Author Topic: Any word on the 2nd Amendment case in the Supreme Court? (Read 5027 times)

Lennyjoe · « **on:** May 15, 2008, 03:53:09 AM »

Haven't seen much lately on the case. Thougth they were going to have a ruling out in May.

Any words?

wmenorr67 · « **Reply #1 on:** May 15, 2008, 03:57:39 AM »

Ruling is supposed to be published in June is what I heard.

ilbob · « **Reply #2 on:** May 15, 2008, 04:33:00 AM »

ruling will get published when they get around to it. probably next month, but there is no way to know just when. they want to word it just right so it means what they want it to mean.

wmenorr67 · « **Reply #3 on:** May 15, 2008, 04:37:51 AM »

Maybe they want to influence the election.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #4 on:** May 15, 2008, 01:15:52 PM »

Quote from: ilbob on May 15, 2008, 03:33:00 AM

they want to word it just right so it means what they want it to mean.

So it's not left wide open to interpretation like that fuzzy, ambiguous second amendment. rolleyes

I think they just want to type up more than one draft, so that we can all have big arguments over the placement or exclusion or addition of commas.

mek42 · « **Reply #5 on:** May 18, 2008, 03:42:40 PM »

I still don't know whether to be excited or dreadful about the decision. Even in the best case it will not be a panacea, but just a small, albeit critical, stepping stone. In the worst case... <shudders>

Manedwolf · « **Reply #6 on:** May 18, 2008, 04:50:26 PM »

I sometimes dream that they'll declare 1986 unconstitutional, therefore telling BATFE to get bent, and I'd be able to order an intact receiver tube and set my unbuilt CZ-26 to joyfun buzzgun noises, or order a complete PPSh-41 or M3A1 for no more than any other cheap milsurp.

But. Not likely.

MechAg94 · « **Reply #7 on:** May 18, 2008, 06:07:43 PM »

If they actually do declare it an individual right, do you think we could force the ATF to start reviewing applications to restore gun ownership rights? That would seem to be another reasonable step to take.

GigaBuist · « **Reply #8 on:** May 18, 2008, 07:08:56 PM »

Quote from: MechAg94 on May 18, 2008, 05:07:43 PM

If they actually do declare it an individual right, do you think we could force the ATF to start reviewing applications to restore gun ownership rights? That would seem to be another reasonable step to take.

No, that won't happen. The only thing that'll come out of this is the DC handgun ban will be declared unconstitutional and some reasoning behind that will be put into case law. Judges aren't permitted to hand down a list of other laws that need to be stricken from the books or demand any action from the executive branch.

mek42 · « **Reply #9 on:** May 19, 2008, 02:41:31 AM »

Quote from: GigaBuist on May 18, 2008, 06:08:56 PM

Quote from: MechAg94 on May 18, 2008, 05:07:43 PM

If they actually do declare it an individual right, do you think we could force the ATF to start reviewing applications to restore gun ownership rights? That would seem to be another reasonable step to take.

No, that won't happen. The only thing that'll come out of this is the DC handgun ban will be declared unconstitutional and some reasoning behind that will be put into case law. Judges aren't permitted to hand down a list of other laws that need to be stricken from the books or demand any action from the executive branch.

Aren't both of you right? I mean, assuming that SCOTUS rules individual right with strict scrutiny, Mr. Gunowner can go to his local gun shop and attempt to place an order for whatever NFA item he wants without any licenses, tax stamps or any other explicit government permission notes. The gun shop will, of course, have to deny him sale of said item. Mr. Gunowner requests this denial to be in writing referencing the current NFA law and then files suit based on NFA not passing strict scrutiny of Amendment II.

Or am I totally not understanding things correctly?

El Tejon · « **Reply #10 on:** May 19, 2008, 03:23:52 AM »

I attended the Firearms Law seminar concurrent with the NRA meeting in Louisville. The panels discussed Heller all morning long.

The panels seemed to think that incorporation will be the next issue. I believe Chicago is an obvious target.

Mech, funding for administrative review was terminated in the early '90s. You need to write your Congresscritter.

ilbob · « **Reply #11 on:** May 19, 2008, 05:08:57 AM »

Quote from: MechAg94 on May 18, 2008, 05:07:43 PM

If they actually do declare it an individual right, do you think we could force the ATF to start reviewing applications to restore gun ownership rights? That would seem to be another reasonable step to take.

For very good reasons, it is unlikely that the court would issue any specific directive to the executive branch about such a thing, after all the executive branch is not subordinate to the judicial branch.

If strict scrutiny is the standard, down the road another case might be brought. keep in mind that felons are generally prohibited from voting and that has not been found unconstitutional.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #12 on:** May 19, 2008, 08:02:47 AM »

You're making the same mistake many people are making, and that's taking the Death Star view of things.

