District of Columbia v. Heller

[Rip Van Winkle]

Looks like the court has decided not to decide until the 20th or 26th.

Court takes no action on gun case
Tuesday, November 13th, 2007 10:02 am

FINAL Update 1:19 p.m.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday announced no action on a new case testing the meaning of the Second Amendment — an issue the Court has not considered in 68 years. The Orders List contained no mention of either the District of Columbia’s appeal (07-290) or a cross-petition by challengers to the city’s flat ban on private possession of handguns (07-335). The next date for possible action on these cases is likely to come after the Court’s pre-Thanksgiving Conference — either on the day of the Conference, Nov. 20, or the following Monday, Nov. 26.The Court, of course, does not explain inaction. But among the possible reasons for delaying the case are these: one or more Justices simply asked for more time to consider the two cases; the Court may be rewriting the question or questions it will be willing to review — especially in view of the disagreement between the two sides on what should be at issue; the Court may have voted initially to deny review of one or both cases and one or more Justices are writing a dissent from the denial. The appeal in 07-290 (District of Columbia v. Heller) raises the key issue about the Second Amendment’s meaning — that is, whether it guarantees an individual right to have a handgun for private use, at least in one’s home — and the appeal in 07-335 (Parker v. District of Columbia) poses a question about who may bring lawsuits to challenge laws before they are actively enforced. Together, the cases thus present a somewhat complex mix for the Court, and it perhaps was not much of a surprise that no order issued on Tuesday. At no point is there likely to be an answer as to what happened to bring about the delay. Both cases are expected to be re-listed for the Nov. 20 Conference.

http://www.scotusblog.com/

[BRIT_in_the_weeds]

The appeal in 07-290 (District of Columbia v. Heller) raises the key issue about the Second Amendment’s meaning — that is, whether it guarantees an individual right to have a handgun for private use, at least in one’s home

??????????

that is, whether it guarantees an individual right to have a handgun for private use, at least in one’s home

Is this someone editorialising???? Or what DC is challenging.??

[cobb]

Does anyone even think that if they do rule, that this will settle things? If they rule, it will be on DC and probably a very narrow scope, leaving the question of the 2nd amendment still unresolved for some. I say some because it is perfectly clear to me as what it means, "We the people" .

[Rip Van Winkle]

I think the Supremes and/or their people are tring to figure out how they can rule that the 2nd amendment is a individual right without throwing out every gun control law ever written.

My guess is the Supremes will decide not to hear this case and just let the lower court's ruling stand.

[goalie]

My guess is the Supremes will decide not to hear this case and just let the lower court's ruling stand.

That leaves conflicting rulings though, doesn't it? If the 9th has ruled that the 2nd is a collective right and this is left to stand, how does that work out?

[princewally]

My guess is the Supremes will decide not to hear this case and just let the lower court's ruling stand.

That leaves conflicting rulings though, doesn't it? If the 9th has ruled that the 2nd is a collective right and this is left to stand, how does that work out?

I believe(I am not a lawyer, I have never played one on TV, I do watch too much Law&Order) that precedent doesn't carry across the districts, until it gets high enough(supreme court) to cascade back down.

[goalie]

My guess is the Supremes will decide not to hear this case and just let the lower court's ruling stand.

That leaves conflicting rulings though, doesn't it? If the 9th has ruled that the 2nd is a collective right and this is left to stand, how does that work out?

I believe(I am not a lawyer, I have never played one on TV, I do watch too much Law&Order) that precedent doesn't carry across the districts, until it gets high enough(supreme court) to cascade back down.

That was my point. It means that the 2nd Amendment is different depending upon geography until the supremes take the case and settle it.

[Rip Van Winkle]

My guess is the Supremes will decide not to hear this case and just let the lower court's ruling stand.

That leaves conflicting rulings though, doesn't it? If the 9th has ruled that the 2nd is a collective right and this is left to stand, how does that work out?

We already had conflicting rulings, the 5th circuit's Emerson and the 9th circus's (don't remember the case name).

I don't understand how the High court can get away without settling the issue but they have before.

[BRIT_in_the_weeds]

IMO, everyone on this board should have this book/PDF

GUN FACTS..............
http://www.gunfacts.info/

Page 64 refers to the USSC and 2A