DC appeals Parker case to SCOTUS

This is a discussion on DC appeals Parker case to SCOTUS within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by mcp1810 I don't have the history of the court memorized or at hand, but I will say these are definitely interesting times! ...

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 48

Thread: DC appeals Parker case to SCOTUS

  1. #31
    VIP Member
    Array dr_cmg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    10,808
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    I don't have the history of the court memorized or at hand, but I will say these are definitely interesting times! As I recall, historically the court found ways to avoid directly ruling on state right vs individual right several times. As I see it they have a couple of easy ways out if they so choose. They can simply refuse the case and let the lower court's ruling stand. This as I understand it would really have minimal impact outside that circuit. Lawyers could cite it in support of their arguments, but the other circuits would not be obliged to follow it. Or, they could rule that since only one of the original complainants had standing, and was a resident of D.C. which is not a state, there can not be a state militia for him to join, so the ban is legal. That would mean nothing to those of us that live outside of D.C. because we could all in theory join our state's militia in time of need. If they did that it would still leave the state right versus individual right open for interpretation. Or as was said before, they could rule that D.C. is simply a federal reservation, like a military base and thereby prohibit all private ownership of weapons in the city, but still leaving the big questions unanswered for the rest of the country.
    If the court gives us any of these half rulings, like they have traditionally done, we might still be making the same arguments in front of Justice Feinstein and Justice Schumer ten years from now.
    The question concerning militia does not concern state militia or the National Guard. DC has tried to make the argument that the militia in the 2nd Amendment is the National Guard of each state. This argument has been rejected previously by SCOTUS. Their reasoning is that the National Guard did not come into existence until the Militia Act of 1903. Instead it has been ruled that the militia in question is the militia mentioned in the Militia Act of 1792 and subsequent revisions. The 1792 act stated that the militia was made up of all free able-bodied white male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45. This has been amended, but a militia that is made up of able-bodied citizens is still defined in current law.

    I mentioned Judge Silberman's opinion above. Everyone should read through it. After you get past the part about who has standing Silberman takes every argument DC or anyone else has made to try to redefine the Second Amendment and slices it to ribbons. He site the founders, federal statute, and other sources then with simple reasoning makes a case for the position the court took. He also anticipated each argument that Judge Henderson would make in her dissenting opinion and efficiently demolishes them. If you have not read his opinion you owe it to yourself to spend the time necessary to read it. Skip through the early part about standing and get into the real meat of the decision and you will see that he did his homework when he prepared the statement.
    George

    Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. Albert Einstein

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    Senior Member Array jualdeaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Waponi Woo
    Posts
    1,045
    yep. Page 17. They do mention the AG memorandum. I thought all that sounded very familiar.

  4. #33
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    I do not find this disturbing at all. Virtually every decision the SCOTUS has handed down concerning the 2A has been that it is an individual right. There are good books on the subject and this website provides a brief synopsis of some SCOTUS opinions:

    http://www.davidkopel.com/2A/lawrev/35finalpartone.htm

    I do agree that Washington DC is a completely different animal than the states and *this particular case* is likely to be treated as such.

    Still, the absolute worst that can happen is that the states will regulate an individual's God given right to bear arms. As we have seen, the states have recently leaned towards 'Castle Doctrines', CCW, and other gun friendly legislation. The anti-gun states have not been swayed by the clear and obvious meaning of the Second Amendment in any event. At worst, nothing will change.

    At best, it will establish precedent (again DC is not a state) so that the unconstitutional prohibitions on guns in the 'may issue' states may effectively be challenged.

  5. #34
    Member Array landelmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    OK
    Posts
    25
    I don't comment much but if the court does rule the other way we might need to unite and make some changes in the government. If the 2nd is ruled anything different than what we know it means or what the founding fathers ment it to mean, the rest of The Bill of Rights will soon be rewriten also...

  6. #35
    VIP Member Array Redneck Repairs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    5,133
    but if the court does rule the other way we might need to unite and make some changes in the government.
    As long as you speak to the ballet box , not the bullet box i tend to agree that a grassroots surge would be a good idea .
    Make sure you get full value out of today , Do something worthwhile, because what you do today will cost you one day off the rest of your life .
    We only begin to understand folks after we stop and think .

    Criminals are looking for victims, not opponents.

  7. #36
    Member Array Protect's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tulsa, OK
    Posts
    302
    Quote Originally Posted by dr_cmg View Post
    opinion above. Everyone should read through it. After you get past the part about who has standing Silberman takes every argument DC or anyone else has made to try to redefine the Second Amendment and slices it to ribbons. He site the founders, federal statute, and other sources then with simple reasoning makes a case for the position the court took. He also anticipated each argument that Judge Henderson would make in her dissenting opinion and efficiently demolishes them. If you have not read his opinion you owe it to yourself to spend the time necessary to read it. Skip through the early part about standing and get into the real meat of the decision and you will see that he did his homework when he prepared the statement.
    It is an excellent read.

    I very much like how it points out the fallacies of 2 of the schools of thought and points out that the Bill of Rights is almost universally referring to individual rights not collective rights.
    "When a man attempts to deal with me by force, I answer himóby force.
    "... No, I do not share his evil or sink to his concept of morality: I merely grant him his choice, destruction, the only destruction he had the right to choose: his own." -John Galt, Atlas Shrugged

  8. #37
    Senior Member Array Shadowsbane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,051
    Hmm....Time to roll the dice I guess.

    Someone once said that "Sometimes it is better to light the flamethrower than to curse the darkness"

    If this does blow up in our faces at least we will know where everything stands. Better a quick death than the slow rotting we are facing now.
    Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men.

    www.Lonelymountainleather.com

  9. #38
    Senior Member Array Musketeer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    701
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowsbane View Post
    Hmm....Time to roll the dice I guess.

