Brady Campaign Sees Loss on A2

[TxD]

"We've lost the battle on what the Second Amendment means," campaign president Paul Helmke told ABC News.
"We're expecting D.C. to lose the case," Helmke said. "But this could be good from the standpoint of the political-legislative side."


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5055064&page=1

[dukesean]

I hope Helmke is even more disappointed once the actual decision is rendered.

I still can't get over his idiocy:

"I'd trip you and try to get away" was his response when asked what he'd do if someone charged at him with a knife. I hope he tries that some day.

[dukalmighty]

I hope Helmke is even more disappointed once the actual decision is rendered.

I still can't get over his idiocy:

"I'd trip you and try to get away" was his response when asked what he'd do if someone charged at him with a knife. I hope he tries that some day.

If he actually thinks that would work he will end up in the morgue,what's he gonna do if it's a gun outrun the bullets

[Rokyudai]

Let's hear it for a "super dangerous class of weapons".... probably the one's with the thing that goes up, a barrel shroud?

Curbing "large volume sales".... I'm sure this means you are allowed 1 Barney Round per year... heck, isn't that all you need to defend yourself?????

[MBGuy]

For once, I can say..........I hope he's right!

It's interesting how he's more pessimistic than we are optimistic though. I would think, or hope rather, that he's close enough to those in the field to know which way the court will probably go. I'll just stay in the cautiously optimistic category nevertheless. I'd hate to think of the mudslide (forget slippery slope) that would occur should we lose.

[TxD]

It's interesting how he's more pessimistic than we are optimistic though. I'll just stay in the cautiously optimistic category nevertheless.

Perhaps our restrained optimism is grounded in the distrust of certain SCOTUS members.
Just yesterday, Justice Kennedy handed down a ruling that grants "Habeas Corpus"
to non- American enemy combatants, captured and held abroad.

Excerpt from article:
To reach yesterday's decision, Justice Kennedy also had to dissemble about Justice Robert Jackson's famous 1950 decision in Johnson v. Eisentrager. In that case, German nationals had been tried and convicted by military commissions for providing aid to the Japanese after Germany's surrender in World War II. Justice Jackson ruled that non-Americans held in a prison in the American occupation zone in Germany did not warrant habeas corpus. But rather than overrule Eisentrager, Mr. Kennedy misinterprets it to pretend that it was based on mere "procedural" concerns. This is plainly dishonest.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1213319 ... d_outlooks

[DParker]

Perhaps our restrained optimism is grounded in the distrust of certain SCOTUS members.
Just yesterday, Justice Kennedy handed down a ruling that grants "Habeas Corpus"
to non- American enemy combatants, captured and held abroad.

And general mistrust is certainly warranted. But even Kennedy appeared to lean heavily toward our side in the Heller case. Ginsburg seemed to be doing the same, although to a lesser degree. Being something of a gambling man (low-stakes poker mostly, with the occasional $2 horse bet thrown in for fun) I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict a 6-3 decision in our favor, albeit in a fairly narrow ruling. I'll even name names...

Justices who will find that the 2A contains an individual right:
- Scalia
- Thomas
- Alito
- Roberts
- Kennedy
- Ginsburg

Bryer, Souter & Stevens are lost causes. Obviously I'm the least certain about Ginsburg, but I'm feeling generous and am willing to give her a chance on this one.

[AEA]

Any of them that vote against a favorable ruling for us should be removed from the SCOTUS (if that's possible). It would prove to me that they have no business being there.

[Frost]

Any of them that vote against a favorable ruling for us should be removed from the SCOTUS (if that's possible). It would prove to me that they have no business being there.

SCOTUS Justices can be impeached by congress.

[HankB]

Perhaps our restrained optimism is grounded in the distrust of certain SCOTUS members.
Justices who will find that the 2A contains an individual right:
- Scalia
- Thomas
- Alito
- Roberts
- Kennedy
- Ginsburg

Not sure about that last . . . Ginsburg is notorious for quoting foreign laws in her decisions.

[HerbM]

Perhaps our restrained optimism is grounded in the distrust of certain SCOTUS members.
Justices who will find that the 2A contains an individual right:
- Scalia
- Thomas
- Alito
- Roberts
- Kennedy
- Ginsburg

Not sure about that last . . . Ginsburg is notorious for quoting foreign laws in her decisions.

Nothing is certain, but I have been hopeful about Ginsberg for some time -- she has an opinion where she mentions (in dicta) the 2nd as protecting an individual right.

Here's the bottom line on her: She can find a unenumerated tertiary right to an abortion (no matter you opinion on) it derived from another unumerated right to privacy. Now we probably all agree there is a right to privacy but it is never mentioned.

Were she to vote against the RKBA she would never be able to mention those unenumerated rights again without derisive laughter ensuing for 20 minutes.

Also, she seem to get the REAL meaning and value of the "militia phrase" (it's not even a clause): It sets the CONTEXT of which arms are protected. She said that it should protect automatic rifles and she is right.

It requires AT LEAST the protection of the arms similar to those issued to the individual infantryman or (paramilitary) police officer -- and those commonly available to criminals.

[Mr.Scott]

If the Supreme Court strikes down the D.C. gun ban, the Brady Campaign is hoping that it will reorient gun control groups around more limited measures that will be harder to cast as infringements of the Second Amendment.

Why do they have to keep dancing around the real issue here. It isn't about stripping our rights away (well in the end it really is) but it's about CONTROL. They want to control the "dangerous masses"

[MBGuy]

I was watching the scotusblog, and it mentions that "The only opinion remaining from the March sitting is Heller. The only Justice without a majority opinion from that sitting is Justice Scalia."

Any opinions on that?

It seems they'll release that decision on Weds. morning.

[HerbM]

I was watching the scotusblog, and it mentions that "The only opinion remaining from the March sitting is Heller. The only Justice without a majority opinion from that sitting is Justice Scalia."

Any opinions on that?

It seems they'll release that decision on Weds. morning.

No guarantees for Wed, or even Thursday. They could wait until October. There are still outstanding decisions from the prior session(s).

Scalia is the one that I would have picked were I given the choice. Thomas writes great opinions, but Scalia seems to actually understand firearms and we just don't know about the depth of Thomas' understanding on this issue.

This opinion really doesn't fall into the normal categories and this seem to cause confusion among the pundits. This is one of the few (very nearly) pure decisions in 200+ years. Single amendment, single right, nothing substantive offering precedent, certainly nothing they cannot just ignore, no criminal involved.

Does Mr. Heller a law abiding citizen who carries a firearm during the day to protect the government and government officials have the same right at night in his own home?

A right explicitly enumerated and protected by the 2nd Amendment, and declared by the Constitution itself to be essential to remaining free.

There really haven't been very many cases like this since the ink dried on the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights.

[Liko81]

No guarantees for Wed, or even Thursday. They could wait until October. There are still outstanding decisions from the prior session(s).

There are decisions from prior months, yes, but the difference is that this year's term is ending. SCOTUS MUST decide all cases it hears and issue all decisions before it ends the term (which is why certiorari is so hard to get), and it has finished before July each year for the last decade. So, SCOTUS *cannot* wait till October. However, though unlikely, it MAY run into July.

There really haven't been very many cases like this since the ink dried on the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights.

You're spot on here. We knew, from the moment SCOTUS granted certiorari, that this decision would be one of those landmarks that make their way into school textbooks. The last one we had of this caliber was Roe v Wade (9th Amendment) and that was 20 years ago. This is history in the making.