Why DC will HAVE TO appeal the Parker decision

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thoughts from an Expert on the subject:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_05_06-2007_05_12.shtml#1178646019

The Second Amendment in the Supreme Court: The D.C. Circuit refused to rehear the Parker case en banc. A few thoughts on this case in the Supreme Court:

1. Timing: I assume that the District of Columbia will petition for certiorari; it has 90 days to do this, so the petition will likely be filed in mid-August. That would mean the Supreme Court will decide in late September whether to hear the case — and if it does agree to hear the case ("grant cert"), it will hear it in early 2008, with a decision handed down by early July of 2008.

2. Chances of the Supreme Court's Hearing the Case: High, I'd say well over 50% (unless Congress moots the question by preempting D.C.'s gun ban). That's a rare thing to say, given that the Court hears only about 1% of the cases that it's asked to hear. But here there is a split among federal courts of appeals on an important constitutional question — the D.C. Circuit and the Fifth Circuit take the individual rights view (see here and here for why the Fifth Circuit's decision can't be dismissed as dictum), while I think nine other circuits take the collective rights view. There is also a split between a federal court of appeals and D.C.'s highest court on the constitutionality of a specific law, which is itself usually seen as a strong signal in favor of cert. This is also the sort of question that the Justices would likely think ought to be decided by the Supreme Court; it's one thing to have different views in different circuits on some technical question, and another to have different views on whether an Amendment in the Bill of Rights secures an individual right or not.

3. Chances of the Supreme Court's Accepting the Individual Right View: Now that's a mystery. I think the individual rights view is correct, and I think the historical evidence should be a powerful influence on the Court.

But note how the vote in the D.C. Circuit broke down: Two conservatives (Silberman and Griffith) supported the individual rights view, but one Republican appointee (Henderson) seemed to reject it. In the en banc vote, the three Clinton appointees (Rogers, Tatel, and Garland) voted to rehear the case, but so did Randolph, a Bush Sr. appointee who to my knowledge is a pretty solid conservative; it's possible that they voted to rehear the case en banc just because it's extremely important, deepens a circuit split, and creates a split with the D.C. Court of Appeals — but generally speaking judges don't vote to rehear a case en banc unless they suspect the panel decision was mistaken. (On the other hand, sometimes judges vote against rehearing a case en banc even though they disagree with the panel decision; I'm not sure why Henderson voted against en banc, but I take it that it isn't because she changed her minds on the merits.)

[UPDATE: Alan Gura, lawyer for the plaintiffs, observes that Judge Randolph also voted to rehear Seegars v. Gonzales, an earlier D.C. Circuit case that rejected on standing grounds a challenge to the gun control law. Gura therefore speculates that Judge Randolph might not disagree with the individual rights view of the Second Amendment, but might instead want to reverse the standing decisions in Seegars and Navegar, Inc. v. U.S.. I'm not sure whether that's so, but in any event that would leave Judge Henderson as an example of a Republican appointee who nonetheless seems to endorse the states' rights / collective rights view of the Second Amendment.]

It's true that in the Ninth Circuit's Silveira v. Lockyer, archliberal Judge Pregerson and Clinton appointee Judge Gould endorsed the individual rights view, alongside the conservative Judges Kozinski, Kleinfeld, O'Scannlain, and T.G. Nelson; so it might be that some of the liberals on the Supreme Court will take a similar view. Still, supporters of the individual rights view ought to worry about the possibility that the Supreme Court vote on the merits will break down much as the D.C. vote seems to have — the liberal Justices being joined by one or two of the conservatives to endorse the states' rights / collective rights view. And on the Supreme Court, that would make a majority for that view, rather than the 2-1 split on the D.C. panel, and the 5-5 split on the court as a whole.

4. What Might a Pro-Individual-Rights Decision from the Supreme Court Do? I expect it will be very narrow, will leave open considerable room for gun controls that are less comprehensive than D.C.'s total ban, and will not resolve the question whether the Second Amendment is incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment to cover state regulations (though that latter question would of course come up in another case within a few years).

5. How Might the Case Affect the Presidential Campaign? I asked a set of questions about this when the Parker panel decision was handed down; let me repeat them, now that the prospect of Supreme Court review in 2008 is less hypothetical, and now that we are further into the election campaign.

A. What, if anything, will the extra prominence of the issue do to the primaries?

B. Assume the decision comes down in late June 2008, and is 5-4 in favor of the individual rights theory. What will that do to the general Presidential election race?

