What will the supreme court rule?

[tooltimey]

I predict,

1. They WON'T do the right thing and incorporate the 2nd amendment to the states.

2. They WILL throw out D.C.'s ridiculous ban and storage requirements.

3. They WON'T throw out registration/licensing laws, but in typical government double talk, they WILL affirm that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right.

4. They WON'T throw out any other bans, but in typical government double talk, as I said they will throw token support at the 2nd amendment.

5. They WILL leave the unconstitutional "prohibited person" tactic in the hands of the feds.

Bottom line: very very little will change. I hope and pray that I'm partially wrong, and that the supreme court does the job the founders gave them and puts teeth to the 2nd amendment instead of just lip service.

There is one disturbing possibility: the court will be confident enough in the federal government's efforts to make everyone a "prohibited person" for one reason or another, so they'll say "sure you can own guns and we'll call it an individual right (as long as you're not a "prohibited person").

 

[G-Cym]

Can't vote. I think they will uphold the gun ban. I have absolutely zero faith in the SC or their rule setting ability.

 

[hammer4nc]

They'll cut the baby in half:

6. Semantics will reign supreme. The Second Amendment will be ruled an "individual" right, for Mr. Heller. Translation: every other individual will be required to prevail in a supreme court appeal, to secure their own "individual" RKBA.

 

[tooltimey]

I think they will uphold the gun ban. I have absolutely zero faith in the SC

Wow and I thought I was pessimistic. With the current makeup of the court, if they uphold D.C.'s ban, the powers-that-be all throughout the federal government will have one heck of a PR problem on their hands (since the 2nd amendment is so clearly worded). The remaining so called "conservatives" who support this president (and by default his supreme court appointees), and who support the republican party, will see they have a serious problem on their hands.

The only thing that concerns me that there is a slim chance they will uphold the ban, is that several members of the court, especially the two recent appointees, believe that the exective branch should be disturbingly close to a king, and thus, they appear to believe that government should at least POSSESS all power (to be used later of course, at it's "wise" discretion).

 

[tooltimey]

They'll cut the baby in half:

6. Semantics will reign supreme. The Second Amendment will be ruled an "individual" right, for Mr. Heller. Translation: every other individual will be required to prevail in a supreme court appeal, to secure their own "individual" RKBA.

I've thought about the practical application of what you said, and you seem to be essentially saying the same thing as option one of the poll.

I do though think you may be correct that they may attempt to narrow their ruling to the point of making it moot for the rest of us. In the end though, I don't see them being able to pull that off. If Mr Heller gets an individual right out of this, then so does at least the rest of D.C. (though they'll probably still have to register of course, even though making you register to attend a church would clearly violate the 1st amendment).

 

[vito]

I agree that a narrow decision, limited to the DC situation, is the most likely. I will not be surprised at a lengthy decision that will completely confuse jurists and give both sides of this issue some verbiage that will convince them that they really won the case. But I am hoping against hope that Scalia and Thomas, along with Roberts and Alito might just get one more member to agree that this case is the right vehicle for a strong affirmation of the individual right to keep and bear arms. Ideally the ruling will come in time for it to become an issue in the presidential race, with Hilary vowing to appoint justices who will reverse a pro-2A ruling and the Republicans forced to support the 2A or risk being seen as no different than the Dems.

 

[Fremmer]

"I have no friggin' guess" ought to be one of the poll choices.

 

[Unregistered]

I have no faith that Bush appointees will vote favorably.

 

[JWT]

I think they will make a very narrow ruling that will uphold the D.C. ban based on the fact that it's not a state and do nothing that will clarify the 2nd ammendment.

 

[GoSlash27]

The 2nd Amendment confers an individual right. Just as any other individual right, any law which may run afoul it must pass strict scrutiny.

