I agree musketeer. I think the key to any S.Ct. decision is what level of scrutiny they're going to subject any regulation infringing upon our 2nd ammendment rights. Clearly, all the rights set forth in Bill of Rights are subject to some infringement. For example, my 1st amendment right to free speech doesn't permit me to yell "fire" in a crowded theater or slander someone. However, in the context of the 1st amendment, any law restricting speech is subject to "strict scrutiny". In other words, Congress must have a damn good reason for enacting this law, and it needs to be narrowly tailored to accomplishing its goal. If we can get this same standard applied to 2nd Amendment, many of the laws restricting our rights are going to be challenged as unconstitutional. However, if S.Ct. imposes a standard where they basically defer to Congress, all sorts of dumbass restrictions are going to pass constitutional muster so long as a creative lawyer can come up with some remotely rational explanation for why such a restriction is necessary.
DC v Heller/SCOTUS and practical implications
- Thread starter jrm
- Start date
Mayhem and standardization
This doesn't affect gun rights ultimately being a lost cause; but said cause was always about time - being able to buy an AR15 10 years from now vs. a ban in 5, etc. etc.
Gun rights (unlike all the other rights the supreme court manages to find in the constitution that don't reveal themselves via a "word search") will be discovered to be a limited right subject to reasonable restrictions.
Reasonable.
I would remind the audience that all gun control laws are already deemed reasonable at point of passage, making this ludicrous. Moreso, the prevailing new gun control that every viable politician supports ("assault weapon" ban, gun show BG checks, trigger locks, one gun a month) are also defined as reasonable by all the "second-amendment" stalwart politicians who just jumped out of the woodwork.
Where the positive comes in, though is the mayhem - every new gun control laws will have to hear whining about second amendment this and second amendment that, and face extra legal challenges. The DC case also sets precedent for people in areas where people are allowed to/want to own guns to cause mayhem in areas where nobody actually wants to own guns.
I can see this standardizing gun control laws around the country. California etc. will get worse heading toward some "norm", whereas DC and Chicago style bans will be loosened to a "reasonable" level (discretionary-issue permits for celebrities).
This doesn't affect gun rights ultimately being a lost cause; but said cause was always about time - being able to buy an AR15 10 years from now vs. a ban in 5, etc. etc.
Gun rights (unlike all the other rights the supreme court manages to find in the constitution that don't reveal themselves via a "word search") will be discovered to be a limited right subject to reasonable restrictions.
Reasonable.
I would remind the audience that all gun control laws are already deemed reasonable at point of passage, making this ludicrous. Moreso, the prevailing new gun control that every viable politician supports ("assault weapon" ban, gun show BG checks, trigger locks, one gun a month) are also defined as reasonable by all the "second-amendment" stalwart politicians who just jumped out of the woodwork.
Where the positive comes in, though is the mayhem - every new gun control laws will have to hear whining about second amendment this and second amendment that, and face extra legal challenges. The DC case also sets precedent for people in areas where people are allowed to/want to own guns to cause mayhem in areas where nobody actually wants to own guns.
I can see this standardizing gun control laws around the country. California etc. will get worse heading toward some "norm", whereas DC and Chicago style bans will be loosened to a "reasonable" level (discretionary-issue permits for celebrities).
Hopefully...
All rights have limits. The First Amendment protections of free speech does not allow one to yell "Fire" in a crowded venue. On the other hand, 'reasonable' restrictions do not include tearing out one's tongue in order to enter said venue.
When SCOTUS rules, we can only pray they decide the matter with due consideration to the intent of the Constitution.
Presuming they do, we will probably not see a total and complete rescinding of all current gun laws, but I do expect many 'bans' will be unconstitutional and many other laws will be under very strict scrutiny.
The fight ain't over, but I think we're going to be in much better standing in the future.
For instance, I do not feel it 'unreasonable' to deny possession of weapons to convicted violent felons or the criminally insane. However, to decree an arbitrary 'waiting period' for no other reason than harassment is 'unreasonable'.
