Latest news: SCOTUS has decided to decide . . .

[HankB]

Supreme Court Will Hear D.C. Guns Case 
 
Nov 20 02:39 PM US/Eastern
By MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press Writer Write a Comment         
 
 
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the District of Columbia can ban handguns, a case that could produce the most in-depth examination of the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" in nearly 70 years.


Full story at:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8T1IL100&show_article=1

[CAnnoneer]

Somehow, this reminds me of the movie "Spaceballs": "Stop preparing! Just do it!"

[Nick1911]

When will this happen?

[Fly320s]

Probably in the first quarter of next year.

[Lennyjoe]

Report says March hearing and June decision. 

Get the bug out bag ready just in case....

[Sindawe]

And the Brady Bunch is already on the ball. : puke :

=======================================

Click the following link if you would like to view your email with text and
graphics: http://www.bradynetwork.org/site/R?i=_0BmzOEV33N0m3Flk7TGwQ..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. SUPREME COURT TO HEAR SECOND AMENDMENT CASE
We need your help to defend America's gun laws

Dear  Sindawe,

Just minutes ago, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to take what could be the most
significant Second Amendment case in our country's history.

Thanks to your support, your Brady legal team had already begun preparing for this
announcement, but now our lawyers have swung into high gear to prepare our "friend
of the court" brief.

We have a tidal wave of work to do in the weeks ahead and we need your help now.

This fight is so critical that we need to raise $50,000 by November 30.  And since
your gift will be going to our Brady Gun Law Defense Fund, it will be fully tax
deductible!

We need your help today to build a strong Brady Gun Law Defense Fund to protect
America's gun laws.  Please give today.

****************************************
Donate now to the Brady Gun Law Defense Fund:
http://www.bradynetwork.org/site/R?i=4NakyyHGVCETiBlr4Oz7PA..
****************************************

Earlier this year, a U.S. Court of Appeals struck down a gun law as violating the
Second Amendment for the first time in American history.  We believe this decision
was judicial activism at its worst and was clearly wrong.

This legal case at its very core is the most important battle we have ever waged.
The U.S. Supreme Court has the chance to reverse a terribly erroneous decision and
make it clear that the American people can adopt restrictions on firearms in their
communities.

****************************************
Donate now to the Brady Gun Law Defense Fund:
http://www.bradynetwork.org/site/R?i=-Mipqp9Ce3Lq_UIPb9f8vw..
****************************************

If the Supreme Court does not reverse the federal appeals court decision, gun laws
everywhere could be at risk...

...from the long-standing machine gun ban...to the 1968 Gun Control Act...to the
Brady background check law.

...to your local and state laws...like the ones in California and New Jersey banning
military-style Assault Weapons... and many more.

If that happens, then your Brady Center will defend these laws in the courts as we
have done so many times in the past against the attacks of the gun lobby.  But now
we must focus on the immediate challenge at hand as we prepare for the fight in the
U.S. Supreme Court.  Please give generously.

Sincerely,

Sarah Brady, Chair
Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence

P.S. I cannot stress how important your gift is to our Brady Gun Law Defense Fund.
Please give a tax-deductible gift today.

****************************************
Donate now to the Brady Gun Law Defense Fund:
http://www.bradynetwork.org/site/R?i=yWL_yJqkCKXvMDCsb_Qr5g..
****************************************




You can also mail a check to:
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence
1225 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005

[Gewehr98]

Thanks for the Brady update.

I didn't want my dinner, anyways.   

[DJJ]

Is the NRA even slightly involved on Dick Anthony Heller's behalf?

[Lennyjoe]

I watched Wayne Lepierre (sp) on CNN an hour or so talking about it.  He sounded pretty up beat.  Will see how this all pans out next spring.

[DJJ]

But are they helping him, or are they just talking upbeat?

[drewtam]

I've been keeping my ears peeled when this first broke news in the DC upset decision. This case is going to have such a huge affect. I don't see how they can obfuscate the decision either like in the Miller case.

