Will Supreme Court decision invalidate need for CHL

[DParker]

It seems the Heller case may have been an overall a poor choice for a Second Amendment case. So narrowly focused as to be a waste of time and money.

I certainly wouldn't call a landmark decision by the highest court in the land that the 2A contains an individual right to keep and bear arms a waste of either time OR money. I'd call it a great and essential precedent that will be the foundation for many future favorable decisions.

[Texian]

It seems the Heller case may have been an overall a poor choice for a Second Amendment case. So narrowly focused as to be a waste of time and money.

I certainly wouldn't call a landmark decision by the highest court in the land that the 2A contains an individual right to keep and bear arms a waste of either time OR money. I'd call it a great and essential precedent that will be the foundation for many future favorable decisions.

Are you missing something here or am I? Mr Cotton said in two different posts, the second of which was in response to my post:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
The Heller case doesn't even raise the issue of "carrying," only
"keeping" a handgun. Some S/Ct. Justices may write on the issue, but it
will be merely dicta. . .

This is a procedural matter. Judge Silverman who authored the Heller opinion for the D.C. Court of Appeals expressly stated this is a "keeping case," not a "bearing case." Since the underlying facts in the case did not involve "bearing" arms outside one's residence, the issue is not before the Court. The Court's decision must be based upon the issues before it. If any of what I expect to be multiple opinions deal with carrying guns, machine guns, etc., then any statements on those issues are called dicta, meaning they are not part of the Court's ruling on the issues. Dicta can be very helpful in determining how particular justices will vote if/when a case presenting those issues reach the Court, but it is not binding.

Chas.

In the beginning, I (and apparently quite a few others as well) did not realize that the SCOTUS decision will only apply to a part of the second amendment: keeping arms. Your post above seems to indicate that you are expecting the court to address bearing, which Mr. Cotton (and also at least one other forum member) has shown that it will not, although (as Mr. Cotton said) statements about bearing by the court could be helpful in any future case that might consider bearing.

[DParker]

Are you missing something here or am I? Mr Cotton said in two different posts, the second of which was in response to my post:

<<remainder snipped>>

Including the words "and bear" in my reference to 2A was apparently a poor choice on my part, as it seems to have distracted from the point I was making. Namely, that I expect the most significant part of a favorable ruling in Heller to be with regard to the finding of an individual right in the 2A, as opposed to the imaginary collective right theory that has thus far dominated in the federal courts. Extending that individual right to "bearing" may be another matter. But having SCOTUS finally determine that the amendment contains an individual right will be a major precedent, IMHO.

[Texian]

. . . having SCOTUS finally determine that the amendment contains an individual right will be a major precedent, IMHO.

[Liko81]

It seems the Heller case may have been an overall a poor choice for a Second Amendment case. So narrowly focused as to be a waste of time and money.

I certainly wouldn't call a landmark decision by the highest court in the land that the 2A contains an individual right to keep and bear arms a waste of either time OR money. I'd call it a great and essential precedent that will be the foundation for many future favorable decisions.

Are you missing something here or am I? Mr Cotton said in two different posts, the second of which was in response to my post:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
The Heller case doesn't even raise the issue of "carrying," only
"keeping" a handgun. Some S/Ct. Justices may write on the issue, but it
will be merely dicta. . .

This is a procedural matter. Judge Silverman who authored the Heller opinion for the D.C. Court of Appeals expressly stated this is a "keeping case," not a "bearing case." Since the underlying facts in the case did not involve "bearing" arms outside one's residence, the issue is not before the Court. The Court's decision must be based upon the issues before it. If any of what I expect to be multiple opinions deal with carrying guns, machine guns, etc., then any statements on those issues are called dicta, meaning they are not part of the Court's ruling on the issues. Dicta can be very helpful in determining how particular justices will vote if/when a case presenting those issues reach the Court, but it is not binding.

Chas.

In the beginning, I (and apparently quite a few others as well) did not realize that the SCOTUS decision will only apply to a part of the second amendment: keeping arms. Your post above seems to indicate that you are expecting the court to address bearing, which Mr. Cotton (and also at least one other forum member) has shown that it will not, although (as Mr. Cotton said) statements about bearing by the court could be helpful in any future case that might consider bearing.

