PDA

View Full Version : Take two: Should we be worried about the sheer number of bad lower court rulings?


Maestro Pistolero
01-30-2012, 7:53 AM
Heads up: I posted this question yesterday and apparently the thread went off the rails and got deleted before I could read a single response. I have no idea what happened or who posted what. But if you haven't had your coffee yet or you have a rock in your shoe, think twice and post once. No BS will be tolerated.

I am simply curious if we should be concerned that bad "in the home only" rulings are piling up. Will the number of such cases carry any weight with SCOTUS, and contribute to their reluctance to overturn so many cases?

RazzB7
01-30-2012, 8:00 AM
I've wondered the same thing myself. It would seem that some momentum is being established. I guess all that momentum could be stopped with one landmark SCOTUS ruling, but I don't see that on the horizon.

Smarter minds than mine will chime in here, I'm sure.

wazdat
01-30-2012, 8:07 AM
I don't think the Heller 5 took kindly to the Maryland court challenge of “If the Supreme Court…meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly.”

I think they are going to wait for a clear case (no convicted felons) and then do exactly that and no more.

bulgron
01-30-2012, 8:08 AM
As I pointed out in the other thread before it went off the rails, the lower courts operated for something like 70 years on the assumption that there is no individual right to arms, and that didn't stop SCOTUS from issuing Heller. As long as SCOTUS hasn't spoken on the issue, we still have a chance. My big concern is the age of the court, how close the votes are, and the Republican's apparent attempt to throw the presidential election this year.

Maestro Pistolero
01-30-2012, 8:20 AM
I don't think the Heller 5 took kindly to the Maryland court challenge of “If the Supreme Court…meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly.”

I think they are going to wait for a clear case (no convicted felons) and then do exactly that and no more.

Despite the 'dare', the SCOTUS did decline to grant cert in that case, IIRC. Taunting from a lower court probably ought not be criteria for taking a case, much as I would have loved to see a Scalia smack-down in that case.
the lower courts operated for something like 70 years on the assumption that there is no individual right to arms, and that didn't stop SCOTUS from issuing Heller.
Good point.

OleCuss
01-30-2012, 8:34 AM
I'm with the idea that the mass of adverse lower court rulings do not have an untoward effect in the long run.

Actually, the mass of bad rulings which are inconsistent with the intent of the McDonald and Heller rulings just might make it more likely that the SCOTUS decides that a ruling to correct that mass of bad case law is mandatory and grant cert where they might otherwise have not done so. But we'll never know.

In any case, we're likely to get cert for a civil case the next SCOTUS session so we may know a little more in about 1-1.5 years.

watsonville
01-30-2012, 8:45 AM
Money money money for the love of money

Gray Peterson
01-30-2012, 9:10 AM
Despite the 'dare', the SCOTUS did decline to grant cert in that case, IIRC. Taunting from a lower court probably ought not be criteria for taking a case, much as I would have loved to see a Scalia smack-down in that case.

They will take a civil carry case. I'm speaking here as one of the folks directly harmed by the "sheer number of bad court rulings". The court of appeals in my case, however, seem to be taking the situation more seriously than the district court judge in my case (who has since went into inactive status)

A-J
01-30-2012, 9:31 AM
DISCLAIMER - I am totally NOT an attorney.

Generally speaking, a pattern of decisions often influences future decisions. I believe it's called precedent. I also believe that this is the driver behind the "choosing the right battle" stance that is often taken. There is nothing more damaging to a cause than bad precedent being set by one court and relied upon by another IMO.

OleCuss
01-30-2012, 9:43 AM
Fortunately, the precedent set by a District court holds only in that district. The Circuit decision is precedential only within its Circuit.

When the SCOTUS rules in our favor it will be binding precedent everywhere within the U.S. of A.

So lower court precedents are at least somewhat limited and they are certainly not binding on SCOTUS. They may be influential, however. In this case, however, I suspect SCOTUS will be finding the lower court decisions more exasperating than influential.

The Ezell ruling by the Circuit Court is of some interest. It did not seem to me that they were very happy with the district court judge's ruling.