C. Assume it's 5-4 in favor of the collective rights theory, with Kennedy joining the four liberals on the collective rights side. What will that do to the race? What if it's 5-4 with Roberts or Alito joining the liberals? I take it that if it's not 5-4, or (possibly) if it's 5-4 with a less liberal/conservative split, the effect will be less; is that right?

D. Or is this decision not that relevant, either on the theory that the issue won't energize people that much, or on the theory that plenty of people would be energized on gun control and the Second Amendment regardless of how the case comes down?

Naturally, if one of the Justices retires this year or next, the effect on the Presidential race would be still greater, I suspect.
 
I honestly just don't understand how anyone can look at the Bill of Rights in totality and the second amendment in particular and not see an individual right. The mental gymnastics required to see a collective right are breathtaking.

The idea that constitution evolves or grows over time and with the times floors me, that document is all that keeps us from going to war with each other. If it becomes mutable, then in my opinion it becomes completely worthless
and I no longer owe any allegiance to it.

I wonder if the SCOTUS thinks about that when it makes it's decisions or are they so far removed reality they don't see it?

Wow, a hundred and fifty years have gone by since the Civil War and here we are again.
 
A. Deny Cert: 75% Probably the only Supreme who would want to see this is Scalia. Thomas and to lesser extent Roberts maybe, but not so much.
I think that you are pretty much right on, but I don't understand this. Thomas being a more true originalist, I would think that he would like to see this case, unless he thought that it would lose.
 
If anything I would say that Thomas is the only sure bet for our side. Scalia, maybe-- but he has proven time and time again that he'll defer to "good" precedent, especially if it gives a clear answer to a potentially difficult question. And what could be a more clear-cut rule than "There is no right to own guns"?

The sad truth about many of the "conservative" judges have taken the "judicial restraint" thing a little too far, to the point where they're just law-and-order populists, ready to rubber stamp anything that Congress says will fight crime.
 
> Finally, 4) the entire tax stamp scheme of the 1934 NFA is under direct threat. It is not under threat because of what $200.00 represents today in proportion to a $15,000.00 transferrable M-16, but rather, the question of Miller would be directly confronted.

Minor nit: if the machine gun registry is reopened, that $15000 M16 will cost a whole lot less than $15k.

> strikes down centuries-old laws which the Court sees as interfering with [...] (i.e., killing children and anal sex).

I don't know what you've been reading, but killing children is and always has been illegal. Abortion rates went down (and death rates from abortions plummeted) after Roe vs Wade, as did crime (if you look at the timelines, abortion is the most likely cause for the crime rate drop in the 80s through today - fewer unwanted kids). Anal sex is like CCW - nobody else's business. I don't know why you feel strongly about what two people do for fun - it doesn't affect you at all.

> The sad truth about many of the "conservative" judges have taken the "judicial restraint" thing a little too far, to the point where they're just law-and-order populists, ready to rubber stamp anything that Congress says will fight crime.

I think the right wing radio freaks have gotten to them with the constant cries of judicial activism whenever a judge rules counter to their desires.
 
As of this writing, Parker is already a stick of dynamite with a lit fuse, and when it goes off, much of the federal ticky-tack regulation of guns will likely die in the explosion.

Nope, not going to happen. The Left will wait until the USSC is favorable to their agenda, and then they'll strike. And in the aftermath, we'll lose even more freedoms.
 
Boats,

If the case is appealed to the SC, and if the SC hears it, and if they reach a decision favorable to our point of view on guns, and if that then becomes a threat to the NFA, it won't matter because the NFA is no longer needed.

They made the NFA regulations in the form of a tax because the power to regulate commerce had not yet been construed to include such things as machine guns. That all ended in 2005 with the Raich and Stewart cases. They don't need to call a gun law a tax any longer, they can just call it a regulation of interstate commerce.
 
The problem with stopping Parker at DC now is that the BATFE is, for all practical/legal purposes, in DC. As noted, the next logical thing on the radar is 922(o), followed by NFA. Parker standing means I pay for a new $1200 M4 "wit da switch", file my Form 4, and take the subsequent rejection to a DC court, replacing every occurrence of "pistol" in Parker with "machinegun".

Miller's SBS cost somewhere around $5. Though the $200 tax is plainly onerous, a practical ban, and garners nowhere near enough revenue to even pay for collecting it, some court DID rule that being a tax (akin to a sales tax), NFA is legal. (Pity I can't remember which case that was.) If 922(o) falls, expect the $200 tax be raised 100x.

