DC gun ban

[Guest jackdog]

What should be the next step. At present the appeals court has ruled in favor of the second amendment. Some politicians have already started to draft legislation to lift the DC ban. I think this is a huge error. 2A supporters should back off of this issue.

Let the District of Columbia make the next move, live by thje appeals court decision or take it to SCOTUS.

IF the DC does not go to SCOTUS then 2A supporters have a favorable precedent in a higher court. IF DC goes to SCOTUS then once and for all we will have ruling by the highest court in the land.

[saintsfanbrian]

Jack, I guess I am misunderstanding, there are legislators in DC that are starting processes to lift the ban?

Isn't lifting the ban a good thing? I guess I am just not following. I would rather see this left out of SCOTUS because of the possibility of the ruling not going in our favor.

[Guest 0down]

I think it should play out in the courts. It will go back to the fifth circuit en banc (full panel of judges) and most likely be upheld. Then, it is on to the Supreme Court.

If something happens legislatively, SCOUTUS may not hear this case and we may not like the next 2a case that ends up there.

[Guest 0down]

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=235&issue=010

U.S. Reps. Mark Souder (R-Ind.) and Mike Ross (D-Ark.) introduced H.R. 1399, the â€District of Columbia Personal Protection Act,†that would repeal the same provisions of the D.C. Code that the court found unconstitutional. At press time, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) was expected to introduce a companion bill in the Senate.

[Marswolf]

As it stands right now, the ruling favors us and will basically set a precedence. That might change in a higher court to our disadvantage.

If it's not broken, don't fix it.

[Guest jackdog]

As I understand it, and I may be wrong if congress passes a law that repeals the gun ban, then the court ruling will become moot, and the precedent will go away.

[Guest jackdog]

After reading the lower court decision and the arguments presented, in favor of 2A I think if it goes to SCOTUS, They will uphold the decision. I don't think the rhetoric of the anti gunners, will have that much influence on SCOTUS.

[Marswolf]

A precedent doesn't just go away. It stands until a higher court says it is no longer a precedent.

There is a very real possibility that SCOTUS won't agree to even hear an appeal of the decision. At least that's the word I hear.

[Guest jackdog]

For those that have the time and inclination, I would strongly suggest that you read the 75 page decision put forth by the appellate court. If nothing else it is a great read and a fantastic historical account of the second amendment. Click odwns link and at the bottom of the article you can get the entire court decision. Odown I agree this needs to play out in the courts

[Guest ProguninTN]

I think it should play out in the courts. It will go back to the fifth circuit en banc (full panel of judges) and most likely be upheld. Then, it is on to the Supreme Court.

If something happens legislatively, SCOTUS may not hear this case and we may not like the next 2a case that ends up there.

0down has the right idea, except the District of Columbia is its own circuit, not the 5th. Although, the 5th Circuit also ruled that that 2A was an individual right. The DC and 5th Circuit rulings contrast with that of the 9th Circuit.

[Guest GlocKingTN]

If it's not broken, don't fix it.

My favorite saying of all time^^^^^

[Marswolf]

I think we sometimes emote rather than think. I'm big on thinking.

[Guest jackdog]

A precedent doesn't just go away. It stands until a higher court says it is no longer a precedent.

There is a very real possibility that SCOTUS won't agree to even hear an appeal of the decision. At least that's the word I hear.

Mars, you are incorrect. If HR1399 were to become law. then the appeals court decision would very possiblely be vacated. If this were to happen then it would have no Precedential value.

[Guest jackdog]

Mars who is emoting on this issue and who is thinking on this issue. Just would like a little clarification as to your post

Thanks,

[Guest Len]

I'm with those that hope DC appeals and the case is accepted by the SCOTUS. We need this issue resolved once and for all. I am sick of hearing 300 million different interpretations of the 2A. SCOTUS may choose to rule narrowly, which may not be the home run we all want, but if they take the case, I strongly believe they will strike down the ban. I am not a fan of the current court for obvious reasons, but the tendency for the court to go "strict constructionalist" would favor a ruling in our favor. Plus, a SCOTUS ruling would apply nation-wide, not just in one circuit.

All that said, I am glad to see so many of us take an interest in something way beyond TN borders. These issues effect us all.

-Len

[Guest jackdog]

more background. This an article which was written by the parker attorneys.

Kind of sheds a dofferent light on the NRA.

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20030722-093717-6859r.htm

[Marswolf]

I would love to see SCOTUS suddenly go strict constructionist on us - but that ain't gonna happen.

Alito has indicated that he thinks the National Firearms Act is unconstitutional, but there is no way the Court is going to rule that way. Get real guys.