Crom
01-30-2012, 10:48 AM
I'm not at all worried. But I do worry about the health of the Heller 5 Justices.

bulgron
01-30-2012, 11:16 AM
In any case, we're likely to get cert for a civil case someday, when they get around to it so we may know a little more in about 10-10.5 years.

Fixed it for you.

Although, it's highly likely that I'm being optimistic.

htjyang
01-30-2012, 11:35 AM
The Supreme Court is too grand to take note of district court opinions, unless we're talking about fact-finding by the trial court. This is largely true even for appellate courts, though certain circuit court judges are better known than others. For example, there are good reasons to believe that the Court tends to be much more skeptical of the verdicts by the 9th Circus. Conversely, the Court may respect some circuit judges' opinions more than others. Judge Sykes was mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee during the Bush Administration. I suspect the Court know that, which in turn gives her opinion greater weight among certain members of the Court. From this perspective, her opinion in Ezell may be quite important.

Ultimately, and at the danger of sounding like a broken record player, I must repeat what I have said in other threads: The 2nd Amendment will be decided by the future composition of the Court. The 3 oldest justices on the Court are Ginsburg, Scalia, and Kennedy, in that order. In the current and last presidential terms, 2 justices were replaced in each term. It is possible that whoever wins this year's presidential election will replace 2 of the 3 justices I just named. Therefore, whoever wins the presidential election will decide the future of the 2nd Amendment. (such as whether it should have any future at all). We already know what the liberal justices intend to do with it. Justice Ginsburg spoke favorably about overturning it and Justice Breyer intends to impose some kind of rational basis test that will reduce it to nothing.

Rossi357
01-30-2012, 11:53 AM
Do you think that a so called liberal Supreme Court judge will rule that the 2nd amendment exists only in the home?
Do you think all the HIGH POWERED civil rights attorneys working on these 2nd amendment issues would be doing so if they didn't think they would win?
Remember, Heller and McDonald and Ezell lost in the lower courts.
Also, remember, Alan Gura said: "The 2nd amendment is alive and well and it's coming to your town."

nicki
01-30-2012, 12:08 PM
What I have heard from numerous people on not just gun issues, but other issues as well is that district court judges won't overturn laws unless of course they have a basis against the law that is being challenged.

There is another way to look at this, the criminal cases with bad defendants are unlikely to be appealed which is a good thing for us.

The real battle will be in the appeals courts and we will have numerous split decisions on numerous 2nd amendment issues.

Because of how the lower courts have ruled, they have provided a roadmap of novel legal theories that the SCOTUS will gladly tear apart.

Lets not forget public opinion, the vast majority of Americans believe the second amendment means exactly what it says.

Should a future SCOTUS try to water down the second amendment, it is possible that we could get 38 states to ratify another right to keep and bear arms constitutional amendment that would deal with the court.

Nicki

Maestro Pistolero
01-30-2012, 12:15 PM
Should a future SCOTUS try to water down the second amendment, it is possible that we could get 38 states to ratify another right to keep and bear arms constitutional amendment that would deal with the court.Which would say what, that we have a right to keep and bear arms?

Southwest Chuck
01-30-2012, 12:26 PM
Which would say what, that we have a right to keep and bear arms?

How profound the truth is. What else can be said? The 2nd cannot be viewed as the redheaded stepchild any longer. SCOTUS must realize this and must firmly, unequivocally, and specifically say this (again), or Heller and McDonald will mean nothing.

Gray Peterson
01-30-2012, 12:29 PM
Which would say what, that we have a right to keep and bear arms?

We can craft an amendment that can be even more crystal clear....

Sgt Raven
01-30-2012, 12:37 PM
Which would say what, that we have a right to keep and bear arms?

:p Maybe that we 'really, really mean this. :p

Gray Peterson
01-30-2012, 12:38 PM
How profound the truth is. What else can be said? The 2nd cannot be viewed as the redheaded stepchild any longer. SCOTUS must realize this and must firmly, unequivocally, and specifically say this (again), or Heller and McDonald will mean nothing.

Are you saying that if the language said "the individual right to keep and bear arms, including firearms, shall not be infringed", we would have the same issue?

kcbrown
01-30-2012, 12:52 PM
Are you saying that if the language said "the individual right to keep and bear arms, including firearms, shall not be infringed", we would have the same issue?