Justice Thomas has clearly indicated he, and others on the court, do want a 2nd Amendment case - if only someone would send up a CLEAN case. Prior to Parker every SCOTUS-bound RKBA case was fraught with red herrings which would would wreck the results.

Opening the NFA registry to new machineguns again brings the price of MGs down to their semi-auto equivalents ... insofar as the $200 tax is viewed as tolerable in light of the price of the item being purchased. I've notice that the silencer industry has settled largely on high-quality products typically priced at $500-$1000 (with some bell-curve fringes down to $200 and up to $3000); I figure that's because if you're going to pay a whopping $200 just in tax, buyers subconsciously figure they may as well buy something worth paying a $200 tax thereon. Disposable $10 silencers could be economically viable, but the $200 tax + paperwork is terminally discouraging; likewise, $100 machineguns are economically viable, except that paying twice that in tax (plus red tape) chills the market. Upshot is: methinks toppling 922(o) would bring machineguns down to little less than $1000 - which is far preferable to $15,000 & up, but still discourages (say) converted SKSs.

Parker did not (IIRC) rule that handguns would be unlicensed in DC, only that suitable applications had to be accepted* and licensed handguns need not be perpetually disabled. As such, I don't see how Parker per se could be used to knock over NFA. 922(o), yes; NFA, no.


* - Why DC maintained, for some 30 years, the application forms and processing personnel for a license that would never be accepted, I just don't understand.
 
They don't need to call a gun law a tax any longer, they can just call it a regulation of interstate commerce.
we have a winner. With the Raich case decision, a majority of USSC justices WILL use the necessary and proper clause over the commerce clause to maintain 'public safety' to prevent ANY!!, ANY!!!, and I mean ANY!!!! new machine guns from hitting the streets. Scalias faith in the 'professionalism' of law enforcement will not require the public to have access to equal weaponry, therefore, the 86 ban will stay in effect.
 
The 2nd amendment of the constitution has everything to do with firearms. How can they justify using the commerce clause for firearms when the 2nd clearly states "Shall not be infringed?"
 
If/when the 2A gets its proper judicial recognition as a fundamental right, Raich is a dead letter against it.

A fundamental right cannot be subjected to onerous regulation, be that via permitting, taxation, bureaucratic regulation (red tape), executive order, or other governmental aim intended to frustrate that right.

See the First Amendment lines of litigation for details on all of the above power plays having been frustrated by its defenders. There is still regulation of free speech and religious practice, but it is largely invisible in daily life and mostly concerned with the extremes (parade/protest permits, animal sacrifice, religious drug use, how much money is too much in the political process.)

Cases attempting to limit the 1A through taxation, permitting, criminal law, governmental prior restraint, etcetera, have all been beat down into mostly nonfactors.

That is not to say the 2A would track perfectly with 1A cases over decades of litigation, but getting tagged as a "fundamental right" raises the specter of "strict scrutiny" of governmental efforts to restrict the free exercise of a right so recognized.

Mere Congressional invocation of the Commerce Clause would no longer get it done on gun control without vigorous judicial review that would likely turn back the vast majority of those efforts in a world in which the 2A is a fundamental right.
 
I'm actually hoping that this one does not go to the Supreme Court.

I looked through the opinion. It is heavy on law review articles and short on actual law. That's a very good predictor of a case that's on a course to be reversed.

Most of the black letter law out there is overwhelmingly against the individual rights view at this point. There's also a trend to limit the judiciary's ability to overturn acts of Congress on the basis of policy...so the fact that congress sees fit to have all these laws is going to weigh heavily against any meaningful individual rights position.

While a straight shot to the Supreme court might be nice, the case that carries individual rights to the supremes should be one that has lots of citations to authoritative legal history.
 
I looked through the opinion. It is heavy on law review articles and short on actual law. That's a very good predictor of a case that's on a course to be reversed.

Most of the black letter law out there is overwhelmingly against the individual rights view at this point. There's also a trend to limit the judiciary's ability to overturn acts of Congress on the basis of policy...so the fact that congress sees fit to have all these laws is going to weigh heavily against any meaningful individual rights position.

While a straight shot to the Supreme court might be nice, the case that carries individual rights to the supremes should be one that has lots of citations to authoritative legal history. - shootinstudent

It seems to me that if it all actually worked that way, bad law would be self justifying and would never be overturned.
 
shootinstudent:
Most of the black letter law out there is overwhelmingly against the individual rights view at this point.
And up until the middle of last century, there were a lot of laws against minorities. But they all fell to the Justices' pens just the same.