Keeping records of who belongs to private organizations has long been held as unconstitutional by all courts. I think we will be in a very good position to overturn 'registration' and 'sales records' de facto registration laws. The current laws in PDSR California requiring all firearms sales be done via a licensed dealer I expect to be very shaky.
But it ain't over. We will no doubt have to force many issues in court. Happily, PDSR California is so broke it will probably have to simply give up on many court fights. Hehehehehe.
All rights have limits. The First Amendment protections of free speech does not allow one to yell "Fire" in a crowded venue. On the other hand, 'reasonable' restrictions do not include tearing out one's tongue in order to enter said venue.
When SCOTUS rules, we can only pray they decide the matter with due consideration to the intent of the Constitution.
Presuming they do, we will probably not see a total and complete rescinding of all current gun laws, but I do expect many 'bans' will be unconstitutional and many other laws will be under very strict scrutiny.
The fight ain't over, but I think we're going to be in much better standing in the future.
For instance, I do not feel it 'unreasonable' to deny possession of weapons to convicted violent felons or the criminally insane. However, to decree an arbitrary 'waiting period' for no other reason than harassment is 'unreasonable'.
Keeping records of who belongs to private organizations has long been held as unconstitutional by all courts. I think we will be in a very good position to overturn 'registration' and 'sales records' de facto registration laws. The current laws in PDSR California requiring all firearms sales be done via a licensed dealer I expect to be very shaky.
But it ain't over. We will no doubt have to force many issues in court. Happily, PDSR California is so broke it will probably have to simply give up on many court fights. Hehehehehe.
What I'm wanting to see is, if the 2nd is ruled to be an individual right, and held to strict scrutiny, what effect is had concerning the "bear" part of the amendment.
Will it perhaps jar some of the state/local politicians into being less strict with carry laws? Will there be more lawsuits concerning those laws?
What makes me wonder about this is the fact Tn just had 2 bills that would have loosened up our carry laws a bit fall through, with a third one not expected to fair any better.
J.C.
Will it perhaps jar some of the state/local politicians into being less strict with carry laws? Will there be more lawsuits concerning those laws?
What makes me wonder about this is the fact Tn just had 2 bills that would have loosened up our carry laws a bit fall through, with a third one not expected to fair any better.
J.C.
They need to sack up and say that impediments to carry are unconstitutional because without carry rights, the 2nd Amendment is completely useless once you exit your doorstep. They absolutely cannot treat other rights that way. If you don't have carry rights in DC you either have to be an agorophobe or your rights mean not a single iota more than before the case began.
Interesting that during the oral argument there was some discussion of why a ban on handguns was unreasonable, since you could still have rifles and shotguns. I was kind of surprised that no one pointed out that you also have the right to "bear" arms, and presumably gun grabbers wouldn't be happy if I started going into work with my AR of my AK over my shoulder (particularly in downtown Boston)
Also, discussions of self-defense seemed to be confined to self-defense in one's home - how about on the street?
Also, discussions of self-defense seemed to be confined to self-defense in one's home - how about on the street?
Here's a practical question for the practical implications thread:
What will the Court actually DO?
We're all talking about levels of scrutiny and whatnot, but they have an opinion before them. They have to do something with it.
They can uphold it 9-0 without further comment if they want. That would be considered the greatest victory for strict scrutiny, as far as I can tell.
They can also overturn it and write their own opinion(s).
Or, they can reverse it and send it back to the lower court for further proceedings.
What will they do?
What will the Court actually DO?
We're all talking about levels of scrutiny and whatnot, but they have an opinion before them. They have to do something with it.
They can uphold it 9-0 without further comment if they want. That would be considered the greatest victory for strict scrutiny, as far as I can tell.
They can also overturn it and write their own opinion(s).
Or, they can reverse it and send it back to the lower court for further proceedings.
What will they do?