Yes, we would.

What does "infringed" mean? Answer: whatever the court decides it means.


Look, if you want to see the depths to which the Court will descend to get its way, just look at Slaughterhouse, which was decided at the period of time where original public understanding of the 14th Amendment was the current public understanding.


The only kind of Amendment that will have any teeth is one which changes the role of the courts (including the Supreme Court) with respect to 2nd Amendment cases, and that is a very, very dangerous path to tread, because if you remove the courts from the equation then there is literally no protection from government intrusion whatsoever.

And this is why I believe a Constitutional Convention is likely to yield nothing of any real substance. While there may be sufficient support amongst the states for a restated 2nd Amendment, I very much doubt there is sufficient support for the structural changes that would be necessary to make it stick. Those changes would have to be beyond the Supreme Court's ability to control.

Uxi
01-30-2012, 12:58 PM
5-4 decisions get overturned more often than 9-0 ones. Just sayin'

For that reason, I don't think we can rely on SCOTUS. I think the best option for the RTKBA to mean anything, much less what the Founders intended, we'd need a new Amendment probably one that comes through the State conventions in "Free States" rather than through the Congress (unless the Republicans do REALLY well in the Senate in the 2012 elections).

More and more, though, I think it's a lost cause in Occupied California.

Maestro Pistolero
01-30-2012, 1:05 PM
Are you saying that if the language said "the individual right to keep and bear arms, including firearms, shall not be infringed", we would have the same issue?

Heller/McDonald already interpret it to be an individual right and apply it to the states. I don't see how that language would cover any new ground. If specificity is what is lacking, then let it read something like this:

The right of any lawful citizen to possess, store, use and carry, in any public place and at home, a functional arm ready for immediate use for any traditionally lawful purpose (including but not limited to lawful defense of self or another, target practice, hunting, and training in arms) including related equipment, ammunition and supplies, shall not be limited, curtailed, or restricted, or infringed (except in the most narrowly defined and temporary circumstances when the government assumes complete and totally responsibility and liability for the safety of the citizen, such as a courthouse, or the secure area of an airport).

CapS
01-30-2012, 1:07 PM
Generally speaking, a pattern of decisions often influences future decisions. I believe it's called precedent.

My belief is just the opposite of this opinion. "Most notably in the home,"
is what the USSC has said, and this court will stick to, and expand on that.
The Five are not going to undermine the road on which they are set on traveling.

However, as has been noted, the next President will determine the
composition of the court, and thus our fate.

:oji:

Cap

nicki
01-30-2012, 1:12 PM
Some thoughts, not inclusive.

The rkba legal standard is strict scrutiny

It is binding on states and local governments via both the due process and privilege and immunity clause

It applies to rifles,shotguns handguns,knives, pepper spray mace, tasers and/or any other type of arm that can be used for self defense

Right to bear means right to carry.

Right to arms means also right to ammunition and accessories so that arm is functional.

No carry zones severely restricted.

Individuals may lose right to bear arms only for convictions of felonies involving violence and suspension of right may be for only 10 years post surving time.

The bottom line is if we have to do another amendment, it will be writtento cover and destroy ever BS ruling that we would have. Failure to vote yes would cost people their legislative seat.

Yes we need 2/3rds of congress, but considering that 75 percent of Americans are with us on this issue, I think it is something we could do.

This would only come into play if we lost one of the Heller 5 and the SCOTUS went the wrong way.

Nicki

Connor P Price
01-30-2012, 1:14 PM
We get tons of "bad rulings" in criminal cases that raise a second amendment defense and the antis love to call those victories. In reality I don't think we need to worry about those rulings as 2A jurisprudence evolves because its already clear that the 2A doesn't apply, or at least not in full force, to criminals.

Bad lower court rulings in cases we eventually win don't hurt us at all either. It's a shame that lower courts rule the way they do in those cases but the end result is what goes down in the history books.

The only bad precedent we have to worry about is a loss in a civil case that isn't later won on appeal. Most likely these will come from well meaning mavericks taking pro se cases they aren't prepared for or capable of arguing well.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

Southwest Chuck
01-30-2012, 1:23 PM
We can craft an amendment that can be even more crystal clear....