However, the actual question before the Court is whether three laws (licensing requirement, forbidding issuance of licenses, and long gun lock-up) "violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not part of the militia but who wish to keep handguns and other arms for private use in their homes". Notice the word "use"; the Court, if it rules for Heller, will imply that an individual person can keep arms with the expectation to be able to USE them, if only in their own home.

The opinion also has broader implications. Three laws form the ban. SCOTUS usually rules based on a particular point of law; if D.C. has codified the ban as one law SCOTUS would just overturn it. However, SCOTUS must tread more carefully here if it wishes to allow any jurisdiction to maintain any regulatory measures. Ruling the combination unconstitutional is easy; but the Court usually specifies that either a particular point of law is unconstitutional and thus unenforceable, and/or it provides a test by which future laws that are not also unconstitutional can be crafted.

The problem with trying to do this in Heller is twofold. First, all three laws have similar counterparts elsewhere. For instance, the licensing requirement coupled with prohibition is similar to provisions of the NFA coupled with the Hughes Amendment. To rule that de jure prohibition of the issuance of required paperwork is unconstitutional first overturns the '86 ban, and second can be applied to bearing as well as keeping meaning a challenge to carry licenses, especially may-issue policies that allow no-issue local policy, can be cogently argued. The lock-up law probably has the fewest ramifications, but a decision striking down that law can be applied to any requirement that firearms be kept unloaded, secured and/or disassembled, such as California's laws requiring that guns in cars be unloaded, in a locked container, and in the cargo area of the vehicle.

Second, ruling that the combination is unconstitutional and providing guidance on how it should be changed establishes similar precedents. The guidance generally establishes a test by which lower courts examine constitutionality. Make it too specific and it can be worked around by rewording law to do the same thing the "right" way, or the ruling doesn't apply to anyone but D.C. (which is foolish for the one court with universal jurisdiction on U.S. soil to do). Make it too general and it applies to aspects of gun law the Court did not intend. Either way a guiding decision will probably result in a little of both; gun-rights advocates will argue that the test makes X provision of a state's gun law unconstitutional, while gun-control advocates will argue that X is an "exception" to the test for these reasons. In both cases SCOTUS most definitely hasn't heard the last of this.

To summarize: this is a landmark ruling. Like many similar rulings it has the potential to fundamentally change the way law is written and interpreted in the area covered. Many parties, even most of those filing in support of striking down the ban, recognize that "reasonable restrictions" can and should exist, and have urged the Court to strike down the ban in such a way as to not open the floodgates for repeal or overturning of the three various classes of gun control at issue. So, my the opinion of the majority of amicus briefs, SCOTUS needs to strike down the gun ban, but it cannot:

• Rule that licensing is unconstitutional (overturns all FOID laws and the majority of BATFE regulation)
• Rule that prohibiting issue of a required license is unconstitutional (overturns may-issue CHL policies and the Hughes Amendment),
• Rule that requiring firearms be secured is unconstitutional (overturns most laws regarding guns around children, in the car, etc and can be applied to laws regulating carry conditions like Utah's Condition 3 requirement for non-CHLs),
• Rule that their decision to overturn applies only to D.C. because it is not a State (this is fallacious because it's the arguments that call for upholding the ban that use this argument. Arguments for overturning the ban in the first place don't care what type of jurisdiction is imposing such a ban; the Constitution and Bill of Rights limits ALL governments under the U.S. umbrella and protects ALL people under same),
• Rule that the Second Amendment only applies to certain classes of weapons (the Framers couldn't have known that less than a century later we'd invent the Gatling gun just like they couldn't have known that 200 years later we'd have the Internet yet free speech applies in cyberspace. The weapons at issue are repeating and autoloading rifles/shotguns, revolvers, and autoloading pistols, all of which existed as of Miller, and that decision protected such weapons as being common and in military use),
• Rule that the Second Amendment applies to all classes of weapons (wait, what? Well, that's exactly what even Heller's supporters are saying; overturn D.C. but not the '86 ban), or
• Rule the ban constitutional (the positions of the justices in asking questions certainly did not indicate they would do so, and the ban is clearly preventing the citizens of D.C. from exercising their 2A rights even in their own homes)

I'll let you take a stab at trying to craft a decision that does none of this. Good luck.