Kharn
 
I don't view the Parker decision being long on academics and short on "black letter" to be a very pressing problem.

The Second Amendment has never been seriously interpreted before, it's an open field, but with clearly visible fences, all of which keep out a collective rights interpretation to the intellectually honest.

Until the 1930s, it was not a serious question as to whether RKBA was an individual right. It was assumed to be by its very presence in the BoR. The early 2A cases were entirely about whether the 2A operated against states or only the federal government. (The latter is where they came down in "pre-incorporation" days).

The only serious look at the 2A in the last century was of course Miller which was anything but conclusive. However, examining the details, a couple things are clear:

1) If the Congress that passed the NFA (which was overwhelmingly Democratic Party partisan in nature) thought it had the power to regulate firearms via the Commerce Clause, they would have done so. That they elected to regulate automatic and other weapons via the tax code indicates that even they believed they had no direct power over guns as a result of the 2A.

2) If the collective model about the 2A were correct, SCOTUS merely had to deny Miller standing as he clearly did not belong to any militia, well regulated or other. As an ostensible criminal, he was not a member of the unorganized militia either. Miller was not denied standing.

3) The outcome of Miller was based on the nature of the weapon, not the nature of the right. No one presented Miller's case on remand, so Miller is far from complete guidance.

Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that most cases since Miller have squarely gone against the 2A as an individual right. Luckily for us, the SCOTUS does not do a tally, based on popularity of an approach among circuits, and declares a numerical winner. The nine justices are on an entirely different plane of power. They will make their own determination, if they choose to take the case at all, that is if it is even appealled.

In fact, I hold out some measure of hope that if Parker is sent up by Mayor Fenty and is granted cert, there will be at least a 6-3 if not a 7-2 decision in favor of RKBA as an individual right. Here is my vote counting.

SOLID VOTES UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES:

Thomas: Most solidly 2A, will vote RKBA automatically.
Scalia: If he stays true to his "originalist" interpretive model, he is solid. Not much precendentiary rulings to give a lip lock to either.
Alito: Will give us a vote, because he will not have any truck with the lingusitic gymnastics the collective model requires.
Roberts: He will push for the narrowest result possible, but that result will be pro-RKBA if he can muster five votes or more, and against standing if he cannot. Roberts' selection and elevation is quite frankly the best accomplishment of the entire Dubya administration.

SOLID VOTES AGAINST:

Stevens: He has little regard at this late date with leaving a sound judicial legacy. He will have little or no problem doing 9th Circus style contortions of the 2A and history.
Souter: Because he is generally a lost cause on anything remotely "conservative," let alone something as radically conservative as RKBA. He has to rank among the biggest disappointments ever. It is difficult to believe he is from Hew Hampshire.

WILDCARDS:

Breyer: One would think him an automatic write-off, but he has shown a reverence for historical tradition and straight-up interpretation, especially in cases without tons of precedent to defer to. He is intellectually honest enough to hold his nose and vote the right outcome.

Ginsburg: Like Breyer above, when the field is open and the historical review points to an individual interpretation, she could be persuaded to go there if a narrow pro-RKBA result is reached that only invalidates outright bans and leaves the future to future litigation.

Kennedy: If he can be kept on track that international law does not meaningfully apply to whether US citizens have an individual right to RKBA, he might just go towards his periodic libertarian leanings and give us a vote. If not, he'd be a loose cannon. Like most SCOTUS watchers, I find Kennedy to be too unpredictable to feel comfortable with him one way or the other.

Lastly, Parker deals with a statutory scheme put in place by DC local rule. That's not exactly Congress getting cuffed upside the head if the striking down of their law is upheld by the SCOTUS.

I think that since the SCOTUS would only be violating the will of the local DC political process, it is easier for the liberal Court members to be completely honest (at least those capable of more than knee-jerk reflex) on the question of whether gun bans, actual or de facto, are constitutional.

I think the pro-RKBA vote, if it comes to pass, will be higher than most think.
 
RealGun,

That's actually the case. Bad law isn't often overturned when it's got lots of authority behind it. Tons of judicial opinions plus Congress legislating like crazy is a lot of authority to overcome for the individual rights view.

Kharn,

That's an interesting history, but it doesn't quite fit. The federal government used its authority to pass laws to pass laws that banned discrimination, and then the courts upheld it and applied it against states. There wasn't a lot of terribly strong caselaw in support of discrimination.

