Is the system broken?

[ryoung]

I am hopeful that the Supremes will settle the issue once and for all when they rule on the DC gun ban. That ruling should be out by next month.

The Supreme Court will never settle the issue. They are the biggest obstacle to the proper application of the COTUS and BOR. They already have identified the questions they will answer. The ruling will be so narrow if you turn it sideways it will disappear.

Anygunanyuwhere

Are you saying that the question before the court is the right to keep arms as opposed to the right to keep and bear arms?

Is it possible to divorce the two? In listening to the oral argument, Scalia and Roberts and others made it plain that the amendment means exactly what it says. Moreover, they utterly destroyed the whole militia argument.

When before this has a question of the fundamental meaning of the Second Amendment been before the court?

I don't know.

[ryoung]

The system is broken, yes.

It's less broken here than most places, though.

True, so true.

[WildBill]

I am hopeful that the Supremes will settle the issue once and for all when they rule on the DC gun ban. That ruling should be out by next month.

The Supreme Court will never settle the issue. They are the biggest obstacle to the proper application of the COTUS and BOR. They already have identified the questions they will answer. The ruling will be so narrow if you turn it sideways it will disappear.

Anygunanyuwhere

Are you saying that the question before the court is the right to keep arms as opposed to the right to keep and bear arms?

Is it possible to divorce the two? In listening to the oral argument, Scalia and Roberts and others made it plain that the amendment means exactly what it says. Moreover, they utterly destroyed the whole militia argument.

When before this has a question of the fundamental meaning of the Second Amendment been before the court?

I don't know.

The Supreme Court decides what they will hear and what issues they will decide. IMO they will only decide that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right and that the DC law is not constitutional. That is all they will decide.

[anygunanywhere]

Are you saying that the question before the court is the right to keep arms as opposed to the right to keep and bear arms?

Is it possible to divorce the two? In listening to the oral argument, Scalia and Roberts and others made it plain that the amendment means exactly what it says. Moreover, they utterly destroyed the whole militia argument.

When before this has a question of the fundamental meaning of the Second Amendment been before the court?

I don't know.

I snagged this from THR:

The justices chose their own wording for what they want to decide in the new case, District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290. The question they posed is whether the provisions of the statute “violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes.�

The court’s choice of words is almost never inadvertent, and its use of the phrase “state-regulated militia� was somewhat curious. The District of Columbia, of course, is not a state, and one of the arguments its lawyers are making in their appeal is that the Second Amendment simply does not apply to “legislation enacted exclusively for the District of Columbia.�

For that matter, the Supreme Court has never ruled that the Second Amendment even applies to the states, as opposed to the federal government. It has applied nearly all the other provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states, leaving the Second Amendment as the most prominent exception. The justices evidently decided that this case was not the proper vehicle for exploring that issue, because as a nonstate, the District of Columbia is not in a position to argue it one way or another.

I would love for the court to decide strict scrutiny and fundamental individual right, throw out DC gun laws, declare NFA '34, GCA '68 unconstitutional, but it isn't going to happen.

All of the briefs and oral arguments will not change what the court wants to rule. I am usually an optimist, but not so much on this.

Politickin' has taken over the court too.

Anygunanywhere

[ryoung]

The Supreme Court decides what they will hear and what issues they will decide. IMO they will only decide that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right and that the DC law is not constitutional. That is all they will decide.

They made it clear during the oral argument that the right, like all of the other rights, is an individual right. Once that fact is established, then, they must proceed to the fundamental meaning of the Second Amendment. Then the DC gun ban will crumble under the weight of the Constitution.

If that happens, will the constitutionality of other state and federal gun laws suddenly be in question?

[WildBill]

They made it clear during the oral argument that the right, like all of the other rights, is an individual right. Once that fact is established, then, they must proceed to the fundamental meaning of the Second Amendment. Then the DC gun ban will crumble under the weight of the Constitution. If that happens, will the constitutionality of other state and federal gun laws suddenly be in question?

No they don't! They are the Supreme Court and they decide how to proceed. They don't have to do anything.

[anygunanywhere]

The Supreme Court decides what they will hear and what issues they will decide. IMO they will only decide that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right and that the DC law is not constitutional. That is all they will decide.

They made it clear during the oral argument that the right, like all of the other rights, is an individual right. Once that fact is established, then, they must proceed to the fundamental meaning of the Second Amendment. Then the DC gun ban will crumble under the weight of the Constitution.

If that happens, will the constitutionality of other state and federal gun laws suddenly be in question?

Fixed it for ya.

Anygunanywhere

[ryoung]

Sorrry anygun.

I didn't mean to put Bill's words in your mouth, so I fixed the original post.

Good eye.

[WildBill]

Sorrry anygun.
I didn't mean to put Bill's words in your mouth, so I fixed the original post.
Good eye.

I think we were saying pretty much the same thing, but it was my quote.
If you can find a copy, I suggest reading "The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court" by Bob Woodward. It's has pretty good insight into how the court makes decisions and how politics, rather than the law, enters into the decision making process.

[ryoung]

They made it clear during the oral argument that the right, like all of the other rights, is an individual right. Once that fact is established, then, they must proceed to the fundamental meaning of the Second Amendment. Then the DC gun ban will crumble under the weight of the Constitution. If that happens, will the constitutionality of other state and federal gun laws suddenly be in question?

No they don't! They are the Supreme Court and they decide how to proceed. They don't have to do anything.

What is the question before the court? Is it not the right to keep arms (loaded handguns) in one's home? Is the answer not found in the Second Amendment? If the right to keep arms exists then doesn't it also follow that the right to bear arms is inseperable from it because of the conjunction and? On its face, is it possible to have one without the other?

[ryoung]

Sorrry anygun.
I didn't mean to put Bill's words in your mouth, so I fixed the original post.
Good eye.

I think we were saying pretty much the same thing, but it was my quote.
If you can find a copy, I suggest reading "The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court" by Bob Woodward. It's has pretty good insight into how the court makes decisions and how politics, rather than the law, enters into the decision making process.

Thanks, I'll look into it and,if you haven't read it, I commend to you "A Matter of Interpretation" by Antonin Scalia.

[anygunanywhere]

I essentially base my expectations on how the court will decide on Heller by looking at history.

If the court wanted to protect the second amendment they would have thrown out the Miller case even with Miller not showing up.

The court says that abortion is protected but has not said that the RKBA is an individual fundamental right.

By placing my expectations of the supreme court low enough I am not disappointed when they publish their rulings.

We wouldn't want to set the standards too high now would we?

Anygunanywhere

[ryoung]

I essentially base my expectations on how the court will decide on Heller by looking at history.

If the court wanted to protect the second amendment they would have thrown out the Miller case even with Miller not showing up.

I sensed that the current court, the conservatives at least, are prepared to correct the error it made in Miller. I know it's a rare occurence, but sometimes the court reverses itself.

[aardwolf]

I sensed that the current court, the conservatives at least, are prepared to correct the error it made in Miller. I know it's a rare occurence, but sometimes the court reverses itself.

It would be nice if Heller is the gun rights version of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.

I'm not holding my breath but I am praying for that level of intellectual honesty from the court.

Individual right.
Scrict scrutiny.
Incorporation.