[tarkus]

To summarize: this is a landmark ruling. Like many similar rulings it has the potential to fundamentally change the way law is written and interpreted in the area covered. Many parties, even most of those filing in support of striking down the ban, recognize that "reasonable restrictions" can and should exist, and have urged the Court to strike down the ban in such a way as to not open the floodgates for repeal or overturning of the three various classes of gun control at issue.

They could decide on strict scrutiny. That would allow restrictions that are actually reasonable, like prohibiting convicted violent felons from keeping arms.

So, my the opinion of the majority of amicus briefs, SCOTUS needs to strike down the gun ban, but it cannot:

• Rule that licensing is unconstitutional (overturns all FOID laws and the majority of BATFE regulation)
• Rule that prohibiting issue of a required license is unconstitutional (overturns may-issue CHL policies and the Hughes Amendment),
• Rule that requiring firearms be secured is unconstitutional (overturns most laws regarding guns around children, in the car, etc and can be applied to laws regulating carry conditions like Utah's Condition 3 requirement for non-CHLs),
• Rule that their decision to overturn applies only to D.C. because it is not a State (this is fallacious because it's the arguments that call for upholding the ban that use this argument. Arguments for overturning the ban in the first place don't care what type of jurisdiction is imposing such a ban; the Constitution and Bill of Rights limits ALL governments under the U.S. umbrella and protects ALL people under same),
• Rule that the Second Amendment only applies to certain classes of weapons (the Framers couldn't have known that less than a century later we'd invent the Gatling gun just like they couldn't have known that 200 years later we'd have the Internet yet free speech applies in cyberspace. The weapons at issue are repeating and autoloading rifles/shotguns, revolvers, and autoloading pistols, all of which existed as of Miller, and that decision protected such weapons as being common and in military use),
• Rule that the Second Amendment applies to all classes of weapons (wait, what? Well, that's exactly what even Heller's supporters are saying; overturn D.C. but not the '86 ban), or
• Rule the ban constitutional (the positions of the justices in asking questions certainly did not indicate they would do so, and the ban is clearly preventing the citizens of D.C. from exercising their 2A rights even in their own homes)

Why can't they do 1, 2, 3 and 6?

It might be inconvenient for the anti-gun-nuts but strict scrutiny for 2A is the most reasonable compromise.

[agbullet2k1]

• Rule that the Second Amendment only applies to certain classes of weapons (the Framers couldn't have known that less than a century later we'd invent the Gatling gun just like they couldn't have known that 200 years later we'd have the Internet yet free speech applies in cyberspace. The weapons at issue are repeating and autoloading rifles/shotguns, revolvers, and autoloading pistols, all of which existed as of Miller, and that decision protected such weapons as being common and in military use)

I've always had a problem with this thinking. Back at the beginning, the men of the nation were the army. They had military weapons in the form of their own firearms. These were the most advanced fighting tools available at the time. As inferior as they are by today's standards, they were much better than bows, clubs, swords, etc. The 2A acknowledges the right of the militia, being made up of people, to own weapons, which were technologically advanced, military weapons.

The founders were not idiots. They knew their history, and the history of man. Weapons always get better, whether through concealment, lethality, reliability, or speed. Prior to guns there were swords and speers, and before that there were rocks and fists. In between major advances, nations always sought ways to gain any advantage possible. If would have been foolish for them to think weapons would not become more deadly over time, because they always have. They also had to know that if they took their modern weapons back to the 1500s, they could easily overpower anyone they wanted. So just because they didn't know specifically what would be developed, they did know that bigger, better, more deadly weapons would come, because they always do. They entrusted the citizens of America from the beginning to have the very best in available military technology.