Are you saying that if the language said "the individual right to keep and bear arms, including firearms, shall not be infringed", we would have the same issue?

You hit the nail on the head in your top quote. We will always have "issues" no matter the language. All that can be done it to make it as clear and succinct as possible. Even that will be open to interpretation by the courts, but hopefully much more narrowly in scope? Emphasis on HOPE! :)

bulgron
01-30-2012, 1:27 PM
Heller/McDonald already interpret it to be an individual right and apply it to the states. I don't see how that language would cover any new ground. If specificity is what is lacking, then let it read something like this:

The right of any lawful citizen to possess, store, use and carry, in any public place and at home, a functional arm ready for immediate use for any traditionally lawful purpose (including but not limited to lawful defense of self or another, target practice, hunting, and training in arms) including related equipment, ammunition and supplies, shall not be limited, curtailed, or restricted, or infringed (except in the most narrowly defined and temporary circumstances when the government assumes complete and totally responsibility and liability for the safety of the citizen, such as a courthouse, or the secure area of an airport).

That's too vague for the courts, especially liberal courts. In fact, just about anything you can write can be construed as 'vague' by a court system that simply doesn't like the right.

However, you might make it more difficult for them to dodge and weave past the language of the amendment if you added a litmus test to it. Something to the effect that "No law may be passed that prevents US citizens from owning, carrying, and using those arms in use by any domestic security force active within the boundaries of the United States of America and its territories. Here, 'domestic security force' means any organization employed or empowered by any civilian government to use force to ensure the domestic peace, safety or tranquility."

Ack, but it's a nightmare, because they'll just unravel that too.

Gray Peterson
01-30-2012, 2:02 PM
Heller/McDonald already interpret it to be an individual right and apply it to the states. I don't see how that language would cover any new ground. If specificity is what is lacking, then let it read something like this:

The right of any lawful citizen to possess, store, use and carry in public a functional arm ready for immediate use for any traditionally lawful purpose (including but not limited to lawful defense of self or another, target practice, hunting, and training in arms) equipment, and supplies, shall not be limited, curtailed, or restricted, or infringed (except in the most narrowly defined circumstances when the government assumes complete and totally responsibility and liability for the safety of the citizen, such as a courthouse, or the secure area of an airport).

Let me change and add on to that....


Section 1. The right of any person to possess, store, use and carry in public a functional arm ready for immediate use for any traditionally lawful purpose (including but not limited to lawful defense of self or another, target practice, hunting, and training in arms) equipment, and supplies, shall not be limited, curtailed, or restricted, or infringed by any level of government in any manner (except in the most narrowly defined circumstances when the government assumes complete and totally responsibility and liability for the safety of the person).

Section 2. The provisions of this amendment shall be self executing and self enforcing. Any person, group, or corporation may file a challenge in the courts of any state. The judicial power of the United States shall extend to these cases. All persons, groups, or corporations who file a challenge and succeed shall be entitled to it's fees and costs.

Maestro Pistolero
01-30-2012, 2:13 PM
Let me change and add on to that....


Section 1. The right of any person to possess, store, use and carry in public a functional arm ready for immediate use for any traditionally lawful purpose (including but not limited to lawful defense of self or another, target practice, hunting, and training in arms) equipment, and supplies, shall not be limited, curtailed, or restricted, or infringed by any level of government in any manner (except in the most narrowly defined circumstances when the government assumes complete and totally responsibility and liability for the safety of the person).

Section 2. The provisions of this amendment shall be self executing and self enforcing. Any person, group, or corporation may file a challenge in the courts of any state. The judicial power of the United States shall extend to these cases. All persons, groups, or corporations who file a challenge and succeed shall be entitled to it's fees and costs.

