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!
...by doing what exactly?
We, the people, had all better pray with all our might that this be resolved through political, constitutional means. Any other method will be ugly and murderous beyond description. There are NO assurances of anything approaching a normal national life after such, um, unpleasantness.
All that said, our government is just begging such a scenario by their actions.
Maybe the sear on your mouse is worn? The BATFE will be showing up at your door for unlawful possession of an unregistered, untaxed, full auto speech device.
The ruling will be proclaimed in the Lamestream media as a victory for gun rights but the actual ruling will say, yes, individuals do have a right to keep and bear arms but “reasonable” restrictions apply. Reasonable meaning anything the government says and therefore you have no rights. None.
The question posed to the Court are quite clear and the questions asked by the Justices are all leaning "individual Right" and "strict scrutiny".
As long as they keep their mouths shut on other topics, like "reasonable restrictions", and just answer the lower courts questions, we get a "win".
Very bad feeling about this ruling.
Heller is in that same mode. For those of you wondering why ot has taken so long, the reasoning is very simple. The SCOTUS hears the arguments, adjourns to read on their own, discuss among themselves in a less formal setting, and come to consensus on how it should be ruled. It is not a momentary judgement.
The Chief Justice assigns the opinions to one of the justices in the majority and the minority, or he keeps the opinion for himself to write.
Now, as far as the no death penalty in the case of rape of a child, I believe the ruling is correct. Nothing short of murder should carry the death penalty. As abhorrent as the crime was to the child, there is not a death involved.
It also means the convicted rapist will get re-sentenced and then put into the general populatioon, where the future costs of keeping him on death row will be allevieated very quickly.
So there is an upside to the ruling.
Someone broke out the champagne at Exxon headquarters for sure.
As "An Old Woman" said earlier today, "It doesn't matter what they say, we are keeping it anyway". which means I will probably get another 20 pounds of gun powder and some more bullets.
An Old Man
I think we win 7-2 in that the court will hold that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right. However, I think it will only be 5-4 that the DC ban violates that right.
Ginsburg and Breyer will dissent but agree that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right. Stevens and Souter will dissent saying that it protects only a collective right.
I expect Kennedy to write the majority opinion, with Scalia and/or Thomas writing their own concurrances.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, . ... .
Congress, NOT the Supreme Court.... Traitors should be hanged, or shot if they happen to be military personnel.
The problem is all the 'greens' and liberals think Big Oil, is bad, no matter what they do. It's the reason we don't have refining or production capabilities, even on the leased land.
My Heller prediction is 7-2, with Kennedy writing for the majority, or Thomas. Ginsberg will write for the minority.
Kennedy was pretty passionate at the hearing about the 2A and Ginsberg tried to lead the DC lawyer down the 'regulated' path, but he was too stupid to take the cues. A first year law student would have looked like Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. next to that guy.
It will be interesting to see whether the more liberal justices who agree that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right apply strict scrutiny to the DC gun law or try and argue that it isn’t a fundamental right and deserves a lower level of scrutiny. The fact that it’s a right named in the Bill of Rights makes that quite a stretch, but for a “living constitutionalist” like Breyer, anything’s possible.
Also, while I can’t imagine any rational person believing that the DC gun ban is narrowly tailored to serving a compelling government interest, there seem to be at least a few constitutional scholars, like Lawrence Tribe, who believe just that.
I predict a gobbledygook ruling that maintains the status quo.
I'll be stopping in at Sportsmen's Warehouse on the way home just in case...
7-2 very unlikely. Probably 5-4, but it could possibly end up being 6-3.
Basing a thought on a ruling based on how they question the witnesses doesn’t always work. Sure, it looked like it would be 7-2 for us based on that, but it is extremely unlikely to actually work out that way.
With due respect for your opinion, the people of Louisiana decided otherwise.
The most analagous similar situation was the Finnish Civil War of 1918, in which Finland's Communists attempted to follow the example of their pals in Russia and sieze control of Finland's government. A series of events led to the actual bloodletting, and to this day Finn's don't even agree on the mame for the poeriod, but the dates generally given for the affray are January 27, 1918 to May 15, 1918.
The results after that four-month shootemup were several: the Reds lost, and about 1% of the population of Finland died in those four months. Note that the U.S. Civil War of 1861-1865 delivered a butcher's bill of around 2% of the population of the US at that time, though the Finns would presumably caught up in four more months. There were a couple of reasons, but the Winter conditions certainly didn't help matters any.
Too consider another point likely to be common to that civil war of the XX Century and anything similar forthcoming in the XXIst: Only about one death in four was a direct combat casualty, offset by the other three-fourths of the deaths often by intentional starvation or freezing in the prison camps and POW cages, and summary executions of traitors in the field. Indeed, one technique of the day was to let young recruits who'd had no previous military experience get some by executing condemned prisoners with their bayonets, helpfully also saving on rifle ammo. To this day, globalist leftists worldwide have had serious concerns about military weapons with bayonet lugs in the hands of those they'd rule, as happened during the period of the now-defunct U.S. *Assault Weapons Ban;* now you know why.
So if it comes to that, yes, you're right: ugly and murderous will indeed be the order of the day. The current population estimate is around 304,434,774. Accordingly, a period of intensity equal to that in Finland in 1918 could be expected to result in a number of at least somewhere around 30,443,477 fatal casualties. If, of course, it only lasts for four months....