That being said, the mentality that only the military should have "military weapons" stems from the simple fact that the gap between military funding and private income now forbids anyone from owning and operating much of military weaponry. What has changed in 200 years is that we have a standing army, not the old fashioned "grab your gun we're going to battle" army. As such, it has become so common, for so long, for the average joe not to have "military grade" weapons, that many Americans perceive this as the way it always has been and the way it should be. Goes back to the old saying "if you tell a lie enough times, it begins to become the truth."

[Liko81]

So, my the opinion of the majority of amicus briefs, SCOTUS needs to strike down the gun ban, but it cannot:

• Rule that licensing is unconstitutional (overturns all FOID laws and the majority of BATFE regulation)
• Rule that prohibiting issue of a required license is unconstitutional (overturns may-issue CHL policies and the Hughes Amendment),
• Rule that requiring firearms be secured is unconstitutional (overturns most laws regarding guns around children, in the car, etc and can be applied to laws regulating carry conditions like Utah's Condition 3 requirement for non-CHLs),
• Rule that their decision to overturn applies only to D.C. because it is not a State (this is fallacious because it's the arguments that call for upholding the ban that use this argument. Arguments for overturning the ban in the first place don't care what type of jurisdiction is imposing such a ban; the Constitution and Bill of Rights limits ALL governments under the U.S. umbrella and protects ALL people under same),
• Rule that the Second Amendment only applies to certain classes of weapons (the Framers couldn't have known that less than a century later we'd invent the Gatling gun just like they couldn't have known that 200 years later we'd have the Internet yet free speech applies in cyberspace. The weapons at issue are repeating and autoloading rifles/shotguns, revolvers, and autoloading pistols, all of which existed as of Miller, and that decision protected such weapons as being common and in military use),
• Rule that the Second Amendment applies to all classes of weapons (wait, what? Well, that's exactly what even Heller's supporters are saying; overturn D.C. but not the '86 ban), or
• Rule the ban constitutional (the positions of the justices in asking questions certainly did not indicate they would do so, and the ban is clearly preventing the citizens of D.C. from exercising their 2A rights even in their own homes)

Why can't they do 1, 2, 3 and 6?

It might be inconvenient for the anti-gun-nuts but strict scrutiny for 2A is the most reasonable compromise.

Sorry, looooong post. You are probably correct in that strict scrutiny would be the answer, but even that test can be used to argue that portions of U.S. and State firearm law need to be rethought. As far as why 1, 2, 3, and 6 can't be done, I gave the arguments that various parties to this case have given for not issuing a ruling stating that any one of those was unconstitutional at its base.

Reading up on "strict scutiny", it requires 3 tenets to be met:

• compelling governmental interest
• narrowly tailored
• least restrictive means

OK, let's apply this to each of the laws in turn. First law 7-2502.02: registration will not be given for a pistol not already registered as of September 1976 except for law enforcement officers. As registration is required (I was mistaken; licensing itself is not at issue except thhat it is required and you can't get one). First test; is it necessary or crucial to prohibit registration and therefore lawful possession of a handgun? Can of worms right there. The stated need is to reduce murders; a plurality of murders are committed with handguns, so banning them reduces murders significantly. I would disagree with this reasoning and say that there is in fact no compelling interest; only two jurisdictions have de jure prohibition on possession of a handgun in any circumstance. The rest of us get along just fine without such a ban; in fact, the two jurisdictions with the bans are two of the highest-crime areas in the country. Second test; is it narrowly defined? No. EVERY handgun that is not in the hands of an LEO or retired LEO, or was not owned by the same guy since the bicentennial, that is found in the District is illegal. No travelling exemption (as required by federal law; that law is ignored in the District), no military exemption, no exemption for out-of-District residents, no nothing. Third test; is it the least restrictive means to accomplish the goal? Gee, we know the answer to that one. No. In fact, it is the MOST restrctive means to NOT solve the problem. Give civilians their guns back and crime solves itself.