I like it. This actually deserves it's own thread, perhaps entitled: The New, Improved Second Amendment." Librarian? Feel free to work your magic.

ptoguy2002
01-30-2012, 2:24 PM
I really hate to say this, but this whole process might go quicker with better end results if: -a justice died->Obama names a new anti-gun judge->SCOTUS overturns Heller->everybody gets really pissed off->28th amendment passes with no ambiguity on the matter
I guess though, that would be a perfect outcome, and that never happens either.
Some of those judges are getting old, and I'd lay down a weeks wage that one of our 5 is going to croak in the next 4 years, which at the rate cases are going, is going to have a serious impact on the whole thing.

press1280
01-30-2012, 2:25 PM
I don't believe it hurts us necessarily and remember the Circuits haven't spoken yet on the issue, post-Heller. Reason I say so is because the courts twisted US v. Miller(1939) for years, and the Heller 5 had no problem disposing of the bogus interpretations. Disposing of district court nonsense that'll be less than 2 years old will be comparitively easy.

Paul S
01-30-2012, 2:26 PM
I too have considered this and wonder about its impact. My opinion...which when coupled with $2 gets you a cup of coffee...is that these rulings do make it less likely that the SCOTUS will expand the right beyond its current limits.

Uxi
01-30-2012, 2:29 PM
Heh, a couple weeks ago I was thinking about the language. In the end we can be as specific as we want, though, it doesn't seem to stop the antis from trampling on it. Barry's conduct wrt "recess appointments" shows it's all but toilet paper to him.

But here's what I had started with:


"A well regulated militia composed of every sane adult person, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep arms in their homes and bear arms in public for their own self defense, for hunting and sporting, and for the resistance of tyranny shall not be infringed by Federal, State, or local governments in any way;

weapons in common military usage shall not be prohibited nor shall possession be hindered by same;

nor shall Federal, State, or local government prohibit membership in the militia to an exclusive class, nor deprive any person in ammunition or availability of training; nor cause excessive fees or taxes beyond that which is required to the proper administration of regulation;

recognizing the sensitivity of specific public places, no person shall be deprived of arms, but be given the option of leaving clearly defined and marked places limited to specific property that shall not extend beyond that which is necessary.

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Gray Peterson
01-30-2012, 2:30 PM
I too have considered this and wonder about its impact. My opinion...which when coupled with $2 gets you a cup of coffee...is that these rulings do make it less likely that the SCOTUS will expand the right beyond its current limits.

Your evidence of this?

randian
01-30-2012, 2:33 PM
Section 1. The right of any person to possess, store, use and carry in public a functional arm ready for immediate use for any traditionally lawful purpose (including but not limited to lawful defense of self or another, target practice, hunting, and training in arms) equipment, and supplies, shall not be limited, curtailed, or restricted, or infringed by any level of government in any manner (except in the most narrowly defined circumstances when the government assumes complete and totally responsibility and liability for the safety of the person).

Section 2. The provisions of this amendment shall be self executing and self enforcing. Any person, group, or corporation may file a challenge in the courts of any state. The judicial power of the United States shall extend to these cases. All persons, groups, or corporations who file a challenge and succeed shall be entitled to it's fees and costs.
Cute, but easily circumvented.

1) Congress can use its jurisdiction power to prevent SCOTUS from hearing any cases involving it.
2) "lawful purpose" will be interpreted to mean whatever a state legislature says it means. If a state legislature says that "self defense" is not a lawful purpose, the judiciary will defer to it.
3) "In a locked box" will be interpreted as satisfying the "immediate use" requirement.
4) What you really need is much simpler: rewrite the 2A to remove its prefatory clause so that deliberately obtuse people who intentionally misunderstand English grammar won't claim it to be a limiting clause.

kcbrown
01-30-2012, 2:43 PM
Look, it just doesn't matter what language you put into the Amendment to make it "clear". It won't help.

The 14th Amendment is about as clear as it gets (the meaning of "privileges and immunities" was well understood at the time of ratification). And despite that, the Supreme Court only a few years after the 14th Amendment's ratification decided that "oh, they didn't really mean it to say what it says, they meant this other thing instead".

And as a result, the PorI clause in the 14th Amendment was transformed into useless verbiage.


What in the world makes you think anything different will happen with a 28th Amendment, unless that Amendment includes structural changes that are beyond the Supreme Court's power to interpret and control?

bandook
01-30-2012, 2:58 PM
I like it. This actually deserves it's own thread, perhaps entitled: The New, Improved Second Amendment." Librarian? Feel free to work your magic.

..and the purpose for crafting 2nd Amendment V2.0 would be...???

