Comments on: DC Gets More Time http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/02/27/dc-gets-more-time/ Where There's Snow, There's Firepower Tue, 02 Dec 2008 03:06:19 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Sebastian http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/02/27/dc-gets-more-time/#comment-19750 Sebastian Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:03:05 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/02/27/dc-gets-more-time/#comment-19750 I'm going to remain a bit more optimistic. Early first amendment cases weren't revolutionary, but developed into a body of law that I think, for the most part, has gotten it right. Early civil rights cases suffered major setbacks. Most people today look at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson" rel="nofollow">Plessy v. Ferguson</a>, which is considered by many to be a repugnant ruling that ran completely contrary to just civil rights, actually laid the foundation for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education" rel="nofollow">Brown v. Board of Education</a>. In <i>Plessy</i>, the court conceded that blacks had to treated equal to whites under the law, but that provided seperate but equal facilities were provided, this would not run afoul of the constitution. The court created a standard here that was effectively impossible to meet. <i>Brown</i> argued that separate was inherently unequal, and The Court agreed, and overturned <i>Plessy</i>. The only outright defeat is for The Court to say it's not an individual right. Any individual rights ruling, we can work with. Even if The Court follows the argument made by the Solicitor General. I’m going to remain a bit more optimistic. Early first amendment cases weren’t revolutionary, but developed into a body of law that I think, for the most part, has gotten it right. Early civil rights cases suffered major setbacks. Most people today look at Plessy v. Ferguson, which is considered by many to be a repugnant ruling that ran completely contrary to just civil rights, actually laid the foundation for Brown v. Board of Education. In Plessy, the court conceded that blacks had to treated equal to whites under the law, but that provided seperate but equal facilities were provided, this would not run afoul of the constitution. The court created a standard here that was effectively impossible to meet. Brown argued that separate was inherently unequal, and The Court agreed, and overturned Plessy.

The only outright defeat is for The Court to say it’s not an individual right. Any individual rights ruling, we can work with. Even if The Court follows the argument made by the Solicitor General.

]]> By: Tom http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/02/27/dc-gets-more-time/#comment-19745 Tom Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:36:23 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/02/27/dc-gets-more-time/#comment-19745 Not only did the SG get 15 minutes, but Heller's side isn't allowed to divide their time with Texas. Having an individual right that is meaningless is worse then having the right in the first place. Face it, the odds are that if you're 21 you'll never live to see another gun case get to the SC. We'll be stuck with whatever "laws" they can make that don't completely disarm you. A single shot 22 would be acceptable. Heck, why stop at guns, it's NOT just guns protected by the amdt, so maybe you can have a kitchen knife to satisfy the requirements. Anything short of stating that it means what it says is a total loss because the bills are written. The enemy is inside the government. The NRA's been fooling themselves on this for some time. Their constant donation begging will cease to be, their magazine will be pointless if there's only one gun approved for sale. They're going to be a reminder of a time long gone, like the buggy whip. The sad thing will be that their own board's willingness to compromise will have done them in. That's my 2¢, but you may have to adjust for the depreciation of our currency. Not only did the SG get 15 minutes, but Heller’s side isn’t allowed to divide their time with Texas.

Having an individual right that is meaningless is worse then having the right in the first place. Face it, the odds are that if you’re 21 you’ll never live to see another gun case get to the SC. We’ll be stuck with whatever “laws” they can make that don’t completely disarm you. A single shot 22 would be acceptable. Heck, why stop at guns, it’s NOT just guns protected by the amdt, so maybe you can have a kitchen knife to satisfy the requirements.

Anything short of stating that it means what it says is a total loss because the bills are written. The enemy is inside the government.

The NRA’s been fooling themselves on this for some time. Their constant donation begging will cease to be, their magazine will be pointless if there’s only one gun approved for sale. They’re going to be a reminder of a time long gone, like the buggy whip. The sad thing will be that their own board’s willingness to compromise will have done them in.

That’s my 2¢, but you may have to adjust for the depreciation of our currency.

