Supreme Court Will Hear D.C. Guns Case

[dgg9]

Originally Posted by NineseveN

To answer dgg9's point, this ruling is highly unlikely to strike down all gun control or even immediately or directly impact gun control in states like Illinois, California or New York, but the ruling will set (hopefully) enough precedent that will pave the way to challenges within those states based on the notion of individual rights.

IOW, the DC case (assuming a win) by itself only moves the bar down from DC-style ban to NYC-style near-ban, and that's as far as that goes....but later on someone will bring a suit against NYC to move the bar further?

Ok, I guess I see that as a possibility, but not a strong one. It's one thing to say a ban is rejected. But virtually everyone believes even enumerated rights are subject to "reasonable regulation." So the SCOTUS would have to go much further, in declaring what is and isn't reasonable. Do we see this as likely?

[NineseveN]

Originally Posted by dgg9

IOW, the DC case (assuming a win) by itself only moves the bar down from DC-style ban to NYC-style near-ban, and that's as far as that goes....but later on someone will bring a suit against NYC to move the bar further?

Ok, I guess I see that as a possibility, but not a strong one. It's one thing to say a ban is rejected. But virtually everyone believes even enumerated rights are subject to "reasonable regulation." So the SCOTUS would have to go much further, in declaring what is and isn't reasonable. Do we see this as likely?

I wouldn't say that virtually everyone believes in reasonable regulation, but ignoring that, the thing with this case is, if it affirms an individual right, it should pave the way to move the bar on what's currently considered reasonable. I don’t know of any other 'confirmed individual right' that isn't legally protected to extremes so long as no actual crime is being committed.

I believe Levy has already confirmed his intentions of taking this to other states once this particular ruling is upheld by SCOTUS.

I don't think SCOTUS is likely to strike down specific forms or methods of gun control in this one case, there is no magic bullet. Though we might be pleasantly surprised, I just don't think it will move in that direction.

[phillyd2]

A good test to see how other rights are treated by law is that for every argument the anti's make - replace the word GUN with SPEECH. Once the 2nd. is a ruled a individual right, in theory at least, it should be a whole new ball game.

However, one can be forgiving the sinking feeling that this case will be fudged or limited to such a degree that it was not worth the effort.

Out of our hands now so we wait and see.

[dgg9]

Originally Posted by NineseveN

I wouldn't say that virtually everyone believes in reasonable regulation,

What actual constitutional scholars would dispute that? By "everyone," I mean "everyone involved in the decision." The question is, what's "reasonable?"

but ignoring that, the thing with this case is, if it affirms an individual right, it should pave the way to move the bar on what's currently considered reasonable. I don’t know of any other 'confirmed individual right' that isn't legally protected to extremes so long as no actual crime is being committed.

I, too, would love to see the 2A taken as seriously as the 1A (no prior restraint, etc), but I'm not holding my breath. Still, I'm residually ecstatic from today's PA win, so let my usual cynicism take a break for one day.

[PA_SIGpacker]

Originally Posted by dgg9

IOW, the DC case (assuming a win) by itself only moves the bar down from DC-style ban to NYC-style near-ban, and that's as far as that goes....but later on someone will bring a suit against NYC to move the bar further?

From the news article:

'Four states - Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New York - urged the Supreme Court to take the case because broad application of the appeals court ruling would threaten "all federal and state laws restricting access to firearms." '

Of course they urged it. With the DC appeals court decision, NYC and others could easily be challenged. I think Bloomberg and the like are a bit frightened by this. If I was an anti-gun mayor and my stance on gun control got proven ineffective after gun restrictions were loosened, I'd be pretty concerned about losing support from my constituency.

Hopefully, common sense will prevail in the SCOTUS.

[Buckmark.35]

SCOTUS is currently my favorite acronym.

[NineseveN]

Originally Posted by phillyd2

A good test to see how other rights are treated by law is that for every argument the anti's make - replace the word GUN with SPEECH. Once the 2nd. is a ruled a individual right, in theory at least, it should be a whole new ball game.

However, one can be forgiving the sinking feeling that this case will be fudged or limited to such a degree that it was not worth the effort.

Out of our hands now so we wait and see.

Very solid points. +1

[NineseveN]

Originally Posted by dgg9

What actual constitutional scholars would dispute that? By "everyone," I mean "everyone involved in the decision." The question is, what's "reasonable?"

There's a difference, and it might be an issue of semantics, but "reasonable regulations" when talking about firearms means prohibition, removal of due process, excessive fees and requirements and laws restricting the use or ownership of private property based on what someone (not necessarily the owner) might do with said property, not whether or not an actual crime has been committed or harm has been done. There is no current “gun control” that is based solely on the doctrine of whether or not the actions of the actor cause harm, unless you count laws against assault/battery and murder as gun control (which in theory, is all we really need in terms of reasonable regulation of the use of firearms).

This is not the case with the other so-called 'individual rights", the far and wide majority of laws relating to those rights revolve around actual harm done.


There is no ban on the people learning to say the word, "fire" or having it in the dictionary or in their vocabularies without a special permit, the law is against the use word to commit a crime. The proverbial issue of yelling fire in a crowded theater has nothing to do with the word or the place, it's the actual use of the word to commit a crime or cause harm (inciting a riot, criminal mischief etc...) in that place.

It's not just what's reasonable that's the issue, it's the actual foundation of the regulation (whether they are based upon mere possession or actual use or misuse that causes harm).

There are plenty of lawyers, law professors and scholars that have come to very similar conclusions.

[RugerNiner]

Would you like to see the Supreme Court uphold or overturn D.C.'s gun ban?
Choice Votes Percentage of 947 Votes
Uphold 201 21%
Overturn 746 79%
Thank you for taking our unscientific survey. Check back later for updated results.

[awkx]

What is meant by the phrase "free state" in the Second Amendment? Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at UCLA, convincingly argues that it means "free country" (i.e., the opposite of despotism), and that "state" does not refer exclusively to one of the 50 states of the union.

www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_11_18-2007_11_24.shtml

One of the arguments that DC makes is that the Second Amendment is partially a federalism provision, protecting the states' powers to maintain and regulate state militias. This argument crumbles when "free state" is read in an accurate historical context.

Prof. Volokh also maintains a list of primary sources regarding the second amendment:
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm