Replies

Can’t they be held in contempt of court for considering this type of legislation?

If Congress was in Republican hands, perhaps their budget could be held up by Congress for not complying with the Supreme Court ruling, perhaps. That would never happen with Dems. in charge.

Point is, there must be some way to get compliance with Supreme Court orders.

The Executive Branch is about enforcement of laws. It cannot make laws, or interpret laws. It can determine how much enforcement is put behind laws.

The Supreme Court interprets laws. It cannot make laws nor enforce them.

The Congress makes laws. It should understand what they pass (often don’t), but cannot determine constitutionality in the sense the Supreme Court can, nor enforce them as the Executive Branch can.

Can’t they be held in contempt of court for considering this type of legislation?

Since it's DC, I suppose it's possible, but that's not the way this will be handled. It's too direct.

People - including probably Heller - will keep his gun in his home without a trigger lock. Someone will defend himself, and the police will arrest the homeowner (or more likely, apartment renter) for not having had his gun locked.

It will go to trial, and he will be found guilty in DC, but on appeal (perhaps all the way to the Supreme Court), the law will be found unconstitutional and so the charges will be dropped.

Except . . .

The poor guy will be out his life savings for legal fees. Even if the lawyers handle it pro bono or it's funded by ACLJ, etc. he'll still be out tons of money for time lost at work, etc.

And what are the odds that a new Supreme Court, with justices nominated by Obama and confirmed by a Socialist (i.e. Democrat) Senate will just overturn DC v. Heller and make the 2nd Amendment go away? They waited a very long time to hear a case on the 2nd Amendment that addressed whether it is an individual or collective right. That's no guarantee that a new Supreme Court wouldn't hear a new case as soon as the opportunity arose, and then just overturn "their" prior decision.

After all, the only 'settled law' is that which supports the socialists.

Actually, the Supreme Court simply affirmed the lower court’s ruling (gave lots of reasoning behind the affirmation, but the upshot is that the lower verdict rules). DC will have to deal with Judge Silverman, who months ago made it clear he’s tired with DC’s shenanigans. DC got their stay of Silverman’s ruling, SCOTUS affirmed the ruling, and now in defiance of Silverman’s crystal-clear verdict DC is re-enacting 85% of what they were doing in the first place.

Upshot: it doesn’t have to reach SCOTUS again. The circuit judges will take care of this.