TexasCHLforum.com

I noticed those things too, but I think the big goal in this case is to have the SCOTUS declare the Second Amendment to be an individual, not a collective right. The circuit courts have split on this, and as I recall, most of them have gone with the the collective model, regardless of how little basis it really has in the constitution and history. So having the SCOTUS put its foot (feet?) down and say "It is TOO an individual right" -- even with restrictions -- would be a big win.

I'd be happy with that right now. I have been worried about this case since I first read about it, because I am not sure there are enough votes on SCOTUS to go this direction. Given SCOTUS's terrible -- and unconstitutional, in my view -- decisions on political speech (McCain-Feingold) and eminent domain (Kelo), I get very queasy thinking about this case. A "regulated" individual right may look less radical to SCOTUS than a truly "shall not be infringed" version, so it may be easier to sell them on that for now.

I am not privy to the lawyers' thinking, but perhaps they also believe there are better odds in going for a small bite of the apple, i.e. if they pushed for a grand slam -- and lost -- we would be in a world of hurt. Just think what a President Hillary and her buddies like Schumer would try to do with a collective rights interpretation.


Also, I don't know how much the actual facts of the one plaintiff still on the case drives the framing of the questions of the case. Remember, the D.C Court of Appeals has a very restrictive view of standing (and the circuits are split on this issue too) and ruled that only one of the original (6?) plaintiffs had standing. I believe Heller is the gal who vocally and actively opposes drug dealers and other vermin in her neighborhood, has been threatened for doing so, and wants a usable handgun to protect herself in her home. I think the lawyers are also asking the Supremes to expand standing in this case to encompass all the original plaintiffs, but I'm not sure of that, and I am too lazy to go look right now.

elb

I just read the entier motion to grant cert (by respondents) filed yesterday: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content ... 90_bir.pdf

I am biased - I know. But it sure seemed like our side had the facts and the law on their side. I also think that the respondent's motion brought up a few ways that the court could rule in their favor without getting too broad if it didn't want to - preferring a partial victory to nothing.

Reminds me of the saying: If you have the law on your side, beat on the law. If you have the facts on your side, beat on the facts. If you have neither on your side, beat on the podium. Seems like DC was beating on the podium a lot.

I would be VERY interested in informed 3rd party reviews though. Charles? Anyone else - links are okay, but I prefer legal analysis as opposed to newspaper editorials.

I think in this case it's pretty clear that we have both the law and the facts on our side.

That's why DC was beating on the podium so much.

Corrections and Clarifications to my latest post above:

I confused the names and situations of the plaintiffs. Shelly Parker is the gal who actively opposes drug dealers in her neighborhood, for which said drug dealers threatened her with death.

Dick Heller is a

Washington, D.C. “Special Police Officer.� He is authorized to carry a gun while providing security at various locations in the District, including the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judicial Center on Capitol Hill, where he was working at the time the lawsuit was filed. Although District officials trust Heller to use a gun to protect various government officials within the District, he is barred, like all other law-abiding Washington, D.C. residents, from having a gun to protect himself and his family at home.
http://dcguncase.com/blog/faqs/

The D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that of the six original plaintiffs, only Mr. Heller has standing because he was the only who could demonstrate harm from enforcement of D.C.'s anti-gun laws. (This is why the case name switched from Parker to Heller). He applied for a permit to have a handgun at home, and the D.C. city government denied his application. The other plaintiffs either want to be able to obtain and keep a handgun at their homes or want to unlock/reassemble a longarm. The Appeals Court ruled they did not have standing because they have not actually been prosecuted by D.C. -- a "general threat to prosecute" is not sufficient, in the eyes of the Appeals Court, there must be an actual prosecution. I think this is screwed up, because the plaintiffs are suffering actual harm (e.g. they can't legally have a functional gun), but there you go. More specific info on this can be found here:
http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parke ... 030907.pdf

The following quote is not a correction, but since I discussed and speculated on the goals of the attorneys in this case, might be a good idea to point out what they actually have said (from the website dcguncase.com):

The primary goal, of course, is to eliminate Washington, D.C.’s ban on the ownership of functional firearms within the home. No state in the country imposes an outright ban on gun ownership the way Washington, D.C. does. Yet citizens of the District have as much right to keep and bear arms as other citizens. Another goal of the case is to secure a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court that the Second Amendment means what it says, namely, that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.� Of course, that right – like every other constitutional right including free speech and religious liberty – is subject to reasonable regulation by the government.

elb

If you search around, the 5 others who were denied standing have filed a motion for their standing to be reinstated. So it isn't over for them yet either.

Kalrog,

Yes, I had seen that earlier. Like the Second Amendment, "standing" is apparently another area where the circuit courts have split. Some require that you show actual harm (like being prosecuted!), some do not. Mr. Heller found a way to suffer injury under the law without going to jail for it. Perhaps the SCOTUS will sort that out too. It does seem unhelpful that you often have to take a substantial risk of going to jail just to challenge a major law's constitutionality...and especially seems unfair that this depends on the jurisdiction you happen to reside in.

elb