I can't say I'm surprised.
Posted on 11/13/2007 8:01:58 AM PST by ctdonath2
WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court took no action Tuesday in the case involving the District of Columbia's ban on handguns.
The justices discussed the case at their private conference on Friday, but reached no resolution.
Four justices must vote to grant an appeal. The court does not always reach a decision the first time it discusses a case.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
Who gives a sh*t what the SCOTUS has to say? If they rule the 2nd Amendment means no right to bear arms, then we’ll have to make sure that we and our representatives and law enforcement officials IGNORE such a ruling as illegitimate. Just as the Dred Scot ruling was illegitimate.
Congressman Billybob
I expect the court will not hear the appeal. They don’t want to lock this issue up. It’s only a matter of time until it comes back.
Can’t we take judicial notice yet that the 9th Circuit is wrong about (almost) everything?
I can't say I'm surprised.
That certainly make a lot of non-sense.
No news isn’t always good news. Should this eventually come down national or state gun ownership rights, and that right be denied by these high and mighty court people...I predict one hell of a rebellion! ‘Take the guns away from law abiding, only the bad guys will have guns.’ of which I agree.
LOL.
How does the USSC rule that grandma can have her Glock in DC but that Bill Gates cannot build a 50,000 man army with Nuclear Weapons?
I know it may sound like I'm anti-gun, I'm not. I am a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment and own many firearms...to include so-called "assault weapons".
But I do struggle with the implications of a strict and clear interpretation of the 2nd's "right to keep and bear arms" in the 21st century.
Either these guys will have to "interpret" for us, or we'll have a pretty serious constitutional issue to deal with...literal interpretation will require a NEW constitutional amendment to narrow "arms" to "personal firearms".
Thoughts?
Mercury News is source ? AP ?
Last press we read here stated that Tuesday the SCOTUS would discuss granting the appeal and Thursday they would make public their decision to hear the case or not ........
Mercury News and AP can’t spell Thursday ?........:o)
That they want another week to look at this is ok with me. It means they are serious about it and doing their homework. At least, I hope that is what it means. If they actually look at the Constitutional Convention, the Debates, and the articles of the First Congress, they can't help but come to the same conclusion the lower Court did.
That RKBA is a Nationally protected Right of the Individual. That laws banning possession are unConstitutional on their face. And that even carry laws that forbid carry altogether are equally as unConstitutional.
since no one else but them could know, you are correct.
The Court may be hesitating because of the uncertainty of where certain justices are leaning on the underlying issue. The four judges who probably view individual gun ownership as a fundemental right may not want to take the case because if the collective rights advocates prevail, then not only is the D.C Circuit Court overturned, but that states and municipalities will have wide latitude in banning firearms. These four justices would rather let the D.C Circuit Court decision stand and hope that the next appointment to the Suprem Court is solidly in their camp, rather than granting cert now and taking the chance that the collective rights position will carry the day.
The four judges who are likely to overturn the D.C. Circuit Court have a similar problem: They may not want to grant cert now at the risk of five judges affirming the lower court decision. They too would rather let the lower court decision stand in the hopes that the next appointment is more likely to side with the collective rights theory.
My guess is that Kennedy is the swing vote and is playing his cards very close to his chest.
More time is not unreasonable, given the fact that both sides want it heard, but can’t agree what the question is. Also given that ANY decision will have serious repercussions, good that they take time making sure they make the right decision.
You’re off by a few days. The judges debated the issue on Friday, and were scheduled to announce the decision (IF there was a decision, which there wasn’t) on Tuesday (today).
Good question, and I considered it. Based on their past inaction on this fundamental issue, I lean towards the reason being the former. Unfortunately. I hope I'm wrong.
Better not to hear the case than to risk losing it.
I think this leaves the appeals court finding against the DC laws in place, so not hearing it would have a positive effect.
If they decide not to hear it, it will be because they talk it over, suggest how they would vote, and Roberts decides it’s not worth taking a chance on it now.
Of course, there are always dangers. If hillary is elected, or Rudy, the balance on the court may tip liberal again. This will be a key election.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.