Why wait for Heller to file suit?

[scottj]

Doesn't it take years for cases to reach the Supreme Court? If we are waiting for the Heller decision to be released before filing suit against Chicago or CA, aren't we risking facing a much less favorable court years down the road?

If so, are there cases already in the pipeline that may reach the current Supreme Court?

Scott

[ke6guj]

Probably because they want the lawsuit to reference Heller.

And yes, there is at least one case in the court system that can be helped by a positve Heller ruling. Whether or not it will need to go all the way up to the Supremes?

[sierratangofoxtrotunion]

I think with a favorable Heller ruling, a lot of cases can use this ruling to settle a case in a lower court, rather than needing to take years going up the ladder.

[FortCourageArmory]

For example, the 9th Circuit's upholding of CA's Assault Weapons law was largely based on the belief that the 2nd Amendment was a collective right and not an individual right. If (when) the Supremes (9th Circuit's bosses) rule that 2A is an individual right, the 9th Circuit's ruling goes out the window. Results = we get an opportunity for a re-do on the whole AW law. That's why the wait on Heller. It's the difference between facing a pack of wolves with a fully loaded gun or just a stick and a bible. Which does the better job?

[scottj]

But at the very least incorporation will likely have to be addressed by the Supreme Court in another case right?

[JALLEN]

It may be, depending on the particulars, that the pleading in a new case will be dismissed, since under current law, RKBA is a collective right. So perhaps it will fail to state facts upon which relief can be granted, and dismissed. Then, once the ruling Heller is announced and it turns out to be everything we hope for and more besides, your case has already been adjudicated and can't be refiled.

Why take that chance? Patience, patience!

[scottj]

whoops, editing error...

[scottj]

Of course waiting is the safe bet and bringing these cases isn't cheap. But what if Heller doesn't answer incorporation and it takes 6 years for an incorporation case to reach the court and in that 6 years of the first and second Obama presidency the make up of the court has changed drastically? Won't we be kicking ourselves saying, we should have started an incorporation lawsuit and all the follow on cases we could think of as soon as the lower court ruled in our favor? Then we could have dropped all the cases we didn't need or weren't going to be helpful as events unfolded. I know these cases are expensive but this may be the best chance we have in next 100 years to get the second really nailed down and the window may not be open for very long.

After all, five of the justices are over 80 years old and who knows how long the presidency and the senate will remain remain in Democratic control.

[JALLEN]

Sam Alito, born 1950
Steven Breyer born 1938
Anthony Kennedy, born 1936
Ruth Ginsburg, born 1933
John Roberts, born 1955
Antonin Scalia, born 1936
David Souter, born 1939
John Paul Stevens, born 1920
Clarence Thomas, born 1948

It looks to me like only 1 is over 80, Stevens. RB Ginsburg is 75, Kennedy and Scalia are 72, Breyer is 70, Souter is 69, Thomas is 60, and Alito and Roberts aren't even as old as my baby sister.

If you file now and your case is adjudicated on the merits and dismissed before Heller straightens out the Ninth Circus, it won't matter if all the Supremes are in their 30's and all former Chairmen of the Young Republicans.

Keep your shirts on. We'll know within TWO WEEKS!

[sigsauer887]

For example, the 9th Circuit's upholding of CA's Assault Weapons law was largely based on the belief that the 2nd Amendment was a collective right and not an individual right. If (when) the Supremes (9th Circuit's bosses) rule that 2A is an individual right, the 9th Circuit's ruling goes out the window. Results = we get an opportunity for a re-do on the whole AW law. That's why the wait on Heller. It's the difference between facing a pack of wolves with a fully loaded gun or just a stick and a bible. Which does the better job?

So lets say someone go in trouble for being in possession of an assault weapon and were convicted of misdemeanor possession, could they then sue california for an overturn on there conviction when using heller as a reference?

[thegratenate]

This anticipation is soooooo much like Christmas.

I know that we are going to get something, but the question is what will it be, and will it be "some assembly required".

It sure would be nice if this Christmas in July( June would be nice also) comes already incorporated and ready to take out and play with.

[hoffmang]

Filing suit before being able to cite chapter and verse of Heller is kind of silly. It would be like filing your taxes before someone gave you your W2. You kinda know what your income is but...

-Gene

[FortCourageArmory]

So lets say someone go in trouble for being in possession of an assault weapon and were convicted of misdemeanor possession, could they then sue california for an overturn on there conviction when using heller as a reference?
I would assume so. Having your conviction wiped off the books would seem the logical result of an overturned law. Obviously, Gene or some of the other legal aces would be better to answer that one.

[mymonkeyman]

You need to know the legal test Heller is going to create before you decide which statutes to target first (versus which would most likely be a waste of time, a loss, and result in bad precedent), as well as to find the ideal plaintiff and venue. Luckily the conservatives on the court don't seem to be going anywhere.