Here, from the petition for a writ of certiorari, is the question presented to the Supreme Court:
QUESTION PRESENTEDThat's it. That's the only question. No 5th Amendment due process stuff, no commerce clause challenge, nothing but that one fabulous question. And he's using Emerson as a precedent.Whether the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees an individual right to possess a machinegun.
Who's representing this guy? Do you know? I can't believe this case hasn't gotten more publicity than it has. wtf?
The government agrees with petitioner that the Fifth Circuit's decision in Emerson reflects a sounder understanding of the scope and purpose of the Second Amendment than does the court of appeals' decision in the instant case. Petitioner's constitutional challenge to Section 922(o) does not warrant this Court's review, however, because the statutory ban on private possession of machineguns is valid under either analytic approach. The court in Emerson recognized that the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment is subject to "limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions or restrictions for particular cases that are reasonable and not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this country." 270 F.3d at 261. And the court described the right in question as a right to possess firearms, such as a pistol, "that are suitable as personal, individual weapons," id. at 260 - a description that does not encompass the machineguns at issue here. Nothing in Emerson suggests that the Fifth Circuit would find a Second Amendment right implicated on the facts of this case. Nor does anything in Emerson, which upheld a restriction on firearms rights for individuals subject to a domestic violence restraining order under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8), indicate that the Fifth Circuit would find the prohibition on possession of a machinegun unreasonable.I like this case. A lot. I hope the Court takes it.Although the courts of appeals are in disagreement concerning the abstract question whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms for reasons unrelated to militia service, no circuit conflict exists on the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. 922(o) or of any other firearms prohibition contained within Section 922. Because there is no basis for concluding that the outcome of this case would have been different had it arisen in the Fifth Circuit, petitioner's Second Amendment Claim does not warrant further review.
Ditto. Haney is THE case we've been waiting for. If ruled favorably, everything else falls in line; if ruled or dismissed unfavorably, things become...er...interesting.