Skip to comments.DC vs. Heller Ruling to be Issued June 26
Posted on 06/25/2008 7:33:33 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
The DC gun ban case ruling will be issued tomorrow, Thursday, June 26. Stay tuned!
That's interesting! Is it true? -- I never noticed such a pattern, but then again, I wasn't looking for it. Thanks C-Dawg.
I'm happy for you that you think that.
What in the Constitution do you think supports that value judgement?
Repeat as necessary.
It works for the commies.
Archy, you are off by a factor of 10 on those deaths. You might want to double check that math. 3 million.
It’s white knuckle time!
SCOTUSBlog is sticking with their prediction that Scalia will write the majority opinion. From their lips to God’s ear!
It's call proportionality of punishment.
Is the death penalty warranted in a jay-walking incident? How about DUI? How about someone smoking a joint in their home?
Pretty drastic, right?
Now, the taking of a life deserves the response that society as a whole is willing to accept, not what you personally think should happen.
In this case the proportionality is incorrect, and the SCOTUS ruled partially based on that.
Now a question for you. Where is the death penalty warranted by your values?
If they looked at the 2nd the same way as the unwritten right to abortion, the Government would be providing handguns to those that couldn't afford them.
Brilliant. Post of the Day.
I can’t afford an Anzio Ironworks 20mm with 18-25x55mm Nightforce glass. Is there a government grant or affirmative action program that would give me a low cost/no cost load for one?
They should have also ruled, No death penalty for family members who kill the rapist of their children!
I saw a Cato blog post yesterday saying that Scalia hadn’t written any majority opinions this session, even though he has sided with the majority in this session, and even though the workload of writing of majority opinions is typically evenly allocated. Sounds like Cato is predicting that, yes, Scalia is writing the majority.
Try AFDV (Aid to Families with Dependant Vulcans)
"That would be my guess. We'll be in a better position but just slightly. If they strike the ban but allow permits, big cities will be like NYC. Technically legal but impossible to get. "
The Court hasn't been asked to rule on a permit system - because there isn't one in DC except for those who owned guns prior to the '76 ban (which isn't at issue). The Court has simply been asked to rule on whether DC (the government of which derives 100% of its authority from the Congress) can ban an entire class of firearms, and whether it can mandate the disassembly of long guns in a person's home.
1) 6-3 or 7-2 that the Circuit Court decision is affirmed, at least in part. Specifically, the DC bans will be overturned, and the 2nd Amendment will be ruled to protect an individual right.
2) The limits of that right (i.e. the right to keep arms) will NOT be spelled out in very great detail, except possibly in the dicta (commentary which is instructive of a Justice's thoughts, but useless as precedent) of the opinion writer and any justices who concur but wish to write their own opinion.
3) The Court will NOT specify a level of scrutiny to apply toward other firearms legislation by the federal government - it'll just say that this ban is so far-reaching as to violate the 2nd with ANY level of scrutiny.
4) The issue of whether the 14th Amendment incorporates the 2nd against states and local governments will NOT be decided, nor will the Constitutionality of the '86 ban on new full autos.
5) The Court won't even touch upon the definition of "bear" (as in "the right of the people to keep and bear arms...), as this is not a case regarding the right to carry a firearm.
I also predict that if the decision strikes down the DC ban and calls the "right to keep" an individual right, you'll have 2 lawsuits filed fairly soon (meaning within a few months):
1) A suit against Chicago (or, perhaps, Morton Grove, IL, which has MUCH less money to fight a suit than Chicago), claiming that its ban is just as unconstitutional as the DC one, except this time attempting to obtain incorporation of the 2nd against the states and their subdivisions, just as has been done with other rights guaranteed by the BOR. FYI, if the 2nd is ruled to protect an individual right here in Heller, I don't see how any state or locality can win, so we might have a bunch more to celebrate in a couple of years.
