barbaric" as ever.

Not that I care what all those emasculated, socialist nations think anyway.

-Jephthai-
 
I would assume in DC there are any number of people doing time simply for handgun position. Same in NYC, where IIRC they have a mandatory minimum 1 year sentence for possession of an "illegal" handgun (which includes any handgun I might take there, for instance, since few handguns are ever legal and I have no permit).
Click to expand...

I would not assume that. If you had not been stopped for something else, how would the DC police even know you had a gun? Remember when Carl Rowan shot that lad in his pool? I don't think he was even prosecuted.

IThe sad thing is ... assuming the above is true, and I haven't checked actual court records, chances are many of these people are criminals who were prosecuted on the gun charge because it was easier, and if they are suddenly released from prison with their records expunged or whatever ... not a good thing. Might even cause a noticable "blip" on the crime statistics the anti's will use against us as an "I told ya so."
Click to expand...

If they weren't prosecuted on anything else then they aren't criminals for something a DA didn't charge. However, my impression is that if a DA can imagine someway that a defendant can be redundantly charged, he will be.
 
What the DOJ is asking the SC to do is to look AHEAD at what MIGHT one day be ruled, and use their prediction to inform their ruling in Heller's case.

Is that really their responsibility? Is it even sensible?
Click to expand...

It's essentially what Justice Taney did in the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision:

For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased...to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court was, in other words, looking toward the outcome of the decision, rather than the principle involved, in determining that African-Americans were not and could not be citizens.

And that decision led, more or less, directly to the Civil War.
 
Well since the Pink Pistols laid out a compelling argument that the collective interpretation of the 2nd discriminates against homosexuals, we can expect the D.C. ban to be overturned.

I mean heck, you can't trample on gay rights these days. Luckily all gun owners can piggyback on this one.

maybe EAA will bring back the pink polymer witness frame to celebrate the PP ac brief.

It scares me that the SCOTUS is even hearing this.

Reading the briefs for and against the anti side is depending on a collective right interpretation of the 2nd and a finding that the D.C. ban indeed makes the district safer.

Hope we have more wisdom on the bench than to go along with those positions.

EDIT - Just finished reading the A.C. brief from Jeannette Moll very interesting.
 
Last edited:
Perldog, the implications of this case go way beyond anything to do with the 2A.

Should the SCOTUS read the 2A out of the Constitution, tell me how that bodes for the rest of the Bill of Rights?
 
Should the SCOTUS read the 2A out of the Constitution, tell me how that bodes for the rest of the Bill of Rights?
Click to expand...

No kidding. But then again, the Bill of Rights isn't looking too healthy these days...

I'm worried about the possibility of a bad precedent from Heller... consider Wickard and Raich, or Kelo which IMO have done incredible damage to freedom in this country. Then there are the legal fictions of executive orders, executive privilege, and "state secrets"...

The courts are all too willing to give the federal government powers that it shouldn't have. This is nothing new, but IMO it has gotten worse in recent times... see, for example, this list. IMO the conservative justices are just as bad as the liberals in this.

Anyway, regarding Heller... consider a scenario where the Court decides for an individual right, but applies a rational basis test or otherwise weasels out of actually protecting an individual right (as it did in Kelo for example). In that case, what have we really won?

This is dangerous territory; the Heller briefs are wonderful and amazing, but I'm still worried because the Court has many avenues to "read the 2A out of the Constitution," and it has a shown a propensity to make bad decisions which grant undue powers to the government.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top