Supreme Court Hears “The Threshold Question” (Gun Control)

The Outdoor Wire ^ | 3/19/08 | Jim Shepherd

[Still Thinking]

Ginsburg has in the past made statements that revealed a recognition of the individual right. So maybe her vote isn’t lost.

[Travis McGee]

Heller’s comment about the mayor’s armed bodyguards goes to the heart of the case. The govt. allows Heller the secutiry guard to carry a gun to protect THEM. But when he goes home, the same govt. won’t allow him to have a gun to protect HIMSELF.

[wastedyears]

I thought the “threshold” question was when it would be good to put the Second Amendment into its intended use.

[robertpaulsen]

"Keep an eye on Breyer if you want to see willful ignorance at work. He practically announced in court today he was for upholding the ban, even before the arguments were finished."

Hah! At least he heard the arguments. Clarence Thomas anounced his position before arguments were even heard.

So maybe we should keep an eye on Thomas?

[Centurion2000]

Clarence Thomas anounced his position before arguments were even heard.

That would be because Clarence Thomas, unlike you, can read the Second Amendment and understand what it means.

[Abundy]

Ginsburg put Dellinger in his place a couple of times with really hard questions. I would not be surprised to see her concurring with Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy.

[Always Right]

I think there will be 6 or 7 on the right side of this.

[Abundy]

Yup...and I can see them not announcing a standard of review, even while allowing fundamental right language to exist in their opinion.

They won't over-reach, and know damn well that this won't be the last time that they are dealing with a dispute about what is a reasonable regualtion.

I can see Judge Cummings of Emerson fame eliminating the machine gun ban as unconstitutional after this case is decided - which will create a firestorm of lititgation, a split between the circuits and eventually another SCOTUS case.

[Always Right]

The only problem I see is if Roberts tries to reach out too far to get more justices to agree. I think the best ruling would be one that has only 5 votes.

[Abundy]

makes sense...but if they limit their opinion to the specific question they framed they can get more justices on board - and it would give a clear opinion that private possession/ownership of firearms is not related to militia service.

[ozzymandus]

Yes, robert, we know you’re a gun-control fascist.