Heller imminent
Smart money says Heller opinion will be released Monday, June 23. Got plans?
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
June 16th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Like I was saying, MSNBC et al seem to think the decision will come down any moment, but yeah I wouldn’t surprised if they wait till the last second and then scoot off to their retreats in the Hamptons. Either way they’re going to be dropping a bomb for somebody…either the majority of Americans or a very vocal minority that is vastly outnumbered but has lots of celebrity and big money donors and influences.
June 16th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
My bet is a decision so encumbered with caveats as to be meaningless to 2A advocates.
June 16th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Curiously enough, yes. I was in the local discount wine superstore the other day, and discussing what I’d drink, depending on which way it goes, with the clerk. Obviously nice champagne and shout “LIBERTY” if it goes well, but was considering something very alcoholic and very poisonous which would give a horrible hangover and mess with my mind, in the event of an unfortunate outcome. I said, “It’s a shame we can’t get real absinthe anymore.”
“Oh yes we can,” he said, and led me to a file of bottles of it. Very costly, 50-some bux for 3/4 liter, but I reckon they have to figure in liability costs.
June 16th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
P.s. It was right next to the Jaegermeister.
June 16th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Planning to buy more ammo and firearms.
June 16th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
I’m considering taking the day off to load ammo.
And write.
And I’m expecting them to find for an individual right.
It’s the caveats and weasle-words I expect to see that have me worried. I don’t expect the decision to be meaningless, but I don’t expect it to do more than uphold the lower court’s declaration that the complete ban on handguns and functional long guns in D.C. violates the 2nd Amendment, either.
No further explanation of the scope of the right, nothing on standing, nothing on scrutiny level, and – most assuredly – nothing on incorporation.
June 16th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
I expect them to go over the scope of the right, standing, and scrutiny. Incorporation is a maybe, but only because it’s not relevant to the case or any other case before the court.
Of course, we’ll see a Roberts opinion on scope, standing, and scrutiny, another set from Ginsberg, another set from Stevens, and yet another set from Souters. Oh, and two or three sets from Scalia.
Just enough to make sure the various courts of appeals can completely ignore the case.
June 16th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
That’s OK. Nothing on incorporation means nothing bad on incorporation. I don’t rule out the possibility that Heller will be decided 5-4, and the Chicago version of Heller (a pure incorporation case) will also be decided 5-4, but not the same 5 and 4.
June 16th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
I’m expecting less. Individual right, and that DC’s ban is a violation. Nothing further.
But that will be enough.
June 16th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Good. I still have time to sharpen my scalping knife.
June 17th, 2008 at 2:11 am
Didn’t they wait until the very last day of the current term to strike down part of that Brady Bill back in 1997? When is the last day this time around? That’s where my money would be at.
Predictions:
1. Teh supreme beings say it’s an individual right.
2. They strike down the outright ban, but with as many weasel words as possible. DC invokes a new ban that allows the politically well connected to pay an stiff fee, go through mandatory training, register their firearm in a database, and get fingerprinted, retina scanned and anal probed before they get their chit to keep but not bear a firearm in a private home.
3. No change for Parker and others denied cert for their individual cases. They are not worthy to grovel for their rights before the supremes.
June 17th, 2008 at 7:36 am
I am so freaked out that I can’t think about what I’m going to do. I am very scared about the decision. We don’t have many options if it goes badly.
I am grateful that Gura and Levy did the case though. With McCain or Obama choosing the next Supremes, this may have been our window of opportunity. Justices Lindsey Graham, Joe Liberman, and Susan Collins don’t stike me as very pro-liberty and pro-gun.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
I’m hoping for a right that does not require a bureaucrat’s prior scrutiny for need-something of a shall issue. Eliminate the need for Illinois gun cards, or clout in New York. Recognizing the need for different types of arms such as sidearms would be great. Addressing the word “bear”, as in moving from room to room, would be a start.
To recognize the above but not incorporate it would be an overly narrow dodge. It’s not a state power-it’s a right of the people, or it isn’t a right at all.
I’ve bought cigars to celebrate immediately. The closer they come to the 4th of July, the more likely the two celebrations will combine. Or incorporate, if you will.