]]> By: SayUncle » More on Heller http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/02/27/dc-gets-more-time/#comment-19729 SayUncle » More on Heller Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:59:31 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/02/27/dc-gets-more-time/#comment-19729 [...] Sebastian and David note that the Solicitor General and DC get 15 more minutes of time to argue over the good [...] [...] Sebastian and David note that the Solicitor General and DC get 15 more minutes of time to argue over the good [...]

]]> By: ricketyclick » Blog Archive » Prediction: Heller Will Be Upheld http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/02/27/dc-gets-more-time/#comment-19724 ricketyclick » Blog Archive » Prediction: Heller Will Be Upheld Thu, 28 Feb 2008 04:11:35 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/02/27/dc-gets-more-time/#comment-19724 [...] at Snowflakes in Hell, I make my public prediction on the outcome of Heller, the D.C. gun prohibition case before the [...] [...] at Snowflakes in Hell, I make my public prediction on the outcome of Heller, the D.C. gun prohibition case before the [...]

]]> By: Ian Argent http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/02/27/dc-gets-more-time/#comment-19723 Ian Argent Thu, 28 Feb 2008 04:11:32 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/02/27/dc-gets-more-time/#comment-19723 Yeah - I'm waiting on the results of the oral argument as well - but would much more love to be a fly on the wall for the deliberations... Yeah - I’m waiting on the results of the oral argument as well - but would much more love to be a fly on the wall for the deliberations…

]]> By: Sebastian http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/02/27/dc-gets-more-time/#comment-19704 Sebastian Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:23:05 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/02/27/dc-gets-more-time/#comment-19704 I love long comments followed by that disclaimer :) But I think your assessment is reasonable and likely. I think we can almost be guaranteed to not be entirely happy with the decision. But then again, I'm also not a SC watcher or lawyer. I love long comments followed by that disclaimer :) But I think your assessment is reasonable and likely. I think we can almost be guaranteed to not be entirely happy with the decision.

But then again, I’m also not a SC watcher or lawyer.

]]> By: DJMoore http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/02/27/dc-gets-more-time/#comment-19698 DJMoore Wed, 27 Feb 2008 17:04:34 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/02/27/dc-gets-more-time/#comment-19698 Hardy has updated his article to point out that when the SG asks for time, he generally gets it. Given that, I don't think much can be read into this. I think it's much more significant that the Court rewrote the question to clarify that the case pits the D.C. statutes directly against the Second Amendment. It simply makes no sense for them to take the question they themselves framed, and then remand. I believe this shows that, for better or worse, the Court means to grapple directly with the problem and settle the basic issue of whether or not the 2nd meaningfully protects anything at all, and can be used to overturn at least the most egregious laws. For the record: I predict the court will agree with the individual rights model, and make the gesture of overturning D.C.'s laws, but will then set the standard of review such that anything short of that effective ban will pass muster. Long-term, they will tend to uphold state court decisions, no matter which way those decisions cut. This prediction subject to revision after orals, when the Justice's questions and attitudes will give us the first clues as to how they feel. (Note: I am not an experienced SC watcher, or even a lawyer, and am basically talking out of my ass. ) Hardy has updated his article to point out that when the SG asks for time, he generally gets it. Given that, I don’t think much can be read into this.

I think it’s much more significant that the Court rewrote the question to clarify that the case pits the D.C. statutes directly against the Second Amendment. It simply makes no sense for them to take the question they themselves framed, and then remand. I believe this shows that, for better or worse, the Court means to grapple directly with the problem and settle the basic issue of whether or not the 2nd meaningfully protects anything at all, and can be used to overturn at least the most egregious laws.

For the record: I predict the court will agree with the individual rights model, and make the gesture of overturning D.C.’s laws, but will then set the standard of review such that anything short of that effective ban will pass muster. Long-term, they will tend to uphold state court decisions, no matter which way those decisions cut.

This prediction subject to revision after orals, when the Justice’s questions and attitudes will give us the first clues as to how they feel.

(Note: I am not an experienced SC watcher, or even a lawyer, and am basically talking out of my ass. )

]]>