SCOTUS on 2A D.C. Case

[GOAL]

I am not sure if this is posted anywhere else, but I keep hearing from many people that the Heller case is an up or down vote and will settle the question on our 2nd Amendment rights.

That may or may not be an accurate assesment of the question. Please read the question that the court is considering very carefully. Notice the use of the terms "militia" and "use in their homes."

Imagine if court issued a one word answer "yes". (courts never do that) What would that mean?

One attorney I spoke to who represents the California Rifle and Pistol Association called this case the "attorney employment act of the next decade." Because of the way the court framed the question, any ruling they might make could take years to figure out what it means.

The actual question reads:

"Whether the following provisions - D.C. Code §§ 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?"

You can also track this case at: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/07-290.htm

 

[szaino]

So, If the court said "Yes", then DC could interpret "private use in their homes" , to mean just that, and not allow any CCW, or possession outside their home in any public area.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The court could also rule in favor of the plaintiff, and leave the entire question about the ability of individual states to issue handgun bans, or delegate the authority to do so to individual cities and towns (as IL does) unanswered.

This case is very interesting because of the distinct difference between what the constitution requires and desired social policy (in the case of the Democrats, gun control; in the case of the Republicans, greater government authority).

The options for the court are to come up with a ruling that is consistent with the constitution but is so obfuscated that it has little practical application; issue a ruling that results in a fundamental reduction in government power; or issue a contorted ruling that preserves existing government powers.

 

[LoginName]

Another link with all the detailed info (it's run by Alan Gura... lead consul for Heller)...

http://www.dcguncase.com/blog

 

[John2]

Its a "well regulated Militia", not a State regulated Militia. And Washington D.C. is not a state, its a district. So how could any finding for a district be applicable to the States? SCOTUS will have to examine the Second Amendment on the grounds how it affects the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" irrespective of where the arms are kept (district or State) or purpose (Militia / personal protection). Too much is always read into the Second Amendmendment. It means what it says. ALL able bodied people (constitute the Militia), and shall not be infringed. All that is needed is SCOTUS intestinal fortitude to go against the anti-gun/Anti-American crowd and silence them once and for all. I don't see anything coming of this. I see another copout.

 

[pdm]

Heller will apply only to the federal government, unless the Justices decide to expand the scope of their ruling (not likely). It will be the next case that uses the precedent of Heller to try and incorporate the 2A against the states. Whether this is a good or bad thing is the great question. What if MA-style regulations are considered constitutional?

 

[Jose]

What if MA-style regulations are considered constitutional?

I highly doubt it judging by the narrow scope of restrictions applied to other rights that have been incorporated.