DC v Heller
The usual cast of gunloons are jibber-jabbering away with excitement; they believe an overwhelmingly conservative SCOTUS is going to give them something that’s never existed: a constitutional right to a firearm.
To do this, the SCOTUS will have to overturn about 150 years of precedence and given Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts are largely political hacks, it’s not a stretch to imagine them doing so.
Thus, I make several predictions:
1.) No matter what the result, gunloons will hail the decision as a victory greater than V-J and V-E Days.
2.) SCOTUS will produce a very mixed message; it will assert an individual right to firearms but will permit localities great latitude in regulation. This could mean the DC handgun ban stays in place.
3.) See (1); there will be a brave face put on this by gunloons–but they will be very, very unhappy.
Looks like we basically agree on the outcome… SCOTUS will find for an “individual right” that doesn’t mean anything.
What bothers me about this possibility isn’t gun-related at all… In fact, it is the concept that the term “individual right” can mean something other than a right which belongs to the individual. In the case you suggest, an individual right which cannot be exercised… how is that a right at all?
Comment by Gregory Morris — March 17, 2008 @ 8:02 pm
GM: Much in the same way as speech. The fact the 2a was never intended to address individual rights. As such, you’re going to wind up with something for everyone and no one satisfied.
Comment by Administrator — March 17, 2008 @ 8:48 pm
“To do this, the SCOTUS will have to overturn about 150 years of precedence”
It’s interesting that most of the neutral media reporting on the case claims a “blank slate” etc on the issue, and that Miller was “inconclusive” etc. The only “reporting” on the case that that claims “about 150 years of precedence” is from unabashedly anti-gunowner sources.
“Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts are largely political hacks”
What an interesting coincidence that every Justice with conservative leanings is labled a “political hack” by you. And those 4 alone can’t produce the result you seem to expect.
“No matter what the result, gunloons will hail the decision as a victory greater than V-J and V-E Days”
Wrong — a ruling against an individual right will not be so hailed. Do you consider such a result that unlikely as to discount it so?
“SCOTUS will produce a very mixed message; it will assert an individual right to firearms but will permit localities great latitude in regulation.”
Most scholar and gunowner advocates who expect the Court to assert an individual right to firearms also expect it will permit localities some latitude in regulation — how “great” that latitude is the big question, and the Court may not even decide that in this decision. Is probably is safe to say however that some gunowner advocates will be disappointed.
“This could mean the DC handgun ban stays in place.”
That result, not impossible, would be most disappointing to gunowners. It would be interesting to then see just what the Court thinks that the 2nd A individual right actually does prohibit.
Comment by JayF — March 19, 2008 @ 4:10 pm
I like how you refer to the other side as “gunloons,” that really brings a level of objectiveness, credibility and lack-of-agenda to your argument.
…
Oh, wait… it actually doesn’t. Grow up.
Comment by A_Pickle — April 11, 2008 @ 11:27 am
Two (and a half) questions.
1) Do you have support for your claim that there is no constitutional right to a firearm?
2) What constitutes 150 years of precedent? (And a half) What are your opinions on case law?
Thanks,
Brian
Comment by Brian — May 30, 2008 @ 10:17 am
Funny thing; the likely outcome of DC v Heller looks about the same from both ends; i.e.,
1.) No matter what the result, gun control advocates will hail the decision as a victory greater than V-J and V-E Days.
2.) SCOTUS will produce a very mixed message; it will assert an individual right to firearms but will permit localities great latitude in regulation. This could mean the DC handgun ban stays in place.
3.) See (1); there will be a brave face put on this by gun controllers–but they will be very, very unhappy.
Comment by rocinante — June 23, 2008 @ 2:36 pm
The “collective right” and “individual right” interpretations of the Second Amendment do not need to be mutually exclusive. Historically speaking, Militias were composed of private citizens supplying their own arms and ammunition. Much of the judicial precedent may remain intact by clarifying that the state militia is the purpose for the preservation of an individual right.
Comment by Ishpeck — June 23, 2008 @ 3:26 pm
“The fact the 2a was never intended to address individual rights.”
Riiiight. Just like the first was never meant to protect an individual right to free speech.
Question, how many times did you have to repeat that before you convinced yourself of it?
Comment by theirritablearchitect — June 25, 2008 @ 10:38 am