We have Heller; we have MacDonald; why don't we have our rights yet?

[wildhawker]

This thread is going to (has already?) devolve quickly.

-Brandon

[Connor P Price]

Maybe a bit back on topic... Heller/McDonald are our Brown v Board of Education. The ball is rolling but it will take time before the true results are realized. It's just the way it works.

[navyinrwanda]

Compared with the development of other constitutional rights, Second Amendment jurisprudence is1919risking imprisonmentHeller. Anyone who claims that Heller or McDonald absolutely commands a particular outcome (other than forbidding bans on home possession of handguns) should learn more about the law.

[wildhawker]

Professor Amar is absolutely right about the “extraordinary ambiguity” of Heller. Anyone who claims that Heller or McDonald absolutely commands a particular outcome (other than forbidding bans on home possession of handguns) should learn more about the law.

I'd say that, for example, Alan Gura might argue that Heller commands outcomes beyond that one which Amar likely finds as the decision's limit. However, there's certainly a difference between what "ought" to be and what "is"; we'll see over the years how close reality tracks what really are nothing more than predictions (some informed, and some not so much so).

-Brandon

[Casual_Shooter]

I know (am learning) this stuff takes time, but it seems odd to me that when "they" decided to make open carry illegal, they made it happen in- what seemed like- hours.

[Al Norris]

Mudcamper, you are correct. I have my cases confused.

It was Doc 28, plaintiffs response in opposition to defendants MJP and MSJ. Complete docket is here.

[moleculo]

Well, if you take the blue pill...

Seriously, the courts might improve transparency with technology, but their workload will only increase with time. It's a reasonable expectation that it remains very close to where it is unless Congress and the states decide to make court systems a budget priority and hire more judges, clerks, and staff (and contractors to build courthouses).

-Brandon

More budget to hire more people? That's the way the government and big unions always think. Try to think like a more progressive company might - They need to cut the personnel budget in half and force the system to implement technology solutions to solve the problem. Government agencies will never do this, but this approach has often worked well in the private sector (speaking from MUCH personal experience). It's amazing how quickly people will rethink how and what they need to do when there is suddenly no staff to continue to do things the same 'ole way.

[wildhawker]

The Courts are not the private sector.

If the private sector had to pay their share of the courts' actual costs, there would probably be far fewer lawsuits.

(One example would be a requirement that disputes for all commercial contracts pay court fees proportional to the monetary volume of transactions under the contract.)

-Brandon

[gbran]

Heller and McDonald are landmark, but SCOTUS didn't broaden our 2A right beyond the home. This is a hurdle that will have to be overcome.

[Librarian]

I know (am learning) this stuff takes time, but it seems odd to me that when "they" decided to make open carry illegal, they made it happen in- what seemed like- hours.

Mulford Act (1967) and AB 144 (2011) ran through the usual legislative process and took months.

Problem with legislators is that they need not prove that what they pass will work, or have any effect at all, much less actually address the issue a bill may claim to address.

Challenge a law in court and you move to a much different standard.

[moleculo]

The Courts are not the private sector.

If the private sector had to pay their share of the courts' actual costs, there would probably be far fewer lawsuits.

(One example would be a requirement that disputes for all commercial contracts pay court fees proportional to the monetary volume of transactions under the contract.)

-Brandon

Oh, don't get me wrong...I'm all for disputes by private parties paying ALL the court costs. However, I rarely find myself on the side of the debate that says that we need to allocate more tax dollars to government activities to fix government inefficiencies. True, the courts are not the private sector. If they were run like the private sector, we might get a little closer to "internet time". One can dream...

[Shotgun Man]

By paying taxes we are paying for the courts' actual costs.

[wildhawker]

By paying taxes we are paying for the courts' actual costs.

I acknowledge that; my suggestion was that costs of court might be borne in a direct relationship to burden rather than redistributed through the tax system and its many avenues for avoiding same.

"Want to settle a dispute over some $15,000 transaction in court? Sure. Pay $150." (There might be some market for insuring contracts for court costs under such a system. In that world, how much do you want to bet that parties to major contracts think about signing on the dotted line before self-insuring?)

-Brandon