The above case (08-1521) was heard at oral arguments back in March. The SCOTUS ruling is to be announced either tomorrow, 6/21 or next week, 6/28, the last two days for rulings to be announced prior to the Court going on recess for the summer, if the Court follows their own calendar.
It will be interesting to see how the Court rules and their reasoning. They've already ruled in Heller that firearm ownership is an individual right. I cannot imagine that they would say that a right exists only on Federal land and not in the states or cities. This would mean that they would rule either on the basis of Due Process, on the basis of Privileges or Immunities, or on some combination of the two. Based on their questions and on the testimony, I rather expect they will choose to rule on the basis of DP. I think there might be a concurrent opinion also affirming the right, but on the basis of P or I. From what little I've read, some of the libby Left faction of the Court might actually affirm the Right against the States, incorporating it on these grounds because of future gains that they would like to see that could also become a reality under P or I, such as same-sex marriage. I can say I'd very much like to see McDonald decided in favor of the 2A being incorporated by a larger margin than was Heller.
Discuss.
Blessings,
Bill
It will be interesting to see how the Court rules and their reasoning. They've already ruled in Heller that firearm ownership is an individual right. I cannot imagine that they would say that a right exists only on Federal land and not in the states or cities. This would mean that they would rule either on the basis of Due Process, on the basis of Privileges or Immunities, or on some combination of the two. Based on their questions and on the testimony, I rather expect they will choose to rule on the basis of DP. I think there might be a concurrent opinion also affirming the right, but on the basis of P or I. From what little I've read, some of the libby Left faction of the Court might actually affirm the Right against the States, incorporating it on these grounds because of future gains that they would like to see that could also become a reality under P or I, such as same-sex marriage. I can say I'd very much like to see McDonald decided in favor of the 2A being incorporated by a larger margin than was Heller.
Discuss.
Blessings,
Bill