Expected 2nd Amendment Decision Due

[Kreyzhorse]

It's expected that the Supreme Court will release their opinion on the DC gun ban case this week. I'm not sure why, but I feel pretty confident that they will affirm that the 2nd Amendment refers to the individual rights to keep and bear arms.

What does everyone else think?

 

[gvf]

Where did you get info decision will be this week?

 

[Musketeer]

50% this week, 50% next.

I think it will be affirmed as an individual right. The issue will be the level of scrutiny to be applied to any regulation of it and who has the power to regulate.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

I watched Fox News for three hours this morning because they rumored they were expecting the Heller case decision to be imminent. All I got was two hours of the same Iowa flood footage over and over again.

I think it will be affirmed an individual right, but that a standard will be set to allow "reasonable" restrictions on the right, which will pretty much put us back to where we are now.

 

[thrgunsmith]

Yeah, I know what you mean

All I got was two hours of the same Iowa flood footage over and over again.

and the other network was all Tim Russert all the time.
(I hear he is still dead)

I didn't bother, next week go (6-19-08) to scotusblog.com at 10am eastern time and watch the little box on the left.

 

[mountainclmbr]

I heard that there was another SCOTUS decision due to be announced 6-18-08 at 10:00 am, but no mention if it would be Heller or something else.

 

[thrgunsmith]

from scotusblog

- The Court will next release opinions at 10 a.m. on Thursday, June 19.

The Supreme Court of the United States (sometimes colloquially referred to by the acronym SCOTUS

I am relatively certain they only release decisions on Mondays and Thursdays.

6-18 is a Wednesday.

I heard that there was another SCOTUS decision due to be announced 6-18-08 at 10:00 am, but no mention if it would be Heller or something else.

 

[IncendiumX]

I have said it before, but i'll say it again. The GITMO ruling makes me extremely nervous about Heller. That being said, i dont think they are foolish enough to thrust this country into civil war, which is exactly what will happen (see Montana)

 

[sholling]

It really could go either way. There are at least four members with zero interest in what the framers intended - except where it furthers their big government leftist ideology. We have a fence sitter that loves the power and attention that being the swing vote gets him and milks it for all it's worth. We have at least two that are big government right wingers. That leaves us with no more than two that give a rat's tail what the founders intended.

 

[divemedic]

The GITMO ruling makes me extremely nervous about Heller.

It should make you LESS nervous- the Gitmo ruling came down on the side of less intrusive government, and more personal liberty.

 

[mountainclmbr]

thrgunsmith, you are right, Thursday. Being on vacation, day of the week and dates won't be important until next week!...Except THURSDAY if the decision comes.

It should make you LESS nervous- the Gitmo ruling came down on the side of less intrusive government, and more personal liberty.

devemedic, I would be inclined to agree, except the justices that voted for the detainees were the leftists. That decision does not affect anyone in the USA. It just makes it harder to fight the islamofascist terrorists who want everyone to be tightly controlled; ironically what the left wants.

 

[P5 Guy]

I'm the only one?

That thinks that the supremes will go for "community rights" over individual rights.

I'm a pessimist at heart

 

[J.Smith]

Ok so if they decide it only applies to militias what then? They start rounding up weapons? I'm not going to turn this into a SHTF post, but seriously what then?

 

[sholling]

Over the last 30 years or so some state legislatures have let it be known that in the event of a total federal ban that they will withdraw from the union. None have brought it up in probably 20 years, but then a federal ban hasn't been a threat in years. It would be interesting to see what happens. Acording to my interpretation of the Clinton doctrine they would have that right. Remember the former Yugoslavia?

The one thing that will never happen again is American troops opening fire on other Americans. Kent State put that possibility to rest for all time. The FBI and ATF yes, but not the Army. Anyway let's just hope that for once the SCOTUS follows the framers intent.

 

[Webleymkv]

Well, from what we've seen in the opening arguments, it would seem that the Court is already of the opinion that the 2A is an individual right. What seems to be undecided thus far is just how far gun ownership can be regulated and still be constitutional.

 

[Musketeer]

I listened to the arguments and agree, it will be an individual right. The Justices were pretty darn clear on that. What we must be concerned about is the level of scrutiny to be tied to any regulation.

 

[grey sky]

Smoke and mirrors

It is possible the second amendment could be found null and void. The supprems are a wild card. I fully expect a decision such as, Times have changed too many rights are dangerous bill of right shmill of rights.

 

[Webleymkv]

It is possible the second amendment could be found null and void. The supprems are a wild card. I fully expect a decision such as, Times have changed too many rights are dangerous bill of right shmill of rights.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court can't do that. They are bound by the constitution which is the supreme law of our country and they don't have the power to change it (unlike a law that is not enumerated by the Constitution), they can only interpret it. Contrary to what some may think, a Supreme Court decision is not final, it can be overturned by a constitutional amendment (take the Dred Scott decision for example). In order for the 2nd Amendment to be completely null and void, there would have to be another amendment passed to repeal it (just like the 18th was repealed by the 21st). The danger here is not that the Court will overturn the 2nd Amendment, but that they will either recognize it as a collective right (i.e. applies to militia only and I think we can already be sure from the opening arguments of the case that this won't happen) or give liberal guidlines as to how far RKBA can be regulated without being unconstitutional (this is what is yet to be seen).

 

[Forwardassist]

I expect them not to make a landmark decision. It would not surprise me if they came out with a compromise ruling that stated that while the 2nd Ad was an individual right, the government still has a power to reasonably regulate it. That could open a whole new can of worms that would reaffirm DC's gun ban and cost us much headache in the future.

 

[JWT]

I think they'll see an individual right but add caveats that allow at least some local, state, or federal regulations (gun control).