Second law: It is a 1st-class misdemeanor ($1,000 fine and 1 year in jail) to carry a pistol on one's person. Compelling government interest? Most states reserve for themselves the power to regulate the wearing of arms. Texas does so in its Constitution. I think SCOTUS would say D.C. has the same interest as those states. Second test; narrow definition. That fails, because there is no licensing provision, no exception for the home (except for that one's own home carries ONLY the $1000 fine and 1 year; anywhere else is at least 5 times the fine and jail time) etc. The only exception is that the person can theoretically be licensed to carry, however no civilian can get this license. Third law; least restrictive means. Nope; you can require a carry license with a background check, training and qualification, and you accomplish the same end; criminals and people who cannot safely carry a gun cannot carry legally, however, everyone else could.

Third law: Except for LEOs, all registered firearms must be unloaded and either disassembled or locked unless they are kept at the registrant's business or in current use. Compelling interest? I say this is similar to the first law; the government has no business in my gun cabinet, OR wherever else in my home or property I choose to keep one. However, it may be argued that the government has an interest in preventing arms stolen from citizens being immediately useable, and to keep children from harming themselves with an unsecured loaded firearm. Narrowly defined? Nope; only LEOs and business owners are excepted from this law. The last provision, "while in lawful use", is meaningless as any use of a firearm by a non-LEO is illegal. Least restrictive means? Please. Guns can be hidden, kept out of reach, or - here's a novel concept - carried on the owner's person who thus secures it from theft and children. They can also be stored in a lock box (which may or may not count as a "similar device"; in any case as long guns are the only firearms allowed it would have to be a locking cabinet or safe).

So, all three laws, as written, are unconstitutional by strict scrutiny. Doesn't mean the basic concepts fail on their own merit, but the laws are either too broadly worded or are misapplied resulting in unreasonable infringement.

Now, a similar law: the Hughes Amendment. Machine guns cannot be registered after 1986 and all MGs not registered and taxed are illegal. Compelling government interest? Bigger can of worms. MGs are very deadly, no doubt about it. The U.S. might argue on the grounds of national security, which conveniently enough, lies completely opposite the Framers' stated purpose of the 2A. Open rebellion by an armed group with an eclectic mix of ARs and AKs is certainly a threat to national security. If I wanted the '86 ban struck down totally, I would have to argue that even though the possession of machine guns can threaten the existence or authority of the U.S. government, that is exactly the point; if the government oversteps its bounds the Framers intended the 2A to provide the people with a means of resistance. Not sure I'd get very far with the guys who consider themselves the highest check on government, not to mention they are set for life thanks to that government. Narrowly defined? Any gun which shoots, by a single function of the trigger, more than one round. It doesn't matter if the gun was designed or specifically modified to do so; malfunctioning weapons are machine guns. Unsafe weapon-ammo combinations are machine guns. A kB that sets off an additional round is a machine gun (destroyed, yes, but it discharged more than one round). This is I think the tenet that needs the most attention, and what would hold the current state of affairs unconstitutional. Least restrictive means? Well, assuming that the MG simply being possessed by a civilian poses a possible threat to government authority, there's nothing short of a total ban on such weapons to ensure national security.

So, the Hughes Amendment would be hard to strike down completely even given strict scrutiny in Heller. The BATFE's definition of a machine gun could be required to be revised to prevent unintentional violations, but unless you can convince SCOTUS that they are, in effect, not the last word in restricting government authority, and even the Constitution itself is not that last word, I think we'll be dealing in C&R machine guns before we can buy new ones again.

CHLs? Compelling interest; I think the state of Texas would claim it has a very good reason to stay informed about who is carrying a handgun and to say who can and cannot do so. It may or may not be defensible; the CHL conviction rate is about 1/5 that of the general population in terms of gun-related crimes, and a substantial portion of that is due to 46.035 and related "no-go" statutes, so they have a point in that trained, qualified CHLs are better citizens per capita. I would posit that SCOTUS would agree that a shall-issue license is not an unreasonable restriction; you'd have better luck striking down may-issue policies like Maryland's. Narrowly defined: I don't think so. Handguns cannot be carried openly by anyone, and only concealed with a CHL, so CHL law coupled with the rest of Texas' gun law very broadly restricts the practice of carrying weapons. Least restrictive method? Texas has among the most restrictive CCW programs of all shall-issue states and it allows for concealed carry only, not to mantion the current backlog. There are less restrictive ways to go about it even while keeping the course and qualification. Taking a good look at Texas' budget regarding the DPS would be a first step; the money from CHL apps goes to the State and then that office of the DPS is budgeted independently. I might actually bet money the State is currently making a profit on CHL applications. 288,000 CHLs paying renewal fees is roughly $20 million over 4 years, and that's just renewals; new applications are twice as expensive and though I can't find a number for new applications during FY2007 they grew by 40% last year.