2) A suit in the DC Ciruit against the BATFE for its failure to issue a tax stamp to some upstanding citizen for a full auto manufactured after 5/19/1986. The ideal case would be brought by an ex-Special Forces soldier who is retired, who has a perfectly clean criminal record, and who owns a virtually identical firearm manufactured before the ban. On a strictly textual/logical reasoning basis, the DC ban and the '86 full auto ban are functionally identical and, therefore, equally bad law. It SHOULD be overturned...but the Supreme Court is very political and this is a highly emotional issue (for idiot blissninnies who don't understand guns, and who don't know that the only crime committed with a legally registered full auto was committed by an off-duty cop). We SHOULD win that case, thereby allowing anyone from an NFA state to pay the $200 tax and buy a brand-spanking-new full auto (or 10), but that is far, far less certain than even the Heller case (which is no gimme by any means).
Pray HARD for a good result tomorrow!!!
I hope they don’t disappoint. After the Gitmo & Child Rape decisions, I’m not so sure.
Of course you can stop a gun grabber.
Just make sure your gun is bigger.
I guess we'll see who gets the Heller one tomorrow.
The local ramifications of any potential "unpleasantness" may just make Iraqi tribal/sectarian politics look like a pillow fight. Weird stuff happens when people have to pick sides.
Cool. I’m only doing this for my Ammoholics Anonymous meetings. “1 round, 1 magazine, 1 box, 1 crate”.
I’m a fairly secular person, but even I’ve been saying prayers, attending church, pouring libations, and rubbing my lucky rabbits foot for a good ruling.
So, to save you time, I'll just repost the question I asked you, which is a question I would ask whether I approved of this SCOTUS decision or not:
How is it cruel and unusual punishment to execute a criminal with lethal injection for child rape, but appropriate (and not cruel ) to subject the same guy to a punishment where he will suffer months or years of physical abuse, rape or being murdered with a shiv, possibly all three?
I look forward to your answer.
Regardless of whether you agree with the Louisiana law or not, the text of the Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel or unusual punishment, not harsh or drastic punishment. It says nothing about proportionality of punishment, and certainly does not prevent capital punishment for rape of any sort. Crimes like robbery, burglary, and, yes, rape were capital crimes in most, if not all, of the country when the Eighth Amendment was drafted and ratified, and for many decades afterwards.
Now, the Supreme Court has, since then, imposed its own values onto the text of the Eighth Amendment to make it mean something it doesn’t, but that’s no more legitimate than any other activist, “living constitutionalist” decision.
If any value judgment is to be made as to what crimes warrant death in Louisiana, it is to be made by the Louisiana legislature, not by the US Supreme Court.
You’re not Old - You’re BOLD.
Semper Fi to you as well, sir. And God bless you.
I'm a junkie and I need help...
...picking up all the brass and wheelweights I can find. 8^)
Instead of finding a cure, maybe we should just learn to live with our disease... ;-)
Ping for later reading
Your opinion, which you are entitled to. The Court however is supposed to base their rulings on the law and most especially upon the Constitution. The Court said, and you seem to feel as well, that the punishment is disproportionate. But the Constitution's 8th amendment doesn't ban disproportionate punishment, only cruel and unusual punishment. What is "disproportionate" is a matter for legislatures, not Justices, to determine. As far as "unusual" goes, the only reason no one has been executed in over 40 years for a crime not involving a dead victim, is that the Court itself banned the death penalty for rape back in 1977. Even before that it wasn't used often, but often enough not to be unusual. It sure as heck isn't cruel. The way execution are conducted today, it's the same sort of method millions use to put down their cherished animal companions and pets to *prevent* a really horrible death, such as by kidney failure, distemper, etc. The Court has inserted its own opinions as though they were the legislative representatives of the people.
If Kennedy writes the Majority opinon, it will be 4-5 against against overturning the DC laws, and Thomas or Scalia might write the dissenting opinion. It might still be found to be an individual right, but it will be declared subject to "reasonable" regulations, and the DC laws termed "reasonable".
