If SCOTUS heard 2A soon?

[High Planes Drifter]

Lets say the Parker vs. DC trial got all the way to the Supreme court; or another case involving the 2A reached the SCOTUS with the current lineup of judges, what do you think thier ruling would be on the 2A? We could probably count on Alito, Roberts, and Thomas. I think we'd probably have Scalia vote against us. What about the rest- Souter, Kennedy, Ginsberg, Breyer, and Stevens? How do you think they'd vote? Who on the bench do you think would be pro 2A?

 

[rantingredneck]

Ginsberg (and two others) i believe were in dissent on the 1998 ruling that held with the "collective right" interpretation of the 2A. She and her co-dissenters were on the "individual right" side (Our side) on this one. That being said I think there's a good chance it would go our way.

 

[applesanity]

The majority opinion written by the DC court was very, very good. It is very likely that the Supreme Court won't even bother hearing the case, thereby letting the original decision stand.

That being said, the DC decision essentially protects just the right to own a gun in your house. Which is not enough. But it's a start.

 

[O/U Mike]

The Other 2 Justices were...

..."Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia and David H. Souter--said in a 1998 dissent that "bearing arms" goes beyond a collective right in the context of a well-ordered militia"

 

[rantingredneck]

Thank you Mike. I couldn't remember who the others were.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Ginsburg, Souter and Scalia said no such thing. What happened is they were hearing a case where the statute said that anybody carrying firearms while possessing narcotics would be given an enhanced sentence. The man in question had guns in a pickup truck along with drugs on his person and was given the enhanced sentence. In that context they said:

"It is uncontested that § 924(c)(1) applies when the defendant bears a firearm, i.e., carries the weapon on or about his person “for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in case of a conflict.” Muscarello v. U.S., 524 U.S. 125, 139-40 (1998).

The D.C. Circuit Court used this quote (along with a great deal of history and other supporting evidence) to shoot down the argument that "bearing arms" had a purely military meaning in the Second Amendment. The Justices in question didn't mention the Second Amendment once in the entire opinion, so assuming that the Justices mention automatically think that the Second is not a collective right is a big leap from what they actually said.

Frankly, I think with the current Court it comes down to Kennedy and possibly Ginsburg (who seems doubtful; but more likely to flip than any of the others).

 

[GoSlash27]

Scalia's definitely on our side on this.
And I disagree that the ruling protects just the right to have a gun in your house. It effectively turns everything built from '34 on it's ear because it specifically claims RKBA as an *individual* right. The effects will reach much farther.