So, the jury's out on CHLs; I think SCOTUS, if handed the question of 46.02's infringement on 2A rights, may rule the purpose is valid but the means go too far and the program needs better management as the backlog is a de facto restriction.

[Liko81]

That being said, the mentality that only the military should have "military weapons" stems from the simple fact that the gap between military funding and private income now forbids anyone from owning and operating much of military weaponry. What has changed in 200 years is that we have a standing army, not the old fashioned "grab your gun we're going to battle" army. As such, it has become so common, for so long, for the average joe not to have "military grade" weapons, that many Americans perceive this as the way it always has been and the way it should be. Goes back to the old saying "if you tell a lie enough times, it begins to become the truth."

Good point. I would counter that kitting a U.S. Army infantryman or Marine may be expensive, but they're fighting guys wielding AK-47s and Israeli Uzis, both of which are comparable in price to most handguns. The M-16 is more expensive, but more accurate, compact and lighter. Without government issue, such considerations are choices an individual would make for himself in selecting a weapon he'd take to battle.

Anyone who says the U.S. government cannot be overthrown by civilian uprising should take a look at Vietnam and the current war. Lack of popular support for Army deployment (times 10 when it's against Americans), guerilla tactics, cheap weapons, and committed fighters have been the formula since the North Vietnamese demonstrated it works. They should also look at the French Resistance during WWII, Palestinian/Lebanese tactics against Israel, and the Afghanis during the '80s, who fought one of the world's foremost superpowers to a standstill using bolt-action rifles. Then they raided the AK stocks the Soviets left and used them against us.

[jimlongley]

. . . The 2A acknowledges the right of the militia, being made up of people, to own weapons, which were technologically advanced, military weapons.

The founders were not idiots. They knew their history, and the history of man. Weapons always get better, whether through concealment, lethality, reliability, or speed. . . .

Recall that Franklin had worked, a little, on rapid fire weaponry, and others had done so and were doing so throughout the era and then consider that, not being idiots, the authors of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, had to know of those efforts, but they offered up a general protection of the right to keep and bear arms anyway.

And also recall, as I have pointed out before, that cannon were among the weapons that Lt. Colonel Smith was dispatched to Concord to sieze, and that could not have been too far from the minds of those authoring those classic words.

Although I hardly expect the court to take the fact that today's firearms can pretty much be proved to be lineal descendants and expected improvements on those available 200+ years ago, into account in their ruling, it is something we need to keep foremost for future consideration.

I am one of those who view any restrictions on law abiding citizens to be beyond "reasonable restrictions" - as debate here has amply proved, we can't even agree where to draw the line among us - and hate to think what the supremes could come up with in a compromise decision.

[mr surveyor]

well said Mr. Longley!

[BigBlueDodge]

There is some EXCELLENT discussion going on here. I wish all of the anti-gun nuts could read this thread (heck, this whole site) and see how well informed gun owners are about the laws and responsibilities of owning and carrying a gun.

Based on what I am hearing, it appears that I will be underwhelmed by the SCOTUS ruling coming out later this month, if indeed it will be so narrowly focused to only include the home. While I 100% agree, that it is is crucial for the court to come out and affirm the 2nd ammendment, it appears the court will sidestep some of the issues related to gun control (which lie outside of the home). However, it appears the court will lay down a foundation that could ultimately build more legislation in favor of gun ownership. My thought was that this ruling would affect the need for a CHL, but, for now, it appears that CHL's are not going anywhere.

[jwp