Gun Wielding Maniac
Member
Being dead didnt stop the Supreme Court from hearing US vs. Miller
DC appeals Parker case to SCOTUS
- Thread starter ctdonath
- Start date
- Status
Being dead didnt stop the Supreme Court from hearing US vs. Miller
ConstitutionCowboy
member
It's a sad state of affairs when those on the Court worry more about their "legacy" than doing the right thing, but you're probably right.
Woody
Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood
crashm1
Member
I have cringed for the past few years as some have complained of "Activist Judges" knowing that when the Court finally Acts for the Bill of Rights and against the Unconstitutional gun control laws, some will try to pin the "Activist Judge" title on removal of the gun laws.
People have been brainwash into thinking that this is a Democracy instead of a Constitutional Republic and therefore think that all Government is subject to the whims of the majority instead of enforcing the Constitution that is already in place.
Ditto!
People have been brainwash into thinking that this is a Democracy instead of a Constitutional Republic and therefore think that all Government is subject to the whims of the majority instead of enforcing the Constitution that is already in place.
Ditto!
ctdonath
Member
Unless extended, the appeal must be in by August 8.
Considering how lame the request for extension was, and the lucid smackdown of a rebuttal by the other side, don't expect an extension.
If the plaintiffs cease to be, and SCOTUS doesn't hear the case after all, then the lower court ruling would stand and the DC gun ban tossed, shortly followed by a flurry of cases based on the DC Circuit's upholding of 2ndA = "individual right".
If the plaintiffs cease to be, methinks SCOTUS could still hear the case as it is now the law in question, not the plaintiff.
Fenty is in a lose-lose position. As the current lynchpin of the anti-gun movement, he doesn't want to be the one handing RKBA over to SCOTUS for review (especially with this case). As the mayor of DC, he has to take every opportunity (however slight) to get the current verdict overturned. That the winning opposition (the Parker team) is begging SCOTUS to take the appeal does not bode well for Fenty's odds of getting a reversal.
Considering how lame the request for extension was, and the lucid smackdown of a rebuttal by the other side, don't expect an extension.
If the plaintiffs cease to be, and SCOTUS doesn't hear the case after all, then the lower court ruling would stand and the DC gun ban tossed, shortly followed by a flurry of cases based on the DC Circuit's upholding of 2ndA = "individual right".
If the plaintiffs cease to be, methinks SCOTUS could still hear the case as it is now the law in question, not the plaintiff.
Fenty is in a lose-lose position. As the current lynchpin of the anti-gun movement, he doesn't want to be the one handing RKBA over to SCOTUS for review (especially with this case). As the mayor of DC, he has to take every opportunity (however slight) to get the current verdict overturned. That the winning opposition (the Parker team) is begging SCOTUS to take the appeal does not bode well for Fenty's odds of getting a reversal.
usmarine0352_2005
member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,796
Do you think that Fenty actually wants the Appeal to FAIL.
So that case does NOT go to the Supreme Court.
Big Picture = 2nd Amendment Case goes to SCOTUS - Chance of fail for anti's.
Small Picture = Anti's lose in DC, but don't lose the in the whole nation.
What do you think?
So that case does NOT go to the Supreme Court.
Big Picture = 2nd Amendment Case goes to SCOTUS - Chance of fail for anti's.
Small Picture = Anti's lose in DC, but don't lose the in the whole nation.
What do you think?
There wasn't much of a defense for Miller after he died. IIRC(someone will know the details) his lawyer didn't even show up. There are plenty of people that would take this case up should the plaintiffs(or the lawyers) cease to be concerned. So, even with everyone on that side dying, it'll still happen.
Usmarine, even if the appeal fails, they still lose the nation. As people have stated, if you want to sue the government, you do it in the D.C. circuit. '86 ban, import bans, everything is up then. Doesn't matter if I'm in Missouri, when they turn down my form 4, I sue in D.C. Expensive, but there.
Usmarine, even if the appeal fails, they still lose the nation. As people have stated, if you want to sue the government, you do it in the D.C. circuit. '86 ban, import bans, everything is up then. Doesn't matter if I'm in Missouri, when they turn down my form 4, I sue in D.C. Expensive, but there.
K-Romulus
Member
Here is a thread with an attached LR paper on the history of the Miller decision.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=279328
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=279328
scout26
Member
Remember these decisions are when O'Conner was still on the SC and was the deciding vote. We now have Roberts for Rehnquist - (even trade) and Alito for O'Conner (+1 for us).
Just to clarify for the NRA bashers out there. The NRA "opposed" this case when it was first originally filed because it was designed to go the SC. THey could count noses/votes on the SC and could see (at that time) that we stood a pretty good chance of losing. It's only been in the last year or so that makeup of the SC has changed. Everyone here is nervous as to how the court will rule, imagine how nervous we'd be feeling if O'Conner was still sitting on the court.
Oh, and one final point, Bush II managed to get Alito and Roberts on the Court when the Republicans still controlled the Senate (Advise and Consent). Anyone want to give odds on either making it through confirmation process now with Democrats in control ???? If there was a need to replace a Justice on the SC, the best we could hope for now is a another Souter or Kennedy.
So thanks again to all those people who urged us and voted for the D's in the last election to teach those nasty Republicans a lesson.
scout26
Member
One other thing to ponder. Since the Appeals court granted a ninety day stay for DC to file for cert, if they get an extension for cert, does that mean that the stay will still expire on/or about 7 Aug (and DC residents can begin to arm themselves) or will it automatically be extended if they get an extension to file for cert ???
SWMAN
Member
Typical DC government incompetence. They had 5 months to get their act together and didn't do it.
usmarine0352_2005
member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,796
Is getting an extension a good indication that SCOTUS wants to here this case (and therefore probably will)?
