District of Columbia v. Heller gun ban case to be decided today at 10am

[motivez]

The Supreme Court stated yesterday that today they'll release the final opinions in all of the remaining cases for the term, including the much anticipated District of Columbia v. Heller gun ban case.

People are still speculating that Justice Scalia will be writing the opinion of the court, which makes it likely that the court will affirm an individual right to own weapons instead and strike down the DC gun ban as unconstitutional

Here's what the folks at Scotusblog had to say about it:

Jason Harrow - As Tom previously mentioned, it is quite likely that Justice Scalia is writing the majority opinion in the Guns case and that Justice Alito is writing the opinion in the election case, Davis v. FEC. The author of American Electric Power is harder to predict.

Jason Harrow - Clarification: while it appears that Justice Scalia has the principle opinion in the Guns case, it is not necessarily a majority opinion. It could be a plurality opinion.

So, what do you guys think? Will they uphold the ban or strike it down as unconstitutional?

[Ardentfrost]

I don't see how they could get around the ban being unconstitutional. They've been closing their eyes and ears up to this point, but now they're being forced to make a ruling, and it's their job to uphold the Constitution. If they declare the ban valid, they might as well burn the Constitution and shit on the ashes, because they do not care what it says.

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I don't see how they could get around the ban being unconstitutional. They've been closing their eyes and ears up to this point, but now they're being forced to make a ruling, and it's their job to uphold the Constitution. If they declare the ban valid, they might as well burn the Constitution and shit on the ashes, because they do not care what it says.

You do realize the Court already affirmed the "collective rights" interpretation in US v. Miller, right?

If anything, they'd be overturning a previous ruling. If you think the collective interpretation is shitting on the Constitution, well, it's already been shat on for 70 years.

[A_C_E]

In any case, I find it exceedingly hard to believe that this Court, with its decisive Republican majority, won't overturn the gun ban. The only wild cards are Kennedy, who I'm pretty sure is leaning toward overturning, or one of those Scalia-out-of-fucking-nowhere decisions where he uses faulty, retarded logic to justify something he wants for reasons no one else understands.

[A_C_E]

I actually think what you might see (emphasis on might) is a decision that comes down the same way Bakke did. That is, you'll have four Justices who support very open gun laws with few restrictions (overturning the ban), you'll have four Justices who support more strict control of purchases, registrations, scoring requirements, etc. and who support upholding the gun ban. Then, you'll have one Justice (Scalia)who supports overturning the gun ban but at the same time upholding strict requirements on gun purchases, giving him 5 votes for each of his positions.

That's just a possibility, though. I don't really think a Scalia-led plurality is possible, given the conservative makeup of the course. Unless Thomas is a card-carrying NRA member and had to abstain or something

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by A_C_E

You do realize the Court already affirmed the "collective rights" interpretation in US v. Miller, right?

If anything, they'd be overturning a previous ruling. If you think the collective interpretation is shitting on the Constitution, well, it's already been shat on for 70 years.

And considering BOTH sides claim victory in US v Miller, I don't think it really defines anything. Today's case could ACTUALLY set a precedent.

Of course, I guess it depends on what they actually say post-ruling. They could overturn the ban and say some F'd up shit that doesn't really accomplish anything

I still say they can't sit there with the constitution in front of them and say "yeah, the DC ban on guns is ok"

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

And considering BOTH sides claim victory in US v Miller, I don't think it really defines anything. Today's case could ACTUALLY set a precedent.

Of course, I guess it depends on what they actually say post-ruling. They could overturn the ban and say some F'd up shit that doesn't really accomplish anything

I still say they can't sit there with the constitution in front of them and say "yeah, the DC ban on guns is ok"

Sadly, I agree. Even though I highly, highly doubt it was ever the Framers' intention for people to be able to keep armories in their basements.

I do think they could come up with some ridiculous ruling in the middle somehow, along the lines of "We're going to allow DC to continue to ban the sale of guns within its borders, but we're going to require them to accept permits obtained in Maryland and Virginia" or some such nonsense.

The Court has been dodging this question for decades, somehow I don't think they're going to start making definitive rulings on it now. They might even remand it down for further statistical review or something.

[A_C_E]

Do you carry daily, Ardent?

