DC Gun Case
 

SCOTUS has said that "all remaining decisions" will be announced at 10:00 Eastern tomorrow, June 26.

If you go to scotusblog you will see the announcement immediately after it happens.

It is widely believed that Scalia will author the opinion. If you like prognostications, here is one that you'll probably enjoy. Scalia is likely to give gun owners a big win, but unlikely to make the ruling binding on the states. That means that someone will have to go after the Chicago ban. Fortunately, that is widely held to be a gimme putt if we win tomorrow as expected.

Note the comments in the Scalia article about the AWB.

denton,

When you see the opinion tomorrow, can you send me a link so that I can look at it. I'm pretty sure I could find it myself, but tomorrow is going to be a busy day for me.

As far as the AWB bill is concerned, I cannot believe that Congress is trying to pass that BS after SCOTUS hinted at what its ruling was going to be in this 2nd Amendment case. Honestly, there has been a recent reduction in crime and that is after the AWB was allowed to sunset. As I am frantically trying to buy an AR-15 and an AR-10, I am hoping that Congress doesn't pass the AWB, or if it does, that the President will veto it.

Now, I also read a portion of a book called Freakonomics, which was pretty good. It attributes the reduction in crime to Roe v. Wade wherein abortion was legalized. Supposedly, the children that would have been aborted right after Roe v. Wade would be of the average criminal age today. So, with an increase in abortions, there have been less children that have grown up in a setting that fosters crime.

The more you read, the more it makes you wonder.

I'll post the results here soon after they are announced.

The link for scotusblog is http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/ .

You're also probably aware of http://www.volokh.com/ which will also have good insight soon after the results are posted.

The author of the Scalia article believes that a Scalia authored opinion would probably bar the AWB (ban the ban??). And it appears that our man Scalia will be the author of the opinion.

I can't say that I've studied the man in depth, but what I've heard from him I've just loved. He's serious about the Constitution meaning what it says.

The radio mentioned today that Scalia will write the opinion but didn't know if he would be writing the majority or minority opinion.
So I'm not holding my breath...

Scalia is very likely to write the opinion for the majority, and it is likely to be a hum-dinger.

I'll go out on a limb and predict the following:

1. A clear-cut holding that 2A protects an individual right.

2. A clear-cut holding that laws limiting this right are subject to strict scrutiny. That is, there must be a compelling government interest in limiting the right, and the law must be as narrowly tailored as possible to obtain that interest.

3. No 2A coverage for machine guns. Alan Gura conceded that during orals. It pissed off a lot of machine gun owners, but it was the right thing to do.

4. The result is not yet binding on state laws. That issue was not in play in this case. That will be won in a suit challenging something like Chicago's gun ban, and it will be an easy win. But it is appropriate that that issue is handled separately.

Here is a passage from Scalia's book, if it gives you any comfort:

The part about not being a limitation on the states should not worry you. All he's doing is stating that incorporation through the 14th is not automatic.

OTH, we may get more than one surprise tomorrow....

We won!!! A 5-4 decsion, which was closer than we'd hope or like, but a win is a win.

Full text of the decision here (157-page PDF):

SCOTUSBLOG

:D :D :D
Dan

Here is what I've gathered from reading the opinion, and from various comments on legal boards:

1. This is a very scholarly, strong opinion. Scalia could probably have written something a little weaker, and gotten a 6-3 or 7-2 decision. But he didn't. He gave is the most favorable opinion he could, and still get 5 votes. For the most part, it does not matter how big the victory was, though all 9 justices seemed to agree on the concept of an individual right. SCOTUS will only reverse or overrule itself with great reluctance. The decision is a legal Rock of Gibraltar.

2. Individuals have the right to have operable handguns, shotguns, and rifles in their homes. No federal law can interfere with this right. Laws requiring firearms to be locked or disassembled are out. The question of whether they can carry them about in public places was not addressed.

3. Machine guns do not have protection under the Second Amendment. Gura conceded this point in his orals, and that seriously ticked off a lot of machine gun owners. It was the right thing to do, though. If he had tried to include MGs, we would not have gotten this decision.

4. The decision is not yet binding on states and cities. The case was brought in DC specifically so that the issue of incorporation would not be on the table (made the victory easier to get). That will quickly follow as that NRA files its announced suits against San Francisco, Chicago, and others.

5. We did not get a statement of the level of scrutiny on laws limiting RKBA. That will also follow in subsequent decisions. The Justices left the door open to further cases.

6. Traditional gun laws, such as background checks, are not touched by this decision.

7. It's a huge win. We got pretty much everything that was on the table in this game. We now have that in our pocket and the wind at our back. Still, there is more left to be done than has been done. This could well be re-named the Law Clerks and Attorneys Full Employment Guarantee Decision.

My guesses/estimates:

We will quickly win incorporation against the states and the laws in Chicago will quickly fall.

The AWB would be unconstitutional under this ruling.

We will get a ruling that sets strict scrutiny as the standard for laws limiting RKBA.

Back-door ploys like banning ammunition will fare no better than mandatory locks did.

We will see 20-30 years of decisions re-drawing the boundaries. These will be largely in our favor.

Machine guns may get some 2A protection. The standard for protected arms is basically "those arms commonly owned by law-abiding people". Why are machine guns not commonly owned by law-abiding people? Because the government has made it nearly impossible. No fair!

Mayor Fenty will be tarred and feathered by his fellow gun-grabbers, and ridden out of town on a rail for ever going forward with this. Well, in their hearts at least. The rest of us can just laugh at him, which is what he deserves.

That would seem greatly dependent on who is appointed to fill the next few vacancies on the Supreme Court.

What I don't understand is how the gun control nuts continue to say that they want to restrict or ban handguns to keep us safe. Right now pot, heroin, cocaine, etc are all illegal but criminals still get their hands on drugs. If handguns are banned honest citizens (which most folks are) will be left with no way to defend themselves. It's been said many times "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns". I guess I'll be an outlaw at that point.

Dear Sarah Brady and ilk,

Go to Heller.

Sincerely,

The good guys

LOL, as to the warnings.."The streets will flow with blood"...
I've talked to customers in 6 states......gutters are NOT red!!!!!
Dan
:cool:

Honestly, this will have almost no effect on crime that we can see short term. Long term, it might just help to deter it a lot. People are nuts. Do they think that law abiding citizens are going to go out there and just start shooting one another because of this decision. I think the biggest problem with the antis is that they have no idea what a gun is, or how to use one. It is so foreign to them that they just want to do away with all of them.

I hope the rulings continue to be favorable for us and that the crime rate continues to drop.

You have to love Obama. Obviously I'm kidding. The thing that bothers me about a lot of politicians is that they cannot take their own stance on things. In fact, they can barely take any stance whatsoever. I still don't know why the government doesn't ask the people what we want via the poles. Just put stuff on the ballot so we can tell them our position. Then, they can work on getting done what the majority wants (e.g., gun issues, illegal immigration, transportation, taxes).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080627/...andidates_guns

Heller etc
 

I am so happy that the Supremes found in favor of the 2nd amendment. 5-4?? That is the only part that I find ridiculous. Those 4 must have blinders on. Time to file all those suits ...like in Morton Grove and such places