This is sort of the opposite-the Federal government is legislating as if there is no such right, and there is lots and lots of caselaw to support that view.

It'll take time. The system isn't designed so that a Judge can read the constitution once and say "well, that settles it! I'll just undo all the laws everyone made and all the opinions every other judge has given!". That's generally a good thing, but sometimes it means we have to take it more slowly than we'd like when it's time for a change.
 
Boats,

It's simply not true to say that the second amendment hasn't been interpreted. It has-many many times. Most of the Courts that considered it found regulations to be permitted, and tied the right to service in a well regulated militia. Here's a pretty recent example that cites some of that law:

http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/00-6129.htm

I think your points are good, but ultimately will not persuade a court in this environment. Without legal authority to back up the historical claims, I just don't see the Supreme Court overruling the legislature on an area this big.

The three points you cite may be persuasive to us, but I think they're problematic because...

1. That doesn't really say much, because the commerce clause wasn't popular at all back then. Almost all commerce clause regulation was shot down, gun or not, so the government didn't use it.

2. While this may also be true, a reading of Miller makes it obvious that the Court tied whatever right, individual or collective, to service in the militia. It's really not an individual rights case, which is why it's cited in all the collective rights decisions that follow.

3. Also true, but look at what subsequent courts have done. Is there even a single case before Parker that cites Miller as authority and then doesn't take the collective rights view?

The thing you have to consider is that cases going against the individual rights view didn't just come after Miller-they all cite Miller.

Let me take a look at your breakdown of votes and I'll respond later on that. That's an interesting take you have.
 
It is heavy on law review articles and short on actual law. ... Most of the black letter law out there is overwhelmingly against the individual rights view at this point.
It's short on actual law because the actual law is short. The 2nd Amendment is only, what, 27 words?

The black letter law overwhelmingly against the individual rights view is based on the flawed premise that "the people" means "only those authorized by the state", and "shall not be infringed" means "applies only to those whom the state says it applies" - which is of course absurd. That bad law is built on bad law means the whole pile consists of bad law, which must all be swept away in light of the original, and government-limiting, good law.

Lots of verbiage does not legitimately replace simply-put fundamentals.

We need this to reach SCOTUS. In 70+ years, nothing so relevant has made it this far. (Methinks Miller got the ruling it did - that being remanded back to the first court - only because without the defendant present (deceased) SCOTUS just wanted the case to go away.) SCOTUS will ONLY take the purest case possible, and this is about as pure as it can get. Good luck finding a better case. Failing this, we'll just continue the slow drowning in more bad "black letter law". Ditto SCOTUS distributions: with the high chance of the next few justices being appointed by Leftist executives, we're not likely to see a better distribution for decades.



Boats notes something that must be made very clear:
This case is ONLY about the outright federal ban on handguns in DC, and the inability of DC residents to have a functional weapon handy at home. This allows for a very narrow ruling, which might even be rendered positively yet without comment (SCOTUS need not explain anything, though it usually does). OK, so we get a ruling declaring "a common militia-suitable category of weapons cannot be banned outright" and "weapons cannot be practically banned by requiring them be rendered useless", quite possibly issued with "this only applies to the federal government" (with implications state cases must be addressed separately) - so? DC residents get to keep new handguns usable at home ... wa-hoo; that's good for them, but what of us?
- 922(o) instantly comes into the spotlight, being an outright federal ban. This would have to be addressed under a separate case, as no way no how will BATFE view Parker as plainly implying an overturn of that ban; it will have to be absolutely explicit, which requires another case.
- I'm awfully tempted to say "AWB-II is DOA", but I can't. AWB-I was, if you will recall the nuances, mostly a ban on cosmetics, with some effect on capacity and a sideline ban on oversized pistols. AWB-II would also be a ban on cosmetics, though more aggressively so, and would require a separate case to address.
- This WOULD set the stage for a 14th-Amendment attack on state/local bans, resolving the "incorporation" question for as long as we'll care.

SCOTUS would be hard-pressed to uphold the DC bans, there being no "commerce clause" justification in this case (IIRC), and the city basically saying "the BoR doesn't apply to normal people". Even if they did, the results could be useful:
- "you must be a militia member with militia weapons" opens the door to 17-45yo males demanding Form 4 transfers of new M16s.
- "DC doesn't count" would, along with absolutely outraging the residents thereof, set the stage for a national overturn of 922(o) in the rest of the country.
- "muskets only" is even useful, as we'd have grounds to take 'em anywhere, and build the argument toward modern arms.
Only SCOTUS upholding the DC ban without comment would really hurt us.