    Someone once said that "Sometimes it is better to light the flamethrower than to curse the darkness"

    If this does blow up in our faces at least we will know where everything stands. Better a quick death than the slow rotting we are facing now.
    This is a misconception. RIght now there are 38 states with Shall Issue laws. How many were there 20 years ago. Right now the AWB is dead in all but a few states with their own, where were we 10 years ago. Plenty has gone right in the last 10 years.

    The court needs no logic or reason at all for its decision. All it takes is five justices who believe Americans should not be allowe to own guns. There is no appeal and not punishment for the justice who decides based on personal opinion. Unaccountable Judiciary at its worst. Remember we have several justices placed by people who never saw a piece of legislation they didn't like, that includes Bush's appointees Alito and Roberts. We really do not know where they stand. We thought Bush was conservative at one time... These guys could have no problem stripping rights from people to enhance gov't control.

    I hope we win but it is a gamble I would not have chosen to make with the uncertain make up of the court.

    Think of this one... this started in 2003 when O'Connor was on the bench! What ruling did the SAF think they would get in pushing a case in front of PTA president O'Connor?

  10. #39
    Member Array vernonator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    347
    Quote Originally Posted by dr_cmg View Post
    Kelo v. City of New London was in 2005. There is a different court in place now. Kelo also focused a whole lot of unwanted attention on the SCOTUS and the current members don't want that to happen again. The decision will be better worded and better rendered than the Kelo decision no matter which way it goes.
    I hope you are right...and I do agree that this is a MUCH different court than the one that handed down the Kelo decision. But predicting how the SCOTUS will go is a very difficult task.

  11. #40
    Member Array landelmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    OK
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Redneck Repairs View Post
    As long as you speak to the ballet box , not the bullet box i tend to agree that a grassroots surge would be a good idea .
    Please don't get me wrong, but if that is what it takes then we must act. I would perfer the ballot box though.

    Our founding fathers were facing this very same question over 200 years ago. The choices made were not easy.
    I am tired of voteing and getting nowhere. All these guys on the hill could care less about The People once they get their cushy new position and bennies in DC.

  12. #41
    Member Array vernonator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    347
    The tree of liberty must at times be renewed with the blood of tyrants and patriots. It is its natural manure....Thomas Jefferson

  13. #42
    VIP Member Array peacefuljeffrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    south Florida
    Posts
    3,168
    Quote Originally Posted by packinnova View Post
    Yeah...I'm both nervous and excited at the same time!
    Me too.

    It's really hard to imagine them coming back with an anti-individual-rights ruling, though.

    I mean, on one side, you have truth, logic, historical documents, and a mountain of scholarly research, as well as the incredibly articulate and thorough legal statements of the courts in the 5th circuit case from a few years ago and from this recent case. On the other side, you have anti-gun hysterical, easily dispelled LIES, and other NONSENSE.

    Any court decision that goes the anti-gunners' way is usually wholly transparent as a fraud and a fix. Let's hope the USSC doesn't have the balls, much less the desire, to pull that kind of thing.

  14. #43
    VIP Member Array peacefuljeffrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    south Florida
    Posts
    3,168
    Quote Originally Posted by dr_cmg View Post
    He also anticipated each argument that Judge Henderson would make in her dissenting opinion and efficiently demolishes them.
    This makes one wonder how she can sit as a judge with any credibility whatsoever. When one earnestly stands behind a position that ends up thoroughly discredited and debunked, why should anyone say, "Oh, her? Yeah, she's still okay to be rendering legal decisions from the bench."

    I mean, when you come out and steadfastly maintain something that is demonstrably baloney, how can you remain a judge?! Her arguments are factually erroneous! What other legal decisions has she rendered that are invalid on their face, and also based on as much legal muckitymuck?!

  15. #44
    Member Array RandyC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    39
    The lower courts are all over the map on this individual rights issue.

    I think the Supreme Court will take this on to make a definitive ruling. It's long past time to do this and the current make-up of the court gives us our best chance in decades.

    You think we're nervous? The Brady Bunch is hearing the creaks of a roof that could very well fall in on them.

  16. #45
    Senior Member Array Musketeer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    701
    Quote Originally Posted by RandyC View Post
    You think we're nervous? The Brady Bunch is hearing the creaks of a roof that could very well fall in on them.
    Unless the SCOTUS were to say that the 2A means unrestricted ownership and carrying of fireamrs by all citizens the Brady Bunch will still have plenty to do.

    IF we win we will win with the reasonable and strict scrutiny requiremetns added to any "infringing" legislation. The Bradys will then be able to raise money left and right to support legislation that they will say is reasonable and passes the strict scrutiny requirements. There will still be anti legislation proposed, passed and encofrced, it will then have to go to court to be struck down as long as the judge doesn't rule from a sense of moral superiority. It will go on and on and on and on...

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. THE MAN BEHIND PARKER-HELLER Vs. DC AT SCOTUS
    By cagueits in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 6th, 2007, 08:11 PM
  2. Woohoo!!! SCOTUS Take the Case.
    By CT-Mike in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 20th, 2007, 04:12 PM
  3. Another Case For The SCOTUS?
    By ronwill in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: November 16th, 2007, 08:44 PM
  4. Well, they did it... DC Asks SCOTUS to take Parker
    By Bob The Great in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: September 8th, 2007, 12:58 PM
  5. Appeals court refuses to rehear Parker!
    By Blackeagle in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: May 9th, 2007, 04:28 PM