Bubbles
Member
This may not be a bad thing. The two justices most likely to be replaced during the remainder of President Bush's term are Stevens (he's 87 years old) and Ginsberg (she has health issues). If either resigns and there's no replacement on the bench when the oral arguments for Parker get heard, then at worst we're looking at a 4-4 decision, which translates to a loss for DC since the lower court's decision would be upheld.
So, all President Bush has to do is keep nominating hard-line conservatives, let the Senate kill the nomination, and start over. He'd have to stall for a few months at most, which should be do-able.
K-Romulus
Member
I believe either of two things:
1) the "fix" is in
or
2) the Court wants to be sure to have an extensive record developed so as to "teflon" their decision against the "sided with special interests" howling that would follow a pro-Heller outcome.
Titan6
member
This case is rare in that both sides have no idea how it will turn out. It is indeed that close.
eric.cartman
Member
I am really puzzled by the stupidity of D.C. politicians 
I think they heard them selfs repeat the lie so many times, they actually believed that 2nd A is not an individual right. Then the elite blue blood in their veins must help convince their brains that the rest of the country believes the same.
I sincerely believe, that the only reason they are pushing it to the SCOTUS is because they live in the laa-laa-land, they are what fathers of communism referred to as "useful idiots". As opposed to Hillary and the bunch, who know very well 2nd A protects individual rights, but seek to disarm us for an entirely different reason.
I say D.C. bring it on. We will either win, or it will be made very clear to us where we stand. Then again, many states recognize RKBA in their constitution as an individual right.
Another point i wanted to bring up is this: if FED through SCOTUS ruling states that 2nd is a collective right, aka states can organize militia, then wouldn't that render any sort of AWB unconstitutional? I mean, FED can't restrict the state of say FL, from arming it's state militia with full auto and/or "evil" looking rifles???
I think they heard them selfs repeat the lie so many times, they actually believed that 2nd A is not an individual right. Then the elite blue blood in their veins must help convince their brains that the rest of the country believes the same.
I sincerely believe, that the only reason they are pushing it to the SCOTUS is because they live in the laa-laa-land, they are what fathers of communism referred to as "useful idiots". As opposed to Hillary and the bunch, who know very well 2nd A protects individual rights, but seek to disarm us for an entirely different reason.
I say D.C. bring it on. We will either win, or it will be made very clear to us where we stand. Then again, many states recognize RKBA in their constitution as an individual right.
Another point i wanted to bring up is this: if FED through SCOTUS ruling states that 2nd is a collective right, aka states can organize militia, then wouldn't that render any sort of AWB unconstitutional? I mean, FED can't restrict the state of say FL, from arming it's state militia with full auto and/or "evil" looking rifles???
Thanks, K-Romulus.
From the article:
"... The opposition to the request for an extension was not received at the Court, at least not before the Chief Justice acted, it is understood."
Don't get that at all.
Did the SC clerks sandbag Heller? Or is the article speculating?
From the article:
"... The opposition to the request for an extension was not received at the Court, at least not before the Chief Justice acted, it is understood."
Don't get that at all.
Did the SC clerks sandbag Heller? Or is the article speculating?
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
I can't believe they granted D.C. an extension given the time D.C. has had to prepare its petition. That is just ridiculous. Hopefully, it is just giving D.C. another length of rope before they kick out the chair.
Gun Wielding Maniac
Member
The federalist argument concerning the 2nd Amendment is ridiculous. Claiming that the 2nd Amendment only guarantees a right of the states to keep and bear arms clearly invalidates later parts of the constitution which forbid the states from raising armies. What's more, even were it true, it would mean that all federal gun control laws were unconstitutional. Asinine.
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
No, a 30-day extension is almost a matter of course.
They are speculating It would be silly to oppose the request for extension and I expect that respondent's counsel is sophisicated enough to know that.
Interpretation of the "militia", the citizen and their weapons
*I AM NOT A LAWYER*
The Second amendment has had much angst over the years as it, at first glance, appears to talk to 2 seperate entities, the militia and the people.
Now, based on some of the read through and case law I have looked at over time, the general interpretation is that the Founding Fathers saw the militia and the people as effectively one and the same.
There was a full acceptance that all able bodied men had to be able to defend the country and state from invaders, interlopers etc. This was regarded (and written down ) that the member had to be able to provide certain minimum "military grade" types and quantities of weapons, ammunition etc.
At that time the weapons that could be reasonably be expected to be in use were military, ex-military or comparable weapons. What we would call now standard individual soldier infantry weapons, not crew served, not cannon etc.
As such is it not reasonable that the requirements of 2A mandate that the people and militia are expected to be able to have (at their own cost) access to purchase and hold said classes of weapon, M4, SAW etc .......Just a reasoned argument......
*I AM NOT A LAWYER*
The Second amendment has had much angst over the years as it, at first glance, appears to talk to 2 seperate entities, the militia and the people.
Now, based on some of the read through and case law I have looked at over time, the general interpretation is that the Founding Fathers saw the militia and the people as effectively one and the same.
There was a full acceptance that all able bodied men had to be able to defend the country and state from invaders, interlopers etc. This was regarded (and written down ) that the member had to be able to provide certain minimum "military grade" types and quantities of weapons, ammunition etc.
At that time the weapons that could be reasonably be expected to be in use were military, ex-military or comparable weapons. What we would call now standard individual soldier infantry weapons, not crew served, not cannon etc.
As such is it not reasonable that the requirements of 2A mandate that the people and militia are expected to be able to have (at their own cost) access to purchase and hold said classes of weapon, M4, SAW etc .......Just a reasoned argument......
Gun Wielding Maniac
Member
Eve, why the rolled eyes?
- Status