As noted, there's not much logic, no matter how twisted, that could make SCOTUS reverse Parker. Such logic ultimately must be couched in terms which are to our advantage; the "collectivist" theory must eventually give up or declare its true intentions of unconstitutional outright ban of civilian weapons of all kinds.

DC's best move at this point is not to appeal. They can still regulate weapons into near-oblivion.

Thing is, whatever DC does, and short of SCOTUS ruling against us without comment, 922(o) is subsequently in very big trouble. I like that. And the only way SCOTUS can avert unleashing the pent-up demand for machineguns is by actually taking Parker and finding some very creative way of overturning it ... on that thought, SCOTUS must take Parker; it's the leftist's only hope.
 
It has-many many times.
But most of those times have been the result of precedent which had to be adhered to. Even the Parker verdict notes that the only reason they could rule as they did was because of a narrow gap in precedent; other similar cases had to be ruled differently because comparable cases, right or wrong, had already been ruled anti-individual RKBA.
 
SOLID VOTES UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES:

Thomas: Most solidly 2A, will vote RKBA automatically.
Scalia: If he stays true to his "originalist" interpretive model, he is solid. Not much precendentiary rulings to give a lip lock to either.
Alito: Will give us a vote, because he will not have any truck with the lingusitic gymnastics the collective model requires.
Roberts: He will push for the narrowest result possible, but that result will be pro-RKBA if he can muster five votes or more, and against standing if he cannot. Roberts' selection and elevation is quite frankly the best accomplishment of the entire Dubya administration.

Given that Scalia goes around saying (in relation to the Court's citing of International Law) things like 'Should we do away with the Second Amendment because Europeans don't like guns?' I think he's a pretty solid vote on this one.

And Roberts, at his confirmation hearing got Miller correct. I'm paraphrasing, but the exchange went something like this:

Feingold: I think the 2A is an individual right but the courts have ruled otherwise, right?
Roberts: Actually that is debated. The Miller case as I recall involved whether a sawn off shotgun was a weapon that could be used by a Militia.​

Now the fact that he a) was familiar with Miller and had clearly read it and not the academic textbook summary version, b) knew it did not rule for a collective right, bodes pretty well.

And he'd be right to push for a narrow result that is solid. Because even the narrowest result, as you've shown opens up a whole can of worms.

Thomas quoted Justice Story's 'palladium of liberty' line in dicta in Lopez, so he's solid as you say. And I bet he's familiar with the relationship of guns to the origin of the 14th Amendment.

Alito has no track record whatsoever. But he was willing to partially overturn 922(o) on Commerce Clause grounds, so he obviously doesn't run scared from the sight of guns.

I'm cautiously optimistic about Kennedy. He voted in the majority in Lopez and, I believe, in Printz v. US.
 
There is still regulation of free speech and religious practice, but it is largely invisible in daily life and mostly concerned with the extremes (parade/protest permits, animal sacrifice, religious drug use, how much money is too much in the political process.)

Cases attempting to limit the 1A through taxation, permitting, criminal law, governmental prior restraint, etcetera, have all been beat down into mostly nonfactors.

How much money is too much in the political process? How about how much firepower is too much? As little as I like gun laws, I would still rather live in a country where you can take whatever actions with your money you may choose in the political arena rather than one in which I can have any gun I want, but it is also my only real means of political expression.


Also, I listened as Howard Stern became more and more boring as government censorship became more and more strict and onerous. Then he was paid a whole lot of money by people who thought he might be funnier uncensored, and they were right. Now he has possession of the old tapes, and we can hear what was censored. The censorship absolutely had an impact, making the show unfunny then, and making it doubly funny now that we can look back and poke fun at the silliness of the censors.

Political communication and private communication for entertainment may be subject to strict scrutiny, but that hasn't stopped the regulators, and I'm not sure why it would in the firearms arena. Regulators will still regulate.

The Raich and Stewart decisions will be important when they do. The early argument in this thread about whether a tax is "really" a tax is moot in light of Raich and Stewart. When they decide to regulate, that need not be a question.
 
How much money is too much in the political process? How about how much firepower is too much?
Modeled after campaign finance laws...
...I can only use a hunting-caliber bolt-action rifle to defend you
...but I can use a howitzer and M2 to defend myself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top