The intention of the 2A was to prevent the government from keeping the people from having arms to both protect the country as part of a military action in time of need and also to protect themselves from the government should it become dictatorial. One reason for this was to eliminate the need for a standing Army that would act in the interest of the government and against the people,

But the super-weapons of the time were cannons. For us to protect ourselves against the government these days we'd need RPGs, tanks, stealth aircraft and nukes. We'd also have to eliminate the standing Army. So 2A will never be interpreted strictly. If it was, the Constitution would be amended to "fix the problem." Get over it.

Right now we have a ruling that is in our favor in DC. It does set a precedent - a judicial decision that may be used as a standard in subsequent similar cases. It does not go away because a legislative body changes an unconstitutional law so that the laws are in compliance with the ruling. I don't know where that Idea came from. It will be used by other courts in similar cases where people are denied their right to own guns and keep them in their own homes and may well be extended to other arms matters since the court ruled that the rights under 2A are individual.

If the matter is appealed and ruled on by a higher court, they could decide that the public good requires reversing the decision, since they can't rule on the basis of the Constitution without opening a real can of worms. A more likely situation is that SCOTUS will not hear the appeal. The lower courts have already reversed the injustice and the Supreme Court, if it took the case would probably just affirm the ruling and not extend it. In short, the justices know they would just be wasting their time. They don't like to do that.

Right now we have an Attorney General's opinion (Ashcroft) that 2A acts upon the individual and a court decision that affirms this view. It would be nice if SCOTUS took an appeal and affirmed it, but the best that would happen is an affirmation and the worse could be that it would be overturned,

I'm quite happy with the way things are now. As I said, if it's not broken, don't fix it.

[Guest ProguninTN]

Marswolf, I agree with your comments to an extent, but everything is not "fully fixed". The problem being that favorable 2A decisions have come in the 5th and DC Circuits, making them binding in those circuits only. It'd be nice to have such a decision in SCOTUS or in the 6th Circuit (of which our state is a part). Although, I do concur that going before SCOTUS is a gamble. (The decision could be reversed and therefore made unfavorable.)

[Guest jackdog]

Mars you flat wrong. If the D..C law is changed prior to the full DC court of appeals rules on the case( That is the next step) then The original ruling can and would most likely be vacated, because the D of C, would not be allowed to have the whole panel here the case. Please review US VS. Enron/ Ken Lay, the verdict was vacated.

As far as weapons needed to fight the government and our military, I would strongly suggest that you review recent military history. Viet Nam, Afghanistan Iraq prove that gorilla tactics and insurgency can fight well and successively against overwhelming and better equipped forces. Iraq has lasted longer than WWII with no end in sight.

The Cato institute is a body of attorneys who deal exclusive with constitutional law. These folks are the attorneys for Parker VS D of C. It is

The CATO institute that is concerned about the verdict being vacated, I think these folks know quite a bit more about the law than either one of us.

If it ain't broke dont fix it. Mars be honest here, It is broke. We have as Americans let politicians chip away at our constitutional rights I.E. the second amendment since 1934, to the point that we have to ask for the privilege, to defend our selves and to keep and bear arms. To me that says something sure is broken

[Marswolf]

The conviction (not a precedent) in the Ken Lay case was vacated by legal precedent after the defendant died before sentencing. Verdicts in proceedings are based upon law and often refer to precedents. Nothing to do with this issue.

The concept of vacating the decision of the court under the "Munsingwear doctrine" is beyond what I want to get into. Suffice it to say that the courts do not have to vacate a contested decision. This idea seems to have come from Eugene Volokh who is more than a little squirrelly at times. Even if the decision was vacated, that does not mean that the precedent no longer has effect.

BTW, if you want to get more into the nitty-gritty of the Munsingwear doctrine, I suggest you see BENNY BAILEY, ET AL., PETITIONERS V. LYNN MARTIN, SECRETARY OF LABOR, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

[Guest jackdog]

Mars thanks I read this and get back to you.

[Guest jackdog]

Mars along with my post you answered were three other paragraphs that you failed to respond to.

1 fighting our government and military.

2 the Cato institute

3. if it ain't broke don't fix it.

Your lack of response to the above leads me to believe that we concur.

If this is not the case I would appreciate a response.

I hope your enjoying this discussion as much as I am, That what is so great about TGO.

[Marswolf]

Jackdog, I have other things to do than argue minutia with you.

So quickly:

1 fighting our government and military.

I think my response is sufficient and obviously valid. If you don't understand it, sorry.

2 the Cato institute

A conservative non-profit that makes its money by frightening the politically non-astute. If someone from the Rand Corporation said it, I'd listen.

.

3. if it ain't broke don't fix it.

It ain't broken now but it might get broken if the whiners keep going.

[Guest jackdog]

Your so incredible I'm lost for words.

[Marswolf]

Sorry Jackdog. I'm having a lousy day.