SCOTUS-McDonald

[Seancass]

THANK YOU BILL!!!!


My interpretation from reading was that the court was almost eager to take the due-process clause, while thinking the PorI clause would be rediculous(basically). Do you think the court is taking the easy way out here? They think this should happen, but they want to make sure it happens in a very controlled way? If they let PorI happen, then they open up a can of worms, people saying "It's my RIGHT to have a machine gun!" If they let due-process happen, the court can just say "You can't BAN handguns."

Am in interpreting this legal mumbo-jumbo correctly?

 

[evansvillethompsongunner]

FTR, even if they don't base it on due process, we still will not have the unshackled, unrestrained 2A... There is simply no way that this court, even Scalia, will overturn NFA 1934.

With that said, I've not watched these issues as long as some have, but from what I've seen, courts, and most especially SCOTUS, is very VERY loath to overturn precedent. Stare decisis is the term they use (Latin for "it has already been decided") They want one HELL of a good reason to do that, in part because, as in the Slaughter-House cases' situation Justice Scalia noted that 140 years of precedent would then be overturned. Based on what I've read, I don't expect them to take the "privileges or immunities" clause on. In my non-professional opinion, Gura didn't make the case for that, and perhaps in part, that's because Clement took up some of his time. That said, however, I didn't read his amicus brief, so I don't know if he made a better case there. If they DO go with PorI, it will be absolutely effing HUGE, but I don't see them rocking that boat. I'm not getting my hopes up only to be let down... but if I expect a little and get a lot, I will be thrilled.

We shall see, and time will tell.

Blessings,
Bill

Thanks for the insight, Bill. I hadn't expected them to actually do the right thing, but I was reviewing the S.Ct. blag and it was looking even worse. I'm well-acquainted with stare decisis, as precedent is the foundation of our legal system, but I was hoping they'd implement the more sweeping change and overturn Slaughterhouse... just as they did with Plessy v. Ferguson and other blatantly-egregious cases. Oh well. I guess I'll have to settle with a less radical route to freedom. Bit by bit, the river shall carve rock.

Still, won't it be a good day when you can walk around the neighborhood and see everyone with a rifle slung over their shoulder and a pistol on their hip without need of government blessing...

 

[Bubba]

FTR, even if they don't base it on due process, we still will not have the unshackled, unrestrained 2A... There is simply no way that this court, even Scalia, will overturn NFA 1934.

With that said, I've not watched these issues as long as some have, but from what I've seen, courts, and most especially SCOTUS, is very VERY loath to overturn precedent. Stare decisis is the term they use (Latin for "it has already been decided") They want one HELL of a good reason to do that, in part because, as in the Slaughter-House cases' situation Justice Scalia noted that 140 years of precedent would then be overturned. Based on what I've read, I don't expect them to take the "privileges or immunities" clause on. In my non-professional opinion, Gura didn't make the case for that, and perhaps in part, that's because Clement took up some of his time. That said, however, I didn't read his amicus brief, so I don't know if he made a better case there. If they DO go with PorI, it will be absolutely effing HUGE, but I don't see them rocking that boat. I'm not getting my hopes up only to be let down... but if I expect a little and get a lot, I will be thrilled.

We shall see, and time will tell.

Blessings,
Bill

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1521_Petitionernew.pdf
I'm just starting to slog through it, but from the ToC it appears Gura spent considerably more time arguing P or I (54 pages vs. 7 pages on Due Process) in his written brief.

 

[Bill of Rights]

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1521_Petitionernew.pdf
I'm just starting to slog through it, but from the ToC it appears Gura spent considerably more time arguing P or I (54 pages vs. 7 pages on Due Process) in his written brief.

Sorry, I should have been more clear; From my read of it, Gura made plenty of arguments in favor of PorI, but I don't believe he convinced the Justices that that was the proper reasoning to invalidate Chicago's gun ban. I think their minds were made up before the opening gavel that they would not be invalidating the Slaughter-House cases, though I think they were probably already pretty sure that they would incorporate the 2A.

Thanks for pointing out the gap between what I was thinking and what I actually wrote.

Blessings,
Bill