Drew

[Northwoods]

Apparently DC has something like 45 days to respond.  That takes us to January 4, 2008.  Heller et al then has 30 days to respond, which is Feb 3, but that's a Saturday so that gives them until Feb 5.  DC then has one more chance to respond within 30 days which works out to March 6.  What read was that they likely wouldn't hear arguments in that case until April, which IIRC is the end of the term.  In theory they could put off releasing their opinion in that circumstance until after the election.  It's possible that they are trying to do exactly that so as not to interfere (or perhaps specifically in order to interfere) with the election.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Brady Group.  Puke.  Headed by my former puke of a mayor, Paul Helmke.  Double Puke.  I'm looking forward to next June.  I wanna send snide letters to Paul and Sarah congratulating them on their defeat.

Thank God George W Bush was in office to add two strict constructionists to the court.

[Sergeant Bob]

Brady Group.  Puke.  Headed by my former puke of a mayor, Paul Helmke.  Double Puke.  I'm looking forward to next June.  I wanna send snide letters to Paul and Sarah congratulating them on their defeat.

Does he still call himself a Republican, or did he give that up after he left Ft. Wayne?
I used to hear a lot about him on WOWO. Dave Macy used to give him quite a bit of crap, probably had something to do with his being fired. Macy was big on concealed carry and he wasn't afraid to tell the world about it. That probably chapped Helmke's hide.

[Antibubba]

The Brady letter is the legal equivalent of testicles being withdrawn into the pelvic cavity.  I'm sure they jumped all over D.C. to not appeal when the District Court handed down their decision.  This is not a battle the Brady-ites want, because they know they'll lose. 

[Werewolf]

And since
your gift will be going to our Brady Gun Law Defense Fund, it will be fully tax
deductible!

Which forces me to ask: If the Brady Crowd is a tax deductible org is NRA-ILA? If not what's the difference between the two and why is one and not the other?

[wmenorr67]

I was wondering the same thing about the tax status.

[Chris]

I guess the real thing is wondering what the SCOTUS will do with this.  As I see it, they have three options:

1. Declare the 2A to be absolute, and strike down all restrictions.
2. Declare the 2A to be a collective right, and allow any/all restrictions on individual ownership and possession.
3. Declare the 2A to be substantially similar to the 1A, meaning that it is an individual right, but is subject to "reasonable restrictions."  Just as the whole "no shouting fire in a crowded theater" they will permit restrictions for the greater good.  The question will be where they draw the line.  And that's where it will get interesting.  Imagine the deabte as to where and how "reasonable" will be defined.  I mean, if one reads the 2A in a historical context, the purpose is to allow the people to be prepared to engage in warfare, which would mean that restrictions on weapons of war would become unconstitutional.  we know that's not going to happen anytime soon, despite valid arguments to the contrary.  At the same time, could we see some time of "manner and place"  restrictions, like with 1A. 

Regardless of my personal interests as a 2A supporter, I'm fascinated to see how the case is argued and decided on a legal basis.  Here, you have one side arguing collective right/National Guard, allowing all restrictions.  This interpretation asks the Court to ignore the hoistorical context and also the context of the right within the document itself.  The Bill of Rights is, by its nature, a document preserving individual rights. Why put a collective right in a document protecting individual rights?

And, think of the broad ramifications?  If they rule that the 2A is a collective right, then by implication is the [phrase "the people" in the 1A also a collective right.  I mean, we know people who would advicate for a state run media, and some even for a state run religion.  I cannot see how one could rule one way on 2A while ignoring the implications as to 1A, 4A, 5A, etc.

I fear that, perhaps, I've been subject to the ancient asian curse..."May you live in interesting times."  this is very interesting.  (Gulp!)

[Paddy]

The founders didn't envision or want a standing army during peacetime.  "A well regulated militia", comprised of armed citizens, was to form an army as needed for the "security of a free state".  So the RKBA is an individual right, although with a collective purpose.   

[MillCreek]

In relation to what Chris posted, I am betting that the decision will be akin to # 3.

[jefnvk]

Everything I've got from the NRA says it is NOT tax-deductible for donations.  I was under the impression that no political lobbying groups were tax-deductible, but apparently I was wrong.

[HankB]

. . .  Here, you have one side arguing collective right/National Guard, allowing all restrictions. 