June 18th, 2008 at 7:01 am
Mike123, I don’t like the idea of Justice Graham any more than you do, but FWIW, he’s solidly pro-gun. Besides, the people most likely to be replaced in the next term are not. If the decision does go badly, we certainly have options, though. Either do nothing because gun control is generally unpopular whether it’s constitutional or not, or do something because 75% of the population thinks the Supreme Court misread the Second Amendment, which would be the perfect time for a “no, you dummies” amendment.
Dan, it’s not a question of whether the RKBA is a state power or a right of the people. If the SC rules correctly in Heller (and I’m not counting that chicken before it hatches), it will clearly be a right of the people. The remaining question for the Chicago version of Heller will be whether that right is enforceable against the states. “My right to X” is just another way of saying “your obligation not to prevent me from doing X.” Heller will tell you whether the federal government has any such obligation. It will likely take another decision to determine whether the states do.
June 18th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Xriq, I agree a separate decision could be required, but I feel that’d be narrow even for Roberts. It’s long been debated the 2nd A. was a state “right”, or power. If it’s ruled as an individual right the 14th A. protects it, ruling or not. I’d love to see the tortured logic behind that. I think lower courts would start to see it that way for fear of being overturned.
My greater concern will be the degree of restrictions. I’m as concerned as you are that a handgun ban+allowing long guns is “reasonable.”
But the original question would be plans-what ruling would make you party like a rock star?
June 19th, 2008 at 7:01 am
That doesn’t follow. No one doubts that the Fifth Amendment right not to be charged criminally without a grand jury indictment and the Seventh Amendment to a civil jury trial are both individual rights, but neither has been incorporated under the 14th Amendment. If the Heller court announces a new “if it’s an individual right, the 14th Amendment covers it” rule, that will break more ground under the 14th Amendment than the 2nd.
Here’s what it would take to get me to party like a rock star. As with the Heller ruling itself, I have a pending application for a concealed handgun permit that can be issued any day now. I’ll party like a rock star if the Heller decision comes out first, and rules that I don’t need no steenkin’ permit.
June 19th, 2008 at 10:54 am
I’m no lawyer, but I’ve read the opinion that a jury trial is a collective right of the people-to eliminate a jury trial for someone powerful would allow back door, secret deals. Incorporation didn’t seem that clearcut. I’m less sure of the 5th, unless the debate was allow the states to define a “capital, or otherwise infamous crime”. But perhaps you’re right, more liberal courts will push in any direction for a desired outcome.
RE no permit, you’re setting the celebration bar pretty high-that would mean “keep and bear” actually means “keep and bear”. The narrow ruling against a handgun ban would make me happy, any small step. A giant leap, however, would aid against the court getting only more statest.
Hopefully my hero, Justice Thomas is feeling frisky and convincing.
June 19th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Do you have a link? I can’t fathom any court seriously arguing that a right to a trial by jury is anything more or less than an individual right, personal to the litigant. In any event, incorporation and individual rights are not the same thing. We may reach that point in the future, but it’s never been the law in the U.S. before, and it’s not really something you can blame the liberals on. AFAIK Justice Thomas is the only Justice who has opined in recent years that anything in the Bill of Rights resists incorporation. That’s why I said we may well win both issues 5-4, but not the same 5. I trust the conservatives to get the individual right, but I’m more inclined to trust the liberals on the question of incorporation.
June 19th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Higher, actually, as they’d also have to rule that “infringed” means “regulated in any way, shape or form.” I’m not holding my breath.
June 20th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
I don’t know about a ruling but I read it in “The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction” by Akhil Reed Amar-who’s liberal but held his nose and argued the 2nd A is an individual right. He mentioned the arguement re jury trial, at least to say rulings that a bench trial was an individual right were questionable in his opinion. Not necessarily a State decision, but a collective right of the people to have a jury observe. Sunlight being the best disinfectant.
RE “infringed”, the bigger definition is of bearable arms. In my most anarchistic moment I feel squad “bearable’ arms are fine, and maybe a personnel carrier. But somewhere short of anthrax laden cruise missles, theres a limit to arms for a militia. Call me a very very small state libertarian, but yikes.
June 20th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
I don’t doubt that Professor Amar questioned the notion that a bench trial is an individual right. The reason has nothing to do with individual vs. collective rights, and everything to do with the fact that there is no constitutional right to a trial not by jury.