 

[apr1775]

I chose the first option because that would be the right thing for the court to do. The DC gun ban is the only gun ban addressed by this case. It would be judicial activism to make rulings on other laws not brought before the court. If we can get a solid "individual right" ruling, the door will be open to start overturning other gun bans by using this case as presedent. I think we have a good chance of getting an "individual" rights ruling, because the court would have to blatently ignor earlier rulings to favor a "collective" right.

Ever read what the high court had to say about the right to keep and bear arms in US v Cruikshank?

 

[Benzene]

What if?

What if individual ownership right is kicked out the window? I own quite a coslty collection of firearms. What would I be required to do ACCORDING TO THE LAW?????????

 

[LightningJoe]

Well, now that that muddle-headed O'Connor is gone, they've got a better chance of producing settled law (i.e. no "well in 25 years it won't matter so I'll rule like a den mother" opinion).


That being the case, what can they do? If they were going to maintain the status quo, they could have declined to consider the matter. So, that suggests they're going to change something. Are they going to change it to "the DC ban applies nationwide"? I doubt it. So, they're going to try to harmonize DC's laws with those elsewhere in the country.


Look for a ruling that makes DC, Chicago, and NYC into Massachusetts-style paradises for gun owners.

 

[Crosshair]

If they rule for a collective right we have more things to worry about since they will have essentially ruled the rest of the Bill of Rights to be collective.

 

[computerguysd]

As most legal scholars, even some that might surprise us, agree that the bill of rights are enumerating INDIVIDUAL rights then I think it's quite possible that a majority of the SC will overturn the DC gun ban (and Chicago's, et al)

That said, Justice Kennedy will likely end up being the swing vote and he's always tough to call. I don't find any consistency in his record, except the consitency of wanting to please people and be in the majority of all of the cases he's involved in. He's always the "muddle in the middle".

Where the issue will finally stand will likely be determined by the compromise between the Roberts, Alito, Scalia & Thomas group and the Souter, Stevens, Ginsberg and Breyer group leaving Kennedy to determine the scope of the ruling...

 

[IZinterrogator]

I'll bet the DC government is in talks with the CA DOJ right now about how to do a "proper gun registration" in case they lose, complete with ballistic fingerprinting and microstamping requirements. :barf:

 

[GoSlash27]

I can't change my vote now. I'm confident that the SC ruling will overturn the DC law in such a way that many other laws across the country will be vulnerable to challenge. They will only be overturned when confronted tho'.
Also, there's no choice here for "DC ban will be upheld". Not that I believe that, but in the interest of thoroughness...

 

[HarrySchell]

I am with apr1775. The DC ban is all that is on the table, with the issue of an individual or collective right.

The amount of scholarship supporting an individual right is going to be hard to overcome without something really tortuous and convoluted, and the group that found abortion as a right is not in session.

Methings the odds are the DC ban will go down, an individual right will be affirmed (hopefully in a way that highlights clearly that the root of 2A is the innate human right of effective self-defense, not gun ownership per se), but the definition of reasonable restrictions will be left to future legal infighting, so that de facto bans like NYC's will be fought one at a time and remain in effect until someone does fight. Petty tyrants like Bloomberg or Nagin are not concerned with law, only with restrictions that might be placed on them by successful challenges. That said, some of the political class might awake.

This gives SCOTUS a fig leaf that they have not overturned the whole kettle. The precedent will have a long echo, though.

Is it possible that PA Gov. Rendell's spanking of the other day reflects in part the Heller case and its reasoning?

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

1. Individual right

2. Subject to reasonable restrictions like the NYC "Sullivan" Law. DC residents will get to keep a gun in the house after going through near impossible and expensive hoops. That will disallow zillions of folks.

3. The SC conservatives also love the power of the state. Don't trust them.

 

[PT111]

I think they will overturn the ban on guns in your home or private property (place of business) and overly restrictive regulation such as having to be locked and stored and affirm the individual right of a citizen to own and use one for defense. However I do not think they will do anything with registration or carry outside your property. It may possibly open it up for additional lawsuits but other than the outright ban I don't think they will go beyond that.