Heller: Plurality option?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote:
I bet Sarah Brady might have a stroke with that decision.

Want to see her stroke out? Give her EXACTLY what she claims to WANT.

If you had to have licenses to own and to carry a gun in NYC, and NYC HAD to give you one, without unreasonable requirements or fees, she'd instantly fall to the ground, foaming at the mouth and twitching.

That's their nightmare scenario. The LAST thing on earth they want is "REASONABLE gun control".
Click to expand...

So true
 
Al Gore in 2000 - said that gun owners need a license as you need one to drive. So I wrote the NYTimes a letter stating that did he mean that such a license would be available to every law abiding citizen as easily as a driver's license. Simple test and then guns galore. That would void the NYC, etc. very restrictive gun laws.

They wrote me back and said they would publish it!! Yay! Take that, Al.

Then they changed their minds - probably the boss of the letter page realized that I nailed Gore on the reasonable licensing and they ditched me. :(
 
A plurality decision on Heller would fall right in line with the theory that, whatever other factors are involved, courts decide cases in the ways that most benefit those in the legal profession.
 
If gun licenses were given out like driver's licenses:

(1) You could get one at age 16
(2) Every state would accept it
(3) No background checks
(4) Could not be denied except by committing a crime with it
(5) Would cost only $20.00 instead of $ 100.00 or more
(6) Instruction would be state-provided on the taxpayer dollar

... just to name a few. So, I think treating gun 'permits' like drivers licenses would not go over well with the antis.

I would point out that the 2A is a constitutional right whereas driving is a legal privilege so if anything it's the drivers licenses that should be less guaranteed.
 
brighamr said:
...why waste bandwidth? We'll know what it is in about 20 hours.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of what goes on in Internet forums is a waste of bandwidth depending on how you define "waste".

We do this because it's fun. Not to solve world hunger. :rolleyes:


-T.
 
Now a Commemorative Heller 1911 is an idea I can get behind. I want the Ginsberg edition.
Click to expand...
I spewed coffee all over my monitor with that and I'm still wiping the tears from my eyes!

It'll be a collector's item, for sure! :eek: :D

Poper
 
Thernlund -

I'm very sorry to have offended you. One would think that over 950 threads, the fun would get a little old, somewhat equivalent to beating a dead horse. BUT it's very true that hashing out every possibility, before any facts are known, is fun and is an excellent way to use a free forum.

I think I'll start 950 SHTF threads. That's pretty fun too, and amounts to the same conclusions one can draw from "The Heller Readings"
 
OK. So, some time after the oral arguments, the 9 justices gather together in an informal conference. They nine are the only people present. There, they discuss the written briefs, the orals, and any other factors (existing case law, etc) that would affect their decision. At that point, a straw poll is taken on whether to affirm the lower court's judgement, or reverse it.

Based on the outcome of this poll, the justice who is going to write the majority opinion is assigned. If the Chief Justice is in the majority, he assigns the decision. If he is in the minority, then the most senior justice assigns it.

Then, the selected justice and his clerk(s) begin to draft the opinion. Depending on the justice, he (or she) may solicit input from other justices during this drafting. After a first draft is finished, it is circulated amongst the justices of the majority (and the minority if there is a justice that is on the fence), and comments are given.

This process continues until there is either a plurality (generall three or four justices), or a majority (five or more). Chief Justice Roberts stated goal is to issue more opinions with a sizeable majority, which leads to this drafting and commenting being longer than it was under the Rehnquist court.

So, yes, there is much tweaking in the wording of a decision. Since I personally* believe that CJ Roberts is sincere in his desire to have a more united court, I can see him encouraging justice Scalia to water down the decision some so that a plurality is avoided.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. - that helps me understand better....
 
brighamr said:
"It could be"

So, it could be plural, majority, or minority... why waste bandwidth? We'll know what it is in about 20 hours
Click to expand...

288417451.png

I have plenty of bandwidth to waste. Thanks.


and apologies to Thernlund for misappropriating his name
 
Last edited:
brighamr said:
I'm very sorry to have offended you.
Click to expand...

You got the wrong idea, bro. You didn't offend me. I'm just pointing out that threads are a bit like TV stations. Don't like what's on, don't watch. Yeah?

Certainly if you have 1000 TV stations all airing the same thing it'll clutter things up. But I don't think we're there yet. These threads are easy to ignore if you're so inclined. I personally ignore about 80% of what gets posted just due to lack of an interesting subject line.

It's all good. Just relax. :)

As to the topic, I had not thought of a plurality decision. I agree with others that such a decision would be a fat cop out. My faith in the judicial process, already shaken by years of abuse, would be shattered for good I think.