The chances of that coming to fruition is about as much as Zombies taking over the earth.

Do understand that the vast majority of this country is not burdened with cumbersome gun laws, so they aren't going to take to the streets (or go to the polls) to help us suckers in California (you know how they all feel about 'liberal' places like lets say California, Mass., NY, Chicago etc. They'll probably want to stick it to us even more...).

Yes, we'd all like the hammer (preferably the sledgehammer kind) to fall from the top, hard, on the very cold fingertips of our esteemed legislators on a frost winter morning, but it isn't going to happen anytime real soon.

SCOTUS has intervened in cases where gun control was draconian. Don't expect them to hop to it every time a 2A case shows up. They would rather take cases that impact the entire country (not just a few crazy states/cities).

Our problem isn't the 2nd Amendment, it is that the California Constitution has no equivalent. If someone needs to float a California Ballot Proposition, it should be to add the 'right of a person to defend and protect' to the CA constitution. I don't see why that won't pass if crafted properly. (All you have to do is start with 'Given that the police and law enforcement have no duty to protect an individual, the state constitution shall be amended to allow citizens to possess and bear arms to protect themselves and their families.' )

IMO, you can fight in the courts all you want, but as long as there is a discrepancy between State and Federal laws, there will always be issues with 'interpretations' of what SCOTUS really means. ('Oh, so now SCOTUS made it clear that the people have the right to carry firearms outside the house'... We take it to mean only on Federal Lands. If SCOTUS wants this to apply 'everywhere', they should state so clearly.) That buys another 3-4 years before the next case is granted Cert. and SCOTUS is NEVER going to say everyone/everywhere as that gets into the whole 'sensitive places' issue.

Maestro Pistolero
01-30-2012, 3:25 PM
Our problem isn't the 2nd Amendment, it is that the California Constitution has no equivalent.It doesn't need an equivalent. McDonald applied the 2nd to bind the states. But there is no reason to believe that if the state would ignore an incorporated, enumerated, fundamental civil right in the US constitution, that it would give any more weight to it's own state constitution.

IIRC, Hawaii has a 2A anologue in their state constitution, and they are essentially a no-issue state.

glockman19
01-30-2012, 3:25 PM
For years I've said, all the court now needs to do is define "shall not be infringed"

To all of you who want a new amendment, the one we have is just fine...if anything, we need to shorten it from 27 words down to just 11...

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Something everyone can understand.

One exception is an incarcerated criminal or mental ward.

glockman19
01-30-2012, 3:30 PM
Bandook,
The CA Constitution Article 1 Section 1 lists our Inalieable Rights in CA.

ALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Maestro Pistolero
01-30-2012, 4:30 PM
I agree that we follow our course to get the right recognized as written first. A constitutional convention is a potential can of worms.

hoffmang
01-30-2012, 5:51 PM
First as to the OP's core concern, losing in District stinks and I wish we weren't, but the reality is that almost no pro-2A decision from a Court of Appeal was from a District Court win. That list includes Parker/Heller, McDonald, Ezell, US v. Chester, US v. Carter (weed), and US v. Rehlander (Mental illness bar requires due process/heightened evidence.) The only significant 2A positive decision that won at District was Emerson but note that the Emerson District court judge just handed NRA losses in 18-20 year old firearms purchase and carry license eligibility.

Courts of appeals don't hear all the nasty crackhead murderer cases who are enhanced with a firearm because the lower courts handle them right. As such, the District Court judges tend to be less academic about their opinions on firearms - or at least the Appellate judges are allowed to be a bit more detached.

Now, on the other topic of making a "no we really mean it" modern 2A, there is one way to make it very clear and enforceable. Simply add to the amendment, "and the following Supreme Court Justices that voted to moot the right to keep and bear arms are dismissed: _________."

-Gene

kcbrown
01-30-2012, 6:32 PM
Now, on the other topic of making a "no we really mean it" modern 2A, there is one way to make it very clear and enforceable. Simply add to the amendment, "and the following Supreme Court Justices that voted to moot the right to keep and bear arms are dismissed: _________."


Perhaps if you also include verbiage that would somehow result in the dismissal of a Justice who later votes against the modern 2A, you might wind up with something that has real teeth.