IANAL, so take this layman's analysis with a grain of salt . .

SCOTUS sort of addressed the "National Guard is the Militia" assertion back in 1990, in a case involving Minnesota Governor Rudy Perpich vs. the Department of Defense.

DoD decided to send the MN NG down to Central America somewhere to build roads; the MN Gov. didn't like our Central American foreign policy, so he tried to prevent it, saying that the MN NG was a "state militia."

SCOTUS ruled that since the MN NG was funded by the Feds, it was subject to Fed callup, and thus, was NOT the State Militia in the constitutional sense.

I'm not sure if it was part of the actual ruling, but analysts at the time were making noises that notwithstanding their name, today's NG was technically created by an act of Congress in the early 1900s, so if the NG actually WAS the militia intended by the 2A, it wouldn't even come into existance for over a century after the BoR was adopted - an absurdity on its face.

The MN NG did go to Central America. (So if the NG is not the militia - who is?)

Unless SCOTUS pulls a fast one and issues a narrow ruling specific to Heller based on D.C. not being a state, I see some variation of #3 from Chris' post, as SCOTUS is not going to open the door to private possesson of nukes and nerve gas by overturning ALL laws. Moreover, just as under 1A a person can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, one will not be able to start bouncing slugs from a deer rifle around a residential neighborhood.

Where & how the line is drawn will be interesting . . . and we'll see how hard SCOTUS tries to duck and dodge in their ruling.

If SCOTUS has any intellectual honesty at all (doubtful, since some justices aren't above quoting FOREIGN laws in making DOMESTIC decisions!) I don't see an extremely adverse ruling forthcoming; if they allow for personal arms - rifles, pistols, shotguns, even FA and SBRs to be outlawed from "the people" then they open the door to the outlawing of "the people's" speech, books, newspapers, etc., based on content . . . it won't be any stretch as all to determine that "freedom of the press" applies only to the Government Printing Office . . . which is OK, for a government of the people and by the people . . .

[drewtam]

One of the interesting aspects of this case to me is that its being argued on the Constitutional basis. So SCOTUS has to make a decision on  the COTUS. They have only 2 choices, uphold the ban or revoke the ban. They might couch their decision in many appeasing words, but we can all look to the fact that either this guy goes home free or to jail. And we will have an answer on exactly what SCOTUS thinks of the 2A.

Drew

[Fly320s]

Just as the whole "no shouting fire in a crowded theater"

I have never agreed with this argument.

A person certainly can shout, "fire" in a crowded space and not be in violation of the law.  There is no prior restraint, no law, that prevents someone from shouting anything in a theater.  The only time a person will be charged is if he incites a panic in the crowd that leads to injury or destruction of property.  Otherwise, the worst that will happen is the theater manager will kick-out the person doing the shouting.

In regards to laws that prevent or deny ownership of certain types of arms, there is prior restraint by law.  The law says I can not buy a new machine-gun, whereas the law should say, and does say, "don't endanger anyone or harm anyone with your new machine-gun, and have a nice day."

[Chris]

A few points to add...

HankB, I am a lawyer, so forgive me.    That said, you are right.  My point was just that this "National Guard" thing often comes up as an "excuse" for why the 2A was included.  I agree, it's a bad argument, but most of us recognize the position when we see it described in this way.

Fly320s, I agree that the mere act of shouting Fire is not a crime.  This is just a classic example of a limit on free speach.  As you said, there is no crime unless and until the words cause panic.  However, where you get into 1A issues is when the person standing trial for inciting panic tries to defend his actions using 1A, and fails, as the act is not protected speech.

drewtam, in a way, I agree with you.  My fear and thoughts are that they may take the easy way out, find that the 2A is an individual right when read in pari materia (in the context) with the entire Bill of RIghts, but than say that such rights are constitutionally permitted to be subject to "reasonable restrictions."  and, God forbid, lets hope that they don't say that they can't define an unreasonable restriction, but they'll know it when they see one.  And, lets hope taht they don't read it as an individual right as relating to the Militia, which could result in "reasonable restrictions" being a community armory for storing all "individually owned" firearms, or something rediculous like that.