John Wolver
Regular Member
imported post
fingers crossed that he is someone who upholds our constitution.
fingers crossed that he is someone who upholds our constitution.
Probably waiting for guidance from McDonald.
+1 Craig.press1280 wrote:
Probably waiting for guidance from McDonald.
I'm not so sure. I doubt that McDonald will address carry. My guess is that the court will limit its scope to incorporation and hopefully give some guidance to level of scrutiny. My understanding is that when it comes down to brass tacks McDonald is more of a 14th amendment issue than a true 2A question. Since DC isn't a state incorporation wouldn't effect the decision.
I'm no legal scholar, but I did stay at Holiday Inn Express.
I think the judge is a coward.
Thundar wrote:
I think the judge is a coward.
He isn't being a coward. He is waiting for a decision from SCOTUS which may make part of a potential decision that he may make obsolete. The judge here isn't the friendliest to our interests, and he could have screwed us by making a decision early against us and force us to go in front of the Court of Appeals. He did not do that, unlike his colleague in Heller II
Thanks for the input.The Supreme Court can issue their ruling anytime, but they will probably wait until the last day this month (as they did last year).
Yes, the Scalia majority opinion in Heller, made it quite clear in their dicta (non-binding) that bear meant to carry. I'm not sure about the dissenting opinion, however.
The binding part of the Heller decision (the 'holding' of the case) dealt only with 'keeping' arms in the home.
The anti-gunners have been telling everybody that the Heller decision limits second amendment protection to the 'home' amongst some other wishful fallacies. Whilethis is technically true, they are intentionally misrepresenting the overall impact of the Heller case by just focusing on the bare holding itself.
I justreread most of the dissenting opinion (my head is about to explode), and I see that I must haveeither misunderstood the first time I read itor simply incorrectly recalled when and where I readwhat arguments, as the dissenting opinion does not at all agree that "bear arms" means to carry for personal protection. It is possible that I read an anti-gun review of the majority opinion that was bemoaning that fact that it could be used to allow lawful gun carry in traditionally anti-gun localities.
SCJ Opinion: "The Second Amendment extends prima facie to all instruments which constitute bearable arms. The amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existance of the right and declares only that it shall not be infringed.": SCJ A. Scalia 2008
Was this really in the Heller Decision dicta (in particular: "all instruments which constitute bearable arms")? If so then I'm ecstatic. I read the decision back then but don't recall that little nugget.
Edited to add: A quick Google search seems to bear the above out. But didn't Scalia muddle up the definition (scope) of covered arms elsewhere in the decision (i.e. in regards to machine guns in particular)?