[Stylerod]

Couldn't they verify an individuals right to own a weapon but maintain that states do have a right to restrict certain weapon?

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by A_C_E

Sadly, I agree.

I do think they could come up with some ridiculous ruling in the middle somehow, along the lines of "We're going to allow DC to continue to ban the sale of guns within its borders, but we're going to require them to accept permits obtained in Maryland and Virginia" or some such nonsense.

The Court has been dodging this question for decades, somehow I don't think they're going to start making definitive rulings on it now. They might even remand it down for further statistical review or something.

I certainly see your point and agree. I guess I'm HOPING they make a for-real verdict.

Your hypothetical situation is one avenue they could take, I was thinking they would say something about how the ban is unconstitutional but that doesn't mean a gun permit has to be easy to obtain.

You know, like how they (the government, not SCOTUS) originally made pot illegal. It started with you could only sell pot if you had a license to do so. Then they just never gave out licenses, so anyone selling pot was doing so without a license and thus breaking the law. That could be a dangerous bit of sub-text since it would give any city or state a way to ban guns "legally."

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Couldn't they verify an individuals right to own a weapon but maintain that states do have a right to restrict certain weapon?

Really no reason to do that, it's already an accepted practice.

Hopefully they restrict this ruling to gun bans like they're supposed to and don't once again start legislating from the bench. That said, I doubt they keep it so simple.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by A_C_E

Do you carry daily, Ardent?

I actually don't own a gun yet. After a little late night altercation a couple weeks ago, though, I am buying one soon. Some random big dude pulls up to my house and starts asking shit like "how long have you lived here" at 11:30 at night. I, of course, did not open the door. I dunno who the fuck he was, but he hasn't been back.

After that, my wife even agrees we should have a gun in the house for protection at least. I'm taking her shooting sometime in the next week or two to see what feels comfortable to her.

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I certainly see your point and agree. I guess I'm HOPING they make a for-real verdict.

Your hypothetical situation is one avenue they could take, I was thinking they would say something about how the ban is unconstitutional but that doesn't mean a gun permit has to be easy to obtain.

You know, like how they (the government, not SCOTUS) originally made pot illegal. It started with you could only sell pot if you had a license to do so. Then they just never gave out licenses, so anyone selling pot was doing so without a license and thus breaking the law. That could be a dangerous bit of sub-text since it would give any city or state a way to ban guns "legally."

To be honest, I think you're right on that.

My guess is that we see something similiar to the South Dakota abortion case. Abortion is, for all intents and purposes, illegal in South Dakota. ANY abortion, which is starkly in violation of Roe and Casey. That said, the state found the loophole to use and the Court doesn't really have the power to do anything about it.

I'm sure you'll see the same thing here. No way in hell does the Court pronounce a fully open right to own weapons.

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I actually don't own a gun yet. After a little late night altercation a couple weeks ago, though, I am buying one soon. Some random big dude pulls up to my house and starts asking shit like "how long have you lived here" at 11:30 at night. I, of course, did not open the door. I dunno who the fuck he was, but he hasn't been back.

After that, my wife even agrees we should have a gun in the house for protection at least. I'm taking her shooting sometime in the next week or two to see what feels comfortable to her.

You are the first Georgian I have ever met who posts on the internet yet doesn't already have his own gun

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I actually don't own a gun yet. After a little late night altercation a couple weeks ago, though, I am buying one soon. Some random big dude pulls up to my house and starts asking shit like "how long have you lived here" at 11:30 at night. I, of course, did not open the door. I dunno who the fuck he was, but he hasn't been back.

After that, my wife even agrees we should have a gun in the house for protection at least. I'm taking her shooting sometime in the next week or two to see what feels comfortable to her.

My wife has "had my back" a couple times with really late night visitors showing up at our doorstep. I have a .45 and she is really, really good with it.

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

My wife has "had my back" a couple times with really late night visitors showing up at our doorstep. I have a .45 and she is really, really good with it.

My gf is absolutely terrified of guns and doesn't see any reason why anybody would want to own one

I don't either Even though I'm a damn good shot, my average is over 290

[motivez]

Bout 5 minutes until they start releasing opinions.

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by motivez

Bout 5 minutes until they start releasing opinions.

Keep the thread updated, eh?

I have some statements to pull

[A_C_E]

Court overturned Davis