Otherwise, the Court will simply reverse itself later when it is confident that yet another ConCon isn't possible.

How about including something in the Amendment that gives the NRA the power to dismiss a Justice on the basis of failing to uphold the modern 2A? :43:

Uxi
01-30-2012, 7:30 PM
It will always be tenuous as long as it's only 5-4. The only way to get away from that is to get 2-3 Republicans in a row and pack the court.

That or the low brow method of threatening to pack/stack the court, which seemed to work to make SCOTUS bend over and grab their ankles for FDR.

hoffmang
01-30-2012, 7:50 PM
It will always be tenuous as long as it's only 5-4.

Yes and no. If we can run through the major issues and win them all 5-4 over the next 5 - 10 years, then we both break the back of the financial support for the other side and remove most all of the nastiest iterations of gun control. That leads to social change. Note that it's taken MANY years for the Temperance movement to find a new home at MADD now that MADD fully succeeded on their goals and has nothing better to do. Also, Roe v. Wade (where the opposition isn't going to be as easily ostracized for certainly understandable 'reasonable folks can differ' reasons) has survived very well intact at 5-4 and maybe now at 4-5.

-Gene

Mulay El Raisuli
01-31-2012, 4:46 AM
For years I've said, all the court now needs to do is define "shall not be infringed"

To all of you who want a new amendment, the one we have is just fine...if anything, we need to shorten it from 27 words down to just 11...

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Something everyone can understand.

One exception is an incarcerated criminal or mental ward.


Actually, we don't need to specify any exceptions. Those are already covered.


The Raisuli

Gray Peterson
01-31-2012, 6:46 AM
So, you folks worried about the district court rulings, don't you remember that nine courts of appeal up until 2008 ruled 2A to be a collective right?

The courts of appeal haven't even weighed in on the carry issue directly, except for a concurrent opinion in the 4th circuit....

Uxi
01-31-2012, 7:09 AM
Yes and no. If we can run through the major issues and win them all 5-4 over the next 5 - 10 years, then we both break the back of the financial support for the other side and remove most all of the nastiest iterations of gun control. That leads to social change. Note that it's taken MANY years for the Temperance movement to find a new home at MADD now that MADD fully succeeded on their goals and has nothing better to do. Also, Roe v. Wade (where the opposition isn't going to be as easily ostracized for certainly understandable 'reasonable folks can differ' reasons) has survived very well intact at 5-4 and maybe now at 4-5.


Well I specifically have Plessy v Ferguson on my mind. The Bradys will always have victims to exploit and statists to feed off of.

OleCuss
01-31-2012, 7:12 AM
I love what Gray and Gene have done in this thread.

Gray has come up with some great language, and Gene showed us the teeth.

I'd probably want Gene's little addendum changed to make it clear that any future attempt to restrict the rights as outlined in Gray's language would be grounds for impeachment.

Maestro Pistolero
01-31-2012, 8:17 AM
I love what Gray and Gene have done in this thread.

Gray has come up with some great language, and Gene showed us the teeth.

I'd probably want Gene's little addendum changed to make it clear that any future attempt to restrict the rights as outlined in Gray's language would be grounds for impeachment.

I'd like to think I helped (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=7945323&postcount=23) a little. :)

OleCuss
01-31-2012, 8:24 AM
I'd like to think I helped (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=7945323&postcount=23) a little. :)

I'd not argue with that at all! :facepalm:

hoffmang
01-31-2012, 8:55 PM
Well I specifically have Plessy v Ferguson on my mind. The Bradys will always have victims to exploit and statists to feed off of.

However there is difference in the level of engagement with the issue. Those who opposed the rights of black people were able to organize drinking country clubs with silly white robes and bonfires every weekend to ***** about how much they hated "those people." The Brady's can't get anyone but the NRA to show up at their press conferences. Actually attending a chapter meeting is a chance to county empty seats at the local library meeting space...

That's a big and very important difference to the long term outcomes here.

Note that those who oppose Roe v. Wade can even today fill an arena. I would LOVE to watch Brady try to get anti gun people to physically show up in numbers capable of filling even a symphony hall.

-Gene