Replies

But, doesn’t the Supreme Court need to hear the case to overturn the precedent set in a 1930s era case that individuals do not have an absolute right to have a firearm?

If the Supreme Court didn’t hear the case, I think legally the District law is still overturned, but then there would be no clear precedent to follow?

But, doesn’t the Supreme Court need to hear the case to overturn the precedent set in a 1930s era case that individuals do not have an absolute right to have a firearm?

Yes, if the court sees that as a compelling interest. The SCOTUS has lots of factors that affect whether they take a case, and resolving logical discontinuities is only one of them. Still, I think they'll take the case, for just the reason you cite. By the way, US vs. Miller doesn't really reflect good law. Neither Miller nor his counsel showed up for the hearing.

But, doesn’t the Supreme Court need to hear the case to overturn the precedent set in a 1930s era case that individuals do not have an absolute right to have a firearm?

The Miller case doesn't say any such thing. That's gun prohibitionist spin.

The case deal with the type of gun, a sawed off shotgun. The SCOTUS ruled that it had no evidence before it to lead it to conclude that such a weapon was useful in warfare and therefore a suitable weapon for a "well-regulated militia."

(Of course, Miller was gone and he had no legal representation to present such evidence.)

"But, doesn’t the Supreme Court need to hear the case to overturn the precedent set in a 1930s era case that individuals do not have an absolute right to have a firearm?"

There is no such case.

If you were thinking of "Miller," you should read it.
In that case, the Justices made it clear that Miller was not entitled to his sawed-off shotgun BECAUSE it was not a military weapon - and Miller wasn't represented to argue that point.

I would rather SCOTUS not hear the case than for it to take it and reverse it 5-4. On the other hand, if we are going to win, then it will a great victory, as all inferior courts will have to follow it. Of course it all depends on the language of the opinion.

My guess is that the most we can hope for is that the opinion is affirmed, and that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated into the 14th.

I don't think it will be a basis for us to go getting every state and local gun law thrown out the window. If it is indeed a fundamental right, then my guess is that the court will adopt some sort of intermediate scrutiny for challenging gun laws. Strict scrutiny would be my choice, just as it is the standard for the government's ability to curtail other established individual rights.

If I am right then many of the more draconian laws like in Chicago and NYC will be subject to serious review. But things like prohibitions on carrying will probably still be left to the states, at least for now. If JRB replaces a liberal in the next year then who knows, we may get some real meaningful precedent that will open the door to challenging a lot of restrictions.