NJCSD predicts SCOTUS decision
- Thread starter liaison@nnjcsd.org
- Start date
Master Blaster
New member
Here is the big problem I see:
The Supreme Court will rule that the second is an individual right, no question.
But they will also rule that it is subject to reasonable restrictions in the name of public safety.
The politicians will continue to write gun bans, and restrictive laws with respect to the RKBA, that includes licensing registration and assault weapon and hicap magazine/ ammo bans, anyway.
You will then be arrested for having X or violating Y just like the current situation. Then you will have to hire a lawyer and spend your life savings fighting the unconstitutional law, just like Heller did.
If you doubt this just look at the situation in Philadelphia, where the Mayor and City council ignored a state supreme court ruling, and state law, and the Pa. state constitution, which has no militia clause to muddy the waters. If you Break one of Nutter's laws the police have said they will arrest and jail you, so then you will need lots of cash and a lawyer to protect your rights.
The Supreme Court will rule that the second is an individual right, no question.
But they will also rule that it is subject to reasonable restrictions in the name of public safety.
The politicians will continue to write gun bans, and restrictive laws with respect to the RKBA, that includes licensing registration and assault weapon and hicap magazine/ ammo bans, anyway.
You will then be arrested for having X or violating Y just like the current situation. Then you will have to hire a lawyer and spend your life savings fighting the unconstitutional law, just like Heller did.
If you doubt this just look at the situation in Philadelphia, where the Mayor and City council ignored a state supreme court ruling, and state law, and the Pa. state constitution, which has no militia clause to muddy the waters. If you Break one of Nutter's laws the police have said they will arrest and jail you, so then you will need lots of cash and a lawyer to protect your rights.
Last edited:
Master Blaster; I think you are right on with your prediction. Everyone is expecting this to settle the argument once and for all but I expect that it will only shift the problems around. They are not going to rule a literal interpretation of 2A where every idividual can carry any kind of gun they want to where ever they want to as some are hoping. The reasonable restriction is going to be the kicker because they are not going to define reasonable restrictions. I predict that they are going to strike down DC's ban on owning and having to have it under lock but leave in a ban on carrying.
As I said no two people are going to be able to agree on what is reasonable so we will be making strides but probably only a small step.
As I said no two people are going to be able to agree on what is reasonable so we will be making strides but probably only a small step.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Under some well settled principles of Constitutional law, federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have long permitted government to regulate Constitutional rights, subject to certain constraints.
Court rulings have for many years permitted regulation of a Constitutional right as necessary to further a compelling state interest as long as such regulation is as narrow it may possibly be and still serve that interest. Any such regulation must not totally obviate the Constitutional right. Furthermore, any such regulation must be evenly applied and not subject to the discretion of governmental authority. Application of these principles may be understood, I think, in relation to the First Amendment.
While the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, assembly and religion, we know there has been a history of certain regulation of speech, assembly and religion. A few examples are:
[1] Laws prohibiting such things as false advertising, fraud or misrepresentation, as well as laws requiring certain disclosures in connection with various transactions, would absolutely survive a challenge to their validity on Constitutional grounds even though such laws do impinge on the freedom of speech. Among other things, such laws serve compelling state interests related to promoting honest business and helping to preserve the integrity of commercial transactions. They tend to be only as broad as necessary to serve that function.
[2] Laws respecting the time, place and manner of speech or assembly have also survived Constitutional challenges. Thus a municipality may require that organizers obtain a permit in order to hold an assembly or a parade and may prohibit such activities during, for example, the very early morning hours. Such regulations would be permitted only to the extent necessary to serve the compelling state interest of protecting public health and safety. Any such regulations, to be constitutionally permissible, could not consider the content of the speech or assembly; and they would need to be applied in an even handed manner based on set guidelines and not subject to the discretion of a public official.
[3] In the past, laws prohibiting polygamy have been upheld against challenges that they violate the right to free exercise of religion. And if someone’s religion required the practice of human sacrifice, he can not expect to successfully hide behind the First Amendment if prosecuted for murder (or assisting a suicide if the victim were willing).
So even with a favorable ruling in Heller, we will continue to see regulation of the RKBA, and much current regulation will survive constitutional challenge. And there will be continued litigation testing existing law, as well as new laws. But at least with a clear “individual rights” ruling we’ll be in a better position to argue for a stricter standard of review. We should also be able to successfully challenge laws that give discretion to government official in connection with the RKBA.
