|
|
Post by bolverk on Jun 4, 2008 13:52:59 GMT -5
I found an interesting Amicus Brief Essay on this upcoming decision that involves the State of Montana. If the Supreme Court finds that we do indeed have a "living Constitution" and the Second Amendment only provides a "Collective Right" to keep and bear arms, then the United States will be in full violation of the Compact it has with Montana. And it will expose itself to the full legal remedies of Contract Violations. Here is the Amicus Brief Essay |
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Jun 9, 2008 22:55:13 GMT -5
According to the Supreme Court Blog, we should see a decision in Heller this month. June is normally the month that the Supremes wrap up their session and get ready for the next one. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Jun 10, 2008 11:36:01 GMT -5
One can only hope that they make the correct decision, and find that D.C. laws violate the Constitution.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Jun 10, 2008 17:21:06 GMT -5
If you look at the wording of the cert, the court recognized and indiviual right in it:
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?
DOES the DC law " violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes."
If there is no such right, then the DC law cound not violate it. Pretty clear to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Jun 26, 2008 9:19:15 GMT -5
just in from Scotusblog:
10:12 Tom Goldstein - Heller affirmed.
10:13 Ben Winograd -
The Court has released the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), on whether the District’s firearms regulations – which bar the possession of handguns and require shotguns and rifles to be kept disassembled or under trigger lock – violate the Second Amendment. The ruling below, which struck down the provisions in question, is affirmed.
10:14 Tom Goldstein - We'll post the opinion as soon as it is available.
10:14 Tom Goldstein - It is striking that the decision is not clouded by ambiguity created by separate opinions. One opinion on each side.
10:16 Tom Goldstein - Apologies - there is a second dissenting opinion, but only one majority - no plurality and no concurrences.
I;ll post the link to the decision in a few minutes when it comes up on the blog.
Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg. We will provide a link to the decision as soon as it is available.
10:13 Tom Goldstein - Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm.
|
|
|
|
Post by harpman1 on Jun 26, 2008 9:23:06 GMT -5
Oh frabcious day; kaloo kalay!
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Jun 26, 2008 9:23:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by harpman1 on Jun 26, 2008 9:26:34 GMT -5
D.C. just got a LOT safer.
For the peasants, that is; not the politicians.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Jun 26, 2008 10:57:01 GMT -5
Well, not as broad a ruling as I had hoped. But it is a start. And, Scalia left the subject kind of open for more review by the USSC. I don't see many of CAs laws being challanged under this ruling.
|
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Jun 26, 2008 14:21:55 GMT -5
I heard a brief interview with Sen. Diane Feinstein on the radio after the ruling came out. DiFi made the outrageous claim that, according to the ruling, if you have a gun and children, you will not be allowed to put a trigger lock on. I think the ruling says that the government cannot require you to put a trigger lock on, not that trigger locks are banned.
We can expect even more hyperbole regarding this decision, along with new calls for more gun regulation, in the coming days.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Jun 28, 2008 0:11:15 GMT -5
Well, not as broad a ruling as I had hoped. But it is a start. And, Scalia left the subject kind of open for more review by the USSC. I don't see many of CAs laws being challanged under this ruling. If it had been any broader it might have gone the other way or flipped to a split decision which would have muddied the waters. What we got is a clear statement by the court that Amendment Two guarantees, not grants, an individual right for a person not in the prohibited class to own a firearm, and in particular to DC that they can not completely ban a type of firearm. That, potentially has far reaching implications on things like the Roberti Roos list and SB23 here in California but it's going to take a boatload more litigation, I'd say at least ten years, before we see real relief here. And the clear statement alone is light years ahead of where we were a day before Heller was decided. Already we've seen federal suit filed in Chicago to overturn their complete (modelled on DC) handgun ban. One of the burbs outside of Chicago has ordered it's cops to stop enforcing it's citywide ban, pending it being officially struck down by the town council and NRA is suing San Francisco on behalf of public housing residents who live under the gangster's gun, but are prohibited by the city from defending themselves.... all in response to Heller. When that Chicago ban falls, as it ultimately will I believe, we'll have de facto incorporation to the states which will get us farther down the road to acheiving our freedom again here in California. |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Jun 29, 2008 19:52:08 GMT -5
In CA it shouldn't have to be "incorporated.' Right there in the CA Constitution it says that the Constitution of the US is the supreme law of the land. If the 2nd isn;t part of the constitution, then what is it?
|
|
