TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Gura did very well.

No he did not; not by any stretch of the imagination.

Agreed. He was disappointing at best, but thankfully not as bad as Dellinger

KD5NRH wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Gura did very well.

No he did not; not by any stretch of the imagination.

Between the parts of the audio and the transcript that I've gotten through so far, it really didn't seem like Dellinger was doing much better for his side. I was just waiting for them to get to something like "Prima Donna" from Phantom of the Opera, with all the parts going in three or four different directions at the same time.

The justices whacked Dellinger around like a pinata.

Great article here from FindLaw - seems to indicate that in the author's opinion there's not much room for middle ground, that SCOTUS will rule for an individual-rights position, and that

The apparent inclination of five Justices to rule that the Second Amendment protects a personal right, unconnected to militia service, obligates them to resolve far-reaching questions about the scope of that right. Whether they fulfill that obligation, or dodge it, remains to be seen.

To get there, he reasons that they seem likely to rule for an individual-rights position, but that the handgun ban can still stand. Then he says the only way it can be struck down, with an individual-rights ruling, is to explicitly confirm that the 2nd was indeed Incorporated into the 14th, and holds power against states (and D.C.).

So it sounds like there's very little middle-ground available, short of a full-scale dodge on SCOTUS' part (not unheard of by any stretch). But given that analysis, the two possibilities are:
1) handgun ban is upheld, Incorporation into 14th is denied, which opens the door for more cities (& states) to enact wholesale handgun bans
2) handgun ban is struck down, Incorporation into 14th is confirmed, which opens the door for more local & state ordinances to be challenged (the first probably being Morris Grove, IL's very similar handgun ban), with Incorporation no longer a question mark

Still plenty of time to be worried, especially if SCOTUS tries the Artful Dodge by ruling that the right is Individual in nature but "reasonable" regulations are ok and D.C.'s ban is "reasonable".

JT

Well, I think they can rule on DC without ruling on incorporation, but I am not sure enough if the lawyers say otherwise.

But, one way I see them ruling is that it is an individual right, and then remanding the case to the District Court for further hearings based on this and letting it get back to them again in a couple years. It gives them and society more time to think about what it could mean and delays the problem.

srothstein wrote:But, one way I see them ruling is that it is an individual right, and then remanding the case to the District Court for further hearings based on this and letting it get back to them again in a couple years. It gives them and society more time to think about what it could mean and delays the problem.

It prolongs the problem.

The "People" in the Second Amendment are the same people that are mentioned in the First and Fourth Amendments.

If protection from unreasonable search and seizure applies to the States and DC, then so does the protection from disarmament.

If DC can ban guns, then it logically follows they can also enter homes without a warrant to search and seize those guns. The people are the people.

I pray for SCOTUS to recognize these truths we hold self evident.