Court rulings have for many years permitted regulation of a Constitutional right as necessary to further a compelling state interest as long as such regulation is as narrow it may possibly be and still serve that interest. Any such regulation must not totally obviate the Constitutional right. Furthermore, any such regulation must be evenly applied and not subject to the discretion of governmental authority. Application of these principles may be understood, I think, in relation to the First Amendment.
While the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, assembly and religion, we know there has been a history of certain regulation of speech, assembly and religion. A few examples are:
[1] Laws prohibiting such things as false advertising, fraud or misrepresentation, as well as laws requiring certain disclosures in connection with various transactions, would absolutely survive a challenge to their validity on Constitutional grounds even though such laws do impinge on the freedom of speech. Among other things, such laws serve compelling state interests related to promoting honest business and helping to preserve the integrity of commercial transactions. They tend to be only as broad as necessary to serve that function.
[2] Laws respecting the time, place and manner of speech or assembly have also survived Constitutional challenges. Thus a municipality may require that organizers obtain a permit in order to hold an assembly or a parade and may prohibit such activities during, for example, the very early morning hours. Such regulations would be permitted only to the extent necessary to serve the compelling state interest of protecting public health and safety. Any such regulations, to be constitutionally permissible, could not consider the content of the speech or assembly; and they would need to be applied in an even handed manner based on set guidelines and not subject to the discretion of a public official.
[3] In the past, laws prohibiting polygamy have been upheld against challenges that they violate the right to free exercise of religion. And if someone’s religion required the practice of human sacrifice, he can not expect to successfully hide behind the First Amendment if prosecuted for murder (or assisting a suicide if the victim were willing).
So even with a favorable ruling in Heller, we will continue to see regulation of the RKBA, and much current regulation will survive constitutional challenge. And there will be continued litigation testing existing law, as well as new laws. But at least with a clear “individual rights” ruling we’ll be in a better position to argue for a stricter standard of review. We should also be able to successfully challenge laws that give discretion to government official in connection with the RKBA.
Master Blaster
New member
Remember IF we didnt have so many Lawyers, We wouldn't need so many Lawyers to protect our rights.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
And "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride." Or perhaps it's like the hoplophobes believing that if there were fewer guns, there would be less violence and less crime.Master Blaster said:
The world is as it is, and we are better served understanding reality and finding ways to deal with it than by wishing it were somehow different.
The judges in the original case also saw no problem with reasonable restrictions by a government body. I think that in some places where the law is very draconian and bans ownership you will see some court cases. In the brief that was presented for the USSC they tiptoed around some areas. The test will be what "reasonable" is defined as when it comes to gun ownership. Does it prevent a citizen from having a firearm for self defense?
As I have been saying for some time...
The most likely outcome is that the Supreme Court will affirm the individual right to keep and bear arms. BUT, that regulation and restriction, short of an outright prohibition, are valid, if legally established by local & state governments.
We accept conditions and restrictions on our rights every day, day in, day out, our whole lives. And we accept without question that the govt has the authority (given by us) to do so, for the common good. Restrictions on gun ownership and use will be seen as no different by the High Court.
IF the High Court confirms the individual right, it will be a blow to those who claim the 2nd Amendment is a collective right only. How this will affect current and future gun control laws, I am not sure, it may not have any real world effect, but it would seem to kick one of the foundation bricks of the gun control argument out from under them. IF the court rules that way. And right now, it hasn't ruled yet.
Seems premature to crow, when the counted chickens haven't hatched yet.
The most likely outcome is that the Supreme Court will affirm the individual right to keep and bear arms. BUT, that regulation and restriction, short of an outright prohibition, are valid, if legally established by local & state governments.
We accept conditions and restrictions on our rights every day, day in, day out, our whole lives. And we accept without question that the govt has the authority (given by us) to do so, for the common good. Restrictions on gun ownership and use will be seen as no different by the High Court.
IF the High Court confirms the individual right, it will be a blow to those who claim the 2nd Amendment is a collective right only. How this will affect current and future gun control laws, I am not sure, it may not have any real world effect, but it would seem to kick one of the foundation bricks of the gun control argument out from under them. IF the court rules that way. And right now, it hasn't ruled yet.
Seems premature to crow, when the counted chickens haven't hatched yet.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
A lot of things could be argued. It's always a question of what arguments are most likely to produce a satisfactory result.LostOne said:
I didn't see this posted anywhere else so I'll put it here
decision is in http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=2724
decision is in http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=2724
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Nemsis said:
That is the decision of the court of appeals. That decision was appealed to the Supreme Court, and we're waiting for the Supreme Court to rule. We expect the Supreme Court decision to be published next month.LostOne said:
Jermtheory
New member
any word on when this is going to drop?