But by legislators, not by unelected Judges. Otherwise it's the rule of Judges, not the rule of law.
They could rule that way, say by upholding the handgun ban.
It is also the majority opinion of this court that representative government bodies in the United States do have the ability to control the ammunition that would be used in guns owned by the citizens of the United States.
Ammunition is not at issue in this case, so they are unlikely to mention it. But it would follow from the first posited ruling, if they could ban dangerous arms, they could ban dangerous ammunition.
Remember Bush came out against Heller, and most of the SC is left of him.
Stock up, and remember that after January you will have a very short time to buy anything for what may be coming.
Probably about the same kind of attention the Bonus Marchers got.
See also Bonus Army
I agree with your observations. Thanks for the response.
But that's NOT in the Constitution. It's a value judgment, as such making it is among the powers reserved to the states by the 10th amendment.
Now, the taking of a life deserves the response that society as a whole is willing to accept, not what you personally think should happen.
Right, and the Supreme Court is not "society as a whole". Neither is a legislature, but under our system it's their job and their power to represent society as a whole.
Actually one of the DC laws in the Supreme Court's formulation of The Question, does concern bearing arms. It bans bearing loaded long arms, even in one's own home, from one room to another.
And do you believe the death sentence was given without emotion involved?
Would a jury be willing to sentence someone to death for jaywalking? I know that it's not uncommon for the state to play various games with what juries are and are not allowed to hear, and that's a problem that needs to be addressed. Nonetheless, if the state refrains from gaming the jury, I would trust that jury's judgment far more than Justice Ginsburg's.
His justice department did, but then his Vice President, in Mr. Cheney's capacity as President of the Senate, came out for Heller by signing up for the Amici brief supporting Heller. I don't think "W" himself has made a statement one way or other. If you have a link to one, I'd appreciate it. But even the solicitor general did not argue against an individual right, but rather for "reasonable restrictions" based on "compelling state interest".
BTW, McCain also signed onto that "friend of the court" brief in support of Heller, which was written by Stephen Holbrook, well known pro arms rights attorney. B. Hussein did not, nor did he have the stones to sign on to a brief for DC, as 18 sitting Congresscritters, lead by Chaka Fattah did.
Probably not, but so what? The potential for a judge or jury, I prefer a jury, to impose a death penalty for any particular crime is a matter for legislation. That might not be emotionless as we might like, but I don't think Supreme Court Justices have a corner on the dispassion supply either.
“Sorry for the triplicate posts.”
I just had the same problem at another thread. I hit post, but nothing happened. Waited a minute, hit it again and low and behold, two posts. Can the moderators fix this?
...in which case the majority opinion will be very well written, constitutionally sound and very pleasing to most members of this forum.
It was indeed Kennedy making those sounds.
12 hours now.
The silence is deafening.
Now how one gets regulations being reasonable out of "Shall Not Be Abridged.."... I just do not get this..
Does not mean I am correct.. Just that it seems so clear...
"They" are looking to the judges to find any possible loop hole.
I have to disagree. Judging from Kennedy’s questions in oral argument, I expect him to hold that the right to keep and bear arms protected by the 2nd Amendment is an individual and “fundamental” right, apply the strict scrutiny test to the DC gun ban, and hold it unconstitutional as overinclusive and not narrowly tailored to serving a compelling government interest.
Also, from what I’m hearing, I’m wrong and Scalia, not Kennedy, will be writing the majority opinion.
Cool, thanks for the info.
First, I’m wondering why Pistolshot hasn’t answered the question I posed in post 120. Too difficult for you?
Second, could any crime that actually deserves the death penalty be discussed without any emotion? I mean, murder is a pretty emotional subject, and you’ve already said we can execute people for that.
Do we need to have a state legislature full of Vulcans before we can pass a law regarding the death penatly?
they dont look 12 yrs old...
What the "supreme court" says don't mean diddly.
Ps: It is you that protects and sustains that same god given right.
The question is, how far will you go if others say NO!