Spoke to a DC Appeals Court "Senior Judge" today

[MyGunsJammed]

At my job I happend to receive a business referral, which happens to be this "senior court judge" who lives and works in the DC area. I called him to tell him about my companies offerings, and towards the end of the conversation, I asked "may I ask you something that has nothing to do with business"

So I proceeded to ask him about the "DC vs. Heller" case and what he thinks will turn out of it. He then told me that he also is a professor of law, and rambles on to tell me that when the 9 justices decide the case, they will be basing their decision based on three things:

1) Whats the history of the matter, the history of the constitution and what did the founding fathers want?

2) examine the facts

3) What does the 2nd Amendment say in plain english?

Overall, he explains, the matter of the issue to be decided on is do we have an "individual right" bla bla bla, and he was telling me that the justices are working on their decision and writing up whatever judges write up etc.

Overall, after speaking with this gentleman, he mentioned that he did support the licensing of handguns, but limiting/restricting machine gun ownership.

He did mention that he has a strong gut feeling of what the supreme court will decide, but held back on his opinion....now looking back I should have pressed for his opinion...maybe I can call him later?

anyhow, I apologize for a lot of the stuff that may sound like old news to you, but to me, today was pretty cool to talk with a DC judge...

The bottom line, as far as the Jugde is concerned, is that the "justices dont make the law, they interpret the law"

comments?

 

[WhyteP38]

That's pretty much what they always say.

Heinlein once wrote: "One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." Here, one man's "interpreting" the law is another man's "making" the law, and vice versa. Sometimes, a judge believes he is interpreting the law when he is really making it. Other times, a judge knows he is making the law but claims he is really interpreting it. And then there are times when you cannot separate interpreting the law from making it.

Doesn't seem to me like you got anything from him but the party line. Which is exactly as I would expect, because he can't afford to be seen as anything other than a neutral interpreter of the law.