-T.
 
Last edited:
a little old, somewhat equivalent to beating a dead horse
Click to expand...

Beating a dead horse is a much more enjoyable sport than beating one that is still alive. It's also much safer, more humane, and a heck of a lot healthier for the lawn too. Let us revive the lost art of Moribund Equine Pummeling and restore it to its former glory.

The large number of gun owners who clamor in support of extreme measures such as the Heller case always seems to forget "Be careful what you wish for, you may receive it."

You asked for it. You'll get it. The better part of manhood now is to smile no matter what the decision, and go on with life. Whining is unseemly.
 
Robert Hairless said:
Beating a dead horse is a much more enjoyable sport than beating one that is still alive.
Click to expand...

Now hold on a second there. Although unconscience, this horse is still twitching a bit. There is yet some life to be extracted.


-T.
 
I just don't get the doom and gloom about a plurality opinion. I would rather see a strong Second Amendment plurality opinion than a watered down majority opinion that offers no real protection.

All a plurality opinion means is that the horse trading and negotiating over the majority opinion that normally goes on behind closed doors is getting done out in public instead.

And contrary to what Wikipedia thinks, a plurality opinion is binding on lower courts as to the result and on any point of rationale having at least five votes.

At a minimum a plurality opinion will still establish two important points:

1) The Second Amendment is an individual right.

2) Entire bans like those from D.C. are unconstitutional.

I don't know about the rest of you; but if you had told me in 2000 that I would see that from SCOTUS within 8 years, I would have been ecstatic.
 
This horse ain't dead boyos. He's very much alive. He's going to ride down on us, or our foes, like thunder tomorrow. I think some speculation and thought is appropriate at this juncture.
 
"
Well maybe there's another reason for the delay.

My fantasy is that, after delivering a 9-0 decision holding gun control laws are per se unconsititional, respondent Dick Heller is asked to approach the bench. The justices present him with a "US Supreme Court" special edition Kimber model 1911 pistol in a handsome wood presentation case signed by all the justices.

Maybe the shipment from Kimber got delayed?"
Click to expand...

DonP, whatever far off land you live in, I can't reach it from here....but I'd like to.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the Court would never do that. Never in a million years.

But Scalia might give him one of his guns, and ask him to go to the range this weekend.:D
 
NJ law supercedes all federal gun laws.
Click to expand...

If Heller goes our way, that's the next question--whether the Second applies to the states via the 14th. It's called "incorporation." If the Second applies to the states, and NJ's laws were deemed unconstitutional, then they would be gone.
Click to expand...

There's a case waiting in the wings to be filed against Daleysucksville (A.K.A. Chicago), basically needing only the citation and a few quotes from this case - assuming that it says the 2nd protects a basic right and that the DC law is overturned.

There should be one just like it ready for filing against the BATFE, for failure to issue a tax stamp to someone who wants to buy a post-5/19/86 full auto. Don't know if there is, but there should be. I hope that the plaintiff is ex-Special Forces, completely law-abiding, and that he owns a virtually identical pre-ban full auto - then it should be an open and shut case.
 
Now a Commemorative Heller 1911 is an idea I can get behind. I want the Ginsberg edition.
Click to expand...

Is the Ginsberg edition the one that's the non-firing replica?

Me, I want either the Scalia or the Thomas edition, both of which feature full auto with a 50-round drum magazine.
 
Shtf means the poo poo has hit the fan. Bad things are coming. Nessie and zombies have an adult tape.

P.S. I think we will have Justice Ginsburg on our side.

Edit: Oops! left out info.

Justice Ginsburg was an attorney for the ACLU.If she rules anything besides the people mean the people, then everything else she has stood up for will also be at risk of collective ruling. Besides, did you hear her at questioning? She didn't tip her hand except for one thing: she did her homework and asked home run quality questions.

One more thing.
I know this because she told me to ask El Tejon where to get my commemorative machine gun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
  • Locked
Come Heller high water (merged threads)
2 3
Replies
66
Views
5K
AndyC
A
U
  • Locked
New Article on SCOTUS makeup
Replies
0
Views
398
usmarine0352_2005
U
C
  • Locked
No-Knock Warrent Searches Allowed
Replies
1
Views
554
Zak Smith
Zak Smith
R
  • Locked
How do SCOTUS rulings work?
Replies
12
Views
931
PaladinX13
P
R
  • Locked
Another casualty of the SCOTUS decision on anti-sodomy law: US sovereignty
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
Glock Glockler
G
Back
Top