What will the supreme court rule?

[sw_florida]

I hope the SC will rule as favorably as possibly can be: Guns for the people!

What I don't understand is how so many people think the 2nd amendment is pertaining to the first, the first postulating that a militia must be strong and independent, or what ever the 1st postulates. After all, what is a militia if the right to carry arms is not included and granted? That wouldn't be a militia; that would be just a group of independent people. If the judges can't understand that the 2nd is independent form the 1st, then the rest is all supporting the 1st, in a bizzare way.

Am I right or am I right?

 

[BillCA]

The poll really needs a "none of the above".

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

Since this case does not involve any States-rights issue, incorporation is not a necessary element. The court usually does not go out of its way to complicate their rulings.

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.

I would argue that registration (not licensing) would be entirely constitutional. I don't see how you can make the argument that it "infringes" on your 2A rights.

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.

Nor should we expect them to do so. The question before the court is clearly and directly worded to address three specific DC laws. What the court may do is indicate that denying one method of excercising your rights (handgun ban) is not valid - as we could claim you have a right to free speech, just not electronically or digitally.... Or that you have a right to print your own paper/flyer /leaflets as long as the method doesn't use electricity.

Since they are addressing specific laws, for them to reach out and declare, for instance, the 1968 GCA unconstitutional would be highly unusual. But a properly worded decision can be used as a foundation to build challenges to other laws.

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

.

Again, not part of the claims or question before the court and there is no reason for them to address this issue.

Besides, felons are already a "prohibited class" by having their right to vote and hold office removed. Additional sanctions against felons for their crimes is not necessarily a constitutional violation. Mentally incompetent people can't vote, drive, hold office and many other things for the purposes of protecting them and society. It requires the finding of a court to protect their due process rights too.

 

[22-rimfire]

I hope that the Supreme Court throws out the ownership ban in DC. I believe they will. DC will become much like NYC in their control of firearms. The 2A rights issue conflict will continue, but the ruling should strengthen individual rights vs collective rights. (I hope.)

 

[Al Norris]

Let's stick to discussing the options listed in the poll (or options that the OP didn't include) and not get sidetracked into discussing the general issue. That will only get this thread locked, as I will not incorporate a poll into the main thread.

If however, that's what you wish to discuss, there is a thread for that. It's stickied at the top of the forum.

 

[LAK Supply]

I went with DC ban overturned but nothing else.

The SC will not throw out any other bans.... the issue before the court is the 2A and it's relevance in the DC case. Future cases brought using an individual rights precedent will be required to toss anything else.

Even if they just affirm the DC court's decision we would be in great shape. FOPA would be open to a whole new level of blasting. "Sporting purpose" would be completely irrelevant with an individual rights ruling being surrounded by self-defense, defense against tyranny, and defense against invasion.

If the SC rules favorably there will still be years of lawsuits needed to clean up the rest of the mess.

 

[38splfan]

Not well.

I just don't see them ruling in a manner that will affect any areas other than DC itself.
The case my attract national attention, but it is not a nationwide case. I agree with apr1775 and his notion regarding judicial activism.
Unfortunately, I doubt that anything other than the ban will be overturned. I also doubt that they will stop DC.gov from creating other restrictions ala NYC or CA. To do so would seem to me to be a case of national preemption, and I don't think that's a precedent they want to set (even though they should).

 

[apr1775]

Go read the appeals court's decision in this case. Lots of good stuff there. The court said there may be reasonable restrictions like requiring permits for concealed carry. Notice they specified concealed and said nothing about open carry. Imagine in the future, suit is filed from an anti-gun city or state, challenging a ban on open carry. I think in those places, they'll get concealled carry passed in order prevent a bunch of open carry going on.

I'd say don't expect this case to overturn anything other than the issue (DC gun ban) brought before before the court. Soon after, expect to see similar bans such as Chicago, challenged in court, using the DC case as presedent. I expect this case will be used as presedent in many challenges to unconstitutional gun laws.

If the Supreme Court reverses itself from past decisions and upholds the ban, I would not expect any sweeping changes.

 

[publius42]

I think the most interesting aspect of the case now is that the Supreme Court included these words in the question they will decide:

"...Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia..."

We're finally going to be told whether 2A rights depend on militia affiliation, in other words, whether the militia clause controls the rest of the amendment.

I think they'll find it does not. Boundless optimism, I guess. I also thought a homegrown cannabis plant or machine gun for personal use was not interstate commerce, and giving land to a private developer was not public use, so you can see that I have some very strange legal ideas.

 

[Unregistered]

I think we are being excessively hopeful, almost to the point of naivity, if you think the SC will decide favorably for us. There is a chance they will, but I don't have a lot of faith in them.

The problem I see is that we have no idea how John Roberts and Sam Alito will vote. They are portrayed as conservatives, but the fact that they are Bush appointees makes them subject to suspicion.

 

[publius42]

I don't see a huge problem with Alito. The guy wrote in the Rybar case that he did not see how the possession of a machine gun was "more commercial" than the possession of any other gun. The Bush administration took the opposite position in the Stewart case. Just because Bush appointed him doesn't make him suspect to me. SC Justices frequently disappoint those who appointed them.