2A hits the Court today - any predictions?

Daniel Koster

Daniel Koster

www.kosterknives.com
Knifemaker / Craftsman / Service Provider
Joined
Oct 18, 2001
Messages
20,978
The Supreme Court has started hearings on whether or not Washington D.C.'s 1976 ban on handguns is constitutional. This, of course, involves the interpretation of the Second Amendment.


Anyone else following this in the news?
here's a link: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/18/scotus.guns/index.html

both sides have privately expressed concern over how the justices will decide the issue, since the legal and political implications could be sweeping in scope.
Click to expand...


Any predictions on how this will play out?


Dan
 
It's an individual right. I hope the courts will find that to be the case.

One can only hope things play out in favor of gun-carriers since it will likely turn into the next Prohibition-type situation. Gun running could be the next big business! :eek:

If not, it will be a huge issue for most of us knife knuts. After guns, what next? :rolleyes:
 
I think they'll split down the middle - a 5-4 compromise situation that leaves both sides mad. Something along the lines of the DC law being invalidated, without opening the door to challenge less-restrictive laws. Either that, or they'll just send it back down to the lower court.
 
Also, states might make so many regulations and extra with ammo that it is extremely costly to buy more. No ammo, no guns.
 
Full agreement that ammo, powder and primers are our Achilles heel. We have the right to own the metal, but nothing guarantees a stores right to sell the ammo or components, likewise states have a right to restrict dangerous imports...
 
I've been following it, it makes me nervous... If the guns go, knives are next.
 
Nimick said:
this so far

Justices agree on right to own guns
Click to expand...

I'd take that with a grain of salt. Justices can do weird things in oral arguments. Sometimes, they ask questions that highlight their way of thinking, but just as often they try to uncover weaknesses that they will have to defend in the final decision.

Ammo may be a weakness, but I don't see it as fatal. If you can't have ammo, then the gun doesn't do any good, so the 2nd Amendment covers ammo as well. Although the crux of this case is how much gun ownership can be restricted - if you can ban handguns outright and heavily restrict long guns, then ammo taxes are probably legit.
 
It is good that they are making absolute statements so quickly. Hopefully it's a sign that they won't be debating this for a whole year. I want to know as soon as possible.
 
would be nice if they made a quick decision....would be great for pro-gun lawyers...."The Supreme Court did not hesitate nor waver when deciding to uphold the 2A of the constitution...."


:thumbup:





But, as posted before, they are the SCOTUS afterall....:foot:
 
I listened to the oral argument yesterday.

There was one very depressing fact; throughout the discussion, there was much talk of the meaning of "the militia", "the people", "keep", "bear", and "arms"...... but nary a mention of "shall not be infringed".

I didn't hear it referred to, not one time.

Andy
 
They almost always issue decisions at the end of the session. It looks like the current session ends in June, so we should hear by late June. Wished Congress cleared it's plate before taking vacation.
 
Only a few States actually still have militias (16 I think) and in all but one the State Defense Force (32 USC 109C, i.e., the organized militia of the state) is totally unarmed by the statutes of the state. Therefore falling back on the militia defense may very well be a waste of time if your state's laws actually prohibit the members of its militia from being armed. [This peculiar state of affairs arose after the Civil War when different states called upon their militias to put down coal miners riots, steel worker riots, factory strikes and other riots such as those by persons displaced by railroads or resettled freed slaves. In many instances the militia, being drawn up from the local community, sided with the strikers and the rioters and bad situations grew worse. By the 1900s most states had totally disarmed their volunteer militias and formed salaried State Police departments to suppress strikes and riots instead. (Highway patrol came much later.) Those states that hadn't done this yet lost their militias back around 1906 when Uncle declared them to be a National Guard subject to Federal call up.]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top