D.C.'s gun ban gets its day in court

[jmarriott]

"This may be one of the only cases in our lifetime when the Supreme Court is going to be interpreting the meaning of an important provision of the Constitution unencumbered by precedent,''

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23656329

[denton]

The odds in favor of an "individual right" ruling are pretty good, I think. The skunk at the picnic is the brief filed by the Solicitor General, favoring an individual right, but not making gun laws subject to "strict scrutiny" as other fundamental rights are. In other words, it's an individual right, but the government can do almost anything it wants to limit the right. I don't think SCOTUS will buy that, but we shall see.

Oral arguments on Tuesday, decision by about the end of June.

[Dan Morris]

We can but pray they see the 2d Amt as we do!
Dan

[fabsroman]

I honestly think that there is a huge number of Americans that see the 2nd Amendment as an individual right. So much so, that if the SCOTUS were to hold that it wasn't, we could put an Amendment to the Constitution on the ballot and it would pass by the 2/3's needed.

[DON WALKUP]

i, for one, am not going to "hold my breath" waiting for their decision.

while i hold this supreme court in much higher regard than before pres bush made his appointments, i still do not think they'll make it decisive in favor of gun owners. there will be words like "reasonable" or "protective" in play that will still leave it wide open for anti's.

too many anti's have a fear they (the supreme court ruling might result in a sweeping removal or blocking of much anti-gun legislation) will lose all they've "gained".

there are still too many who will do what they wish and call it "public saftey". california's jerry brown is a perfect example.