I know I find the crime to be abhorrent and disgusting, but not deserving of the death penalty. Life with no parole and insertion into the general population will take care of that. saves a lot of money and time that way. And he'll be just as dead.
I don’t know which liberal position is more ludicrous: the Lawrence Tribe position that the DC gun ban essentially passes strict scrutiny, or the Erwin Chemerinsky position that infringement of the right to keep and bear arms is only entitled to rational basis review.
Even now that they finally agree with us on the construction of the 2nd Amendment, liberal academia can’t help but shamelessly twist 50 years of constitutional jurisprudence to attain their desired policy result. Of course, it just confirms my suspicion that they don’t teach law at Duke or Harvard anymore.
I seem to recall that during oral arguments a moderate (Kennedy?) was pretty much mocking the DC lawyers, saying that if we applied their standards to the 1st Amendment, we could ban books as long as they were under a certain size.
I have a bad feeling about this, but I think my bad feeling is from the stakes, not from a large chance that we will lose. It’s just that if this doesn’t go our way there will be no stopping the gun grabbers.
Man, I hope they’re right!
There's always the Boston Common solution. As long as we don't end up boxed in like Warsaw Ghetto, we could still correct things.
But that's really taking the matter out of the hands of the state and I don't think that SCOTUS was right to do that.
SCOTUS is so limiting the use of the death penalty that, I believe, they'll eventually outlaw it altogether, again.
And it's not their call, or, at least, shouldn't be.
The stakes are big either way, but one thing to keep in mind is that even the best possible outcome will not stop state and local governments from infringing the right to keep and bear arms, as the 2nd Amendment does not directly apply to the states. That will require a holding that that right is incorporated by the 14th Amendment, which the court can’t do in the case, since the 14th Amendment isn’t at issue.
From what I hear, the plan will be to make the next test case a challenge of Chicago’s gun laws. This is because Chicago’s gun laws are almost as bad as DC’s, Chicago will place the 14th Amendment at issue, and because the 7th Circuit (which sits in Chicago) is among the most conservative of the US Courts of Appeals.
I really couldn’t say. Heller isn’t the only opinion being delayed, but I’m not sure what the process is behind releasing a decision on one day or not.
Buy me an AR-15, extra clip, some ammo, and a 15+1 round Glock and I’ll pay you when I get the money. :-P
Yes, but 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?
Your post reminds me of George Ryan’s commutations, specifically one case where the criminal being taken off death row and put into general population was on death row because he had raped and murdered a 3 year old boy. Yeah, Ryan really showed how the state was concerned about cruel punishments there!
If someone deserves death they should be executed. If not, they should be incarcerated in a way that doesn’t make some thug a de facto state torturer and executioner. Having it both ways is cruelty.
I carry a revolver, mate. No safety.
I hope you’re right, not just because I hope we’ll win, but because it will be fun to watch Dick Daley sputter like Daffy Duck in the midst of a tantrum.
We have a long way to go before things reach that kind of boiling point.
There's always a "safety": it just happens to reside between your ears. ;-)
I predict a 5-4 (possibly 6-3) mealy-mouthed decision that overturns the TOTAL ban on guns in the District, but leaves the door open to further abuses of our 2nd Amendment Rights because it will NOT declare that citizens have an absolute right to own, carry and use firearms for the purposes of defending themselves.
I have a bad feeling about this, but I think my bad feeling is from the stakes, not from a large chance that we will lose.My sentiments exactly.
The force of law needs to be tempered not with emotion, but with restraint and careful contemplation of punishment.
It isn’t going to happen but it’s fun to fantasize - what if it were a unanimous decision that the Second actually means, word for word, what it says? Can you say “media firestorm”? Could you see liberal heads exploding? Would Chuckie Schumer pee his pants...again? Oh, what a wonderful world it would be... ;-)
The SCOTUS didn’t make the call for every state, they made the call on one case from one state. The other pending state laws or cases will have to be reassessed.
"30,443,477 fatal casualties"
I know that you do not throw numbers around carelessly, but; that's a really large number. Can you justify that by means other than the proportion of one population to another?
An Old Man
Bread and circuses are powerful cooling factors.
But sometimes the pot can boil over in a hurry if you're distracted. Attention must be paid.
Oh, and in my experience, “reasonable restrictions” is what liberals say when they want to invent a lowered strict scrutiny standard for rights they don’t like. Talk about something like the “right to privacy”, and suddenly that talk disappears.
Heller loses, 5-4. Kennedy has had a recent Leftist re-conversion. His recent decisions have all been for Big Government and against Freedom.
We’re almost there already. I think the frog pot is a lot hotter than you think it is...
“Reasonable restrictions” should fail the “shall not be infringed” test pretty damn quickly.
This sums-up current national politics. The Blue Cesspool Cities forcing the rest of us to live by their rules and support them in style.
If Heller goes the wrong way, do you think that the NRA and allied groups would have trouble raising that many folks?
As much as I would love to see and be a part of that march, I think it'd be a lead pipe cinch that the organizers of an armed march on DC would find themselves the recipients of FBI and BATFE interest in record time.
The NRA (I'm a member) would never do anything as radical as you suggest. To their shame, they're well known for going-along-to-get-along and will compromise (IMO) too easily. They're a political institution that will do nothing to damage their access money and to the powerful. But warts and all, they're still the best game in town for RKBA folks at this time - sort of like the Republican party.