Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Guns Supreme Court could take guns case

Well...yah... I believe I said "make...decisions". Does interpretation only qualify as "making" law if you disagree with the interpretation. Interpretation does imply more than one possible outcome...more than one possible decision...doesn't it?

The Supreme Court doesn't "interpret our laws". (The laws are generally written in English. )

The Supreme Court does judge the constitutionality of our laws. So the only thing they are interpreting is the US Constitution.

Too bad they decided not to take this case. Its just going to rattle around in the lower courts in various incarnations until the SC says either "The 2nd amendment means anybody can have any weapon." or "The 2nd amendment applies only to the state National Guard units."

Either way will lead immediately to another amendment that DOES specify precisely the rights of certain classes of individuals to own certain types of weapons without the interferance of government and law. Then the classes of individuals and weapons that could be regulated by the government will be clear.

I would support an amendment that lets everybody without a criminal record own pepper spray weapons, air guns that can only shoot rubber bullets or beanbags, and non-lethal electric stun guns, all without any licensing or registration. Sling shots and bows would be classified as lethal weapons (along with everything else that shoots real bullets or shot, explodes, poisons, irradiates, etc. which could be regulated by state or district laws.

Had the Supreme Court decided to take the D.C. gun ban case and interpreted the Second Amendment as it was written and understood by the authors of the Bill of Rights they would rule the D.C. gun ban un-Constitutional. A group of men who had just won their freedom are not going to write a law that makes illegal, the right to keep and bear arms, the tools that had won them their freedom.

Washington Post

It was noted just today that the Supreme Court may issue an opinion in time to affect the 2008 election. Coincidence? I think not. As if 2000 were not bad enough.... They want to politicize the Court yet again, just in time to stir up the conservative base. But it is a non-partisan institution, right? (or is that far right?)

On the merits, I think D.C. has a losing position - but not because I believe that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right (a position that I have changed from as a result of further study). Rather, I think, D.C. would lose because it is a federal entity, and not a State or State subdivision. The Second Amendment is only a restriction on the federal government, and not the States. That, of course, is why this particular forum was chosen. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's "reworking" of the "question presented" - including some "presumptive" language - has tipped the hand of the conservative Justices. They think they know they have the votes, given Justice Kennedy's position in United States v. Lopez 514 U.S. 549 (1995). I think they may be surprised.

Here is a good link for documents in the case: D.C. v. Heller - SCOTUSWiki
And here's some more info/analysis: Court agrees to rule on gun case - SCOTUS Blog

Personally I believe that the Supremes are in a position to nail the lid shut on the Second Amendment coffin so that when things get bad enough for Americans to finally get "mad as hell", they won't be able to do anything except whine about it.

The ruling will come down against the Second Amendment's constitutionality, and there will no longer be any more obstacles against the implementation of the NAU and eventually the OWG.

And of course the Joe Horn case will be liberally sprinkled throughout by the media as a scare tactic.

JeffH in Occupied TX

Actually, the "new left modern liberal" sees the Supreme Court as an ally when it is circumventing the will of the people in favor of 'progressive' issues and an enemy if it allows the Constitution -- especially the spirit of the Constitution -- to overly influence a decision antithetical to the NLML position (i.e. when they don't 'own' the court).

The modern faux conservative movement sees the Supreme Court as ally when it ignores the Constitution -- especially the spirit of the Constitution -- and bows to the will of the "Leader" and the State, and an enemy when it adheres to Constititional principle and fails to grant the leader what he wants (i.e. when they don't 'own' the court).

Being less biased, I see the Supreme Court as a pack of hired political jackels selected from the legal industry who will act as a bulwark in protecting the interests of the establishment while sticking a well-licked finger in the air to see which way the public flatulence is blowing.;-)
Yours,
Issodhos

OMG, we agree again Issodhos