Ramifications-Emerson/Waco/NFA/GCA, etc.

[45King]

I've been wondering about the ramifications of the Emerson case if Judge Cummings' ruling is upheld. I'm sure there will be numerous cases attacking NFA '34, CGA '68, FOPA '87, Brady, and the AW ban, as well as state, county, and municipal gun laws. However, has anyone thought about the possible ramifications to the gov't vis a vis Waco if NFA '34 is declared unconstitutional? It then puts the entire Waco raid in a clearly illegal light, right from the get go.

Can any legal eagles out there answer the following questions?

1) If Emerson is upheld by the appelate courts, and the Supreme Court refuses to hear it, does that mean that Emerson stands as the current interpretation?

2) If the appelate court overturns the original decision, can Emerson's lawyers appeal it to the SC?

3) What will be the effect if the SC refuses to hear the case after #2?

Have we thought about what we're going to do if the courts rule against Emerson? Personally, I think that's the "line in the sand" which can't be crossed without dire unpleasant consequences.


I have to admit to being maybe too optimistic about this case. I just get the biggest thrill out of imagining Chucky Schumer, DiFi, BBoxer, Sara, and friends having siezures when nearly every gun law is ruled as being unconstitutional; then they have another attack when they realize they CAN'T write any more laws without having them meet the same fate.
D'ya suppose Chucky Cheese might decide to retire to a mountaintop in Tibet if he realizes that anbody over 18 can legally buy and carry firearms without any hassle? D'ya think he might get a glimmer of an idea that it might not be healthy for him to remain in the public eye?


------------------
Shoot straight regards, Richard
The Shottist's Center forums.delphi.com/m/main.asp?sigdir=45acp45lc


[This message has been edited by 45King (edited September 13, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by 45King (edited September 13, 1999).]

 

[bookkie]

I'm not a legal eagle, but maybe I can answer your questions.

1. If the ruling is upheld it will be good law in the 5th district. Will however not affect the other districts. If this happens, which I hope it will, the feds will appeal to the SC. This is the case that the SC will more than likely hear, as they can not have different districts with diffent laws.

2. Yes, if Emerson is overturned the attorney's can appeal to the SC. In this case it is doubtful that they will hear it.

3. If #2 happens and the SC refuses to hear it things will be as they are now, only worse. We may never get a chance to have a case heard again. As all the courts will be in agreement and rule from here on out as the Nineth did in Hickman v Block. At this point we will not even have standing to sue and any cases we file will never be heard.



------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!

 

[Jeff Thomas]

Richard, I think you hit every one of those right on.

As I understand it, if the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upholds Emerson, then the U.S. Attorney must appeal to the SC - an attorney friend tells me that is so because a federal judge (or, panel of judges in this case) has ruled a federal law is unconstitutional.

If the SC rules in very plain terms that the 2nd is an individual right or not an individual right, then things do get pretty interesting. But, I wonder if there is a flaky third option. I wonder if they might rule that it is indeed an individual right, but then come up with some wild theory about how 'shall not infringe' doesn't prevent them from limiting the right. It has happened in Arizona, just that way.

The Arizona constitution reads: "Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men." And yet, our Arizona Supreme Court let stand a Tucson law prohibiting arms in public parks. And, our governor just vetoed a preemption law that would have prevented Arizona cities and towns from establishing laws more restrictive than the state firearms laws. Apparently 'shall not be impaired' doesn't work much better than 'shall not be infringed'. Makes you wonder what language these folks speak.

My bet is that Emerson goes to the SC, is overturned, but still leaves us in a fuzzy, quasi-individual right situation. I think the fed's want the flexibility to harass on demand, so to speak. And then the 'impairments' and 'infringements' will continue to evolve. Wish I could be more optimistic.