Expecting that there's gonig to be one epic ruling, and then all the anti-gun laws, regulations, etc. are just going to fall apart like the Death Star when you fly a fighter down its thermal exhaust port.

It's not going to work that way.

It's going to take decades.

K Frame · « **Reply #13 on:** May 19, 2008, 09:25:06 AM »

Ah, the whole thing is just a childish enterprise, right Zeke? rolleyes

El Tejon · « **Reply #14 on:** May 19, 2008, 10:00:15 AM »

Who's Zeke???

Tallpine · « **Reply #15 on:** May 22, 2008, 08:17:43 AM »

Quote

No, that won't happen. The only thing that'll come out of this is the DC handgun ban will be declared unconstitutional and some reasoning behind that will be put into case law. Judges aren't permitted to hand down a list of other laws that need to be stricken from the books or demand any action from the executive branch.

I seem to remember something about desegregation and abortion ... Huh?

GigaBuist · « **Reply #16 on:** May 22, 2008, 07:37:05 PM »

Quote from: Tallpine on May 22, 2008, 07:17:43 AM

Quote

No, that won't happen. The only thing that'll come out of this is the DC handgun ban will be declared unconstitutional and some reasoning behind that will be put into case law. Judges aren't permitted to hand down a list of other laws that need to be stricken from the books or demand any action from the executive branch.

I seem to remember something about desegregation and abortion ... Huh?

Did the justices in Brown and Roe give a list of laws that were now moot in their decisions?

De Selby · « **Reply #17 on:** May 22, 2008, 09:07:21 PM »

Quote from: GigaBuist on May 22, 2008, 06:37:05 PM

Quote from: Tallpine on May 22, 2008, 07:17:43 AM

Quote

No, that won't happen. The only thing that'll come out of this is the DC handgun ban will be declared unconstitutional and some reasoning behind that will be put into case law. Judges aren't permitted to hand down a list of other laws that need to be stricken from the books or demand any action from the executive branch.

I seem to remember something about desegregation and abortion ... Huh?

Did the justices in Brown and Roe give a list of laws that were now moot in their decisions?

No, but they applied the ruling to the states-because this case comes from Washington, there is absolutely zero possibility for that to happen.

Any case that strikes down gun laws in the states will be a 14th amendment case. There is no other possible way for it to happen.

wmenorr67 · « **Reply #18 on:** May 22, 2008, 09:14:49 PM »

No, I will disagree. Most of the state/city laws are similar in nature to D.C.'s and would be effected the same way.

De Selby · « **Reply #19 on:** May 22, 2008, 09:26:03 PM »

Quote from: wmenorr67 on May 22, 2008, 08:14:49 PM

No, I will disagree. Most of the state/city laws are similar in nature to D.C.'s and would be effected the same way.

Similar law doesn't mean similar authority controls-the civil rights amendments to the constitution (besides the post-civil war anti-slavery/racism ones) do not apply to the states, and never have. They apply only to the federal government.

The rights enumerated in the amendments to the constitution apply to the states only via the 14th amendment.

So it's not a done deal that the states wouldn't be able to ban firearms, even if the federal government cannot.

wmenorr67 · « **Reply #20 on:** May 22, 2008, 09:38:20 PM »

Guess we will just have to wait and see.

If the 14th was such a great thing, then my CCW permit would be good country wide.

De Selby · « **Reply #21 on:** May 22, 2008, 09:47:00 PM »

Quote from: wmenorr67 on May 22, 2008, 08:38:20 PM

Guess we will just have to wait and see.

If the 14th was such a great thing, then my CCW permit would be good country wide.

that would be nice alright-like driver's licenses.

But the thing is, the 14th amendment won't protect anything that isn't a fundamental liberty...and as of yet, the Supremes haven't said that the right to bear arms is one. An individual right decision in heller will be a good foundation to get that ruling next.

wmenorr67 · « **Reply #22 on:** May 22, 2008, 09:49:18 PM »

That is the deal. Noone should be able to decide what is a fundamental liberty. They were give to us at birth.

MechAg94 · « **Reply #23 on:** May 23, 2008, 06:11:56 AM »

The 14th amendment doesn't cover reciprocity of driver's licenses and marriages/divorce. I thought that was covered in one of the articles.

I understood there were court rulings that the Bill of Rights applies to the states the same as the Feds (via the 14th I guess). At least that is how it is applied for the 1st amendment. The 2nd should apply the same way.

Also, many states have pro-gun clauses in their constitutions.

It would be nice if the 10th amendment was applied strictly.

BryanP · « **Reply #24 on:** May 23, 2008, 07:55:03 AM »

Quote

The 14th amendment doesn't cover reciprocity of driver's licenses and marriages/divorce. I thought that was covered in one of the articles.

That would be the Full Faith and Credit clause, I believe.

News:

Author Topic: Any word on the 2nd Amendment case in the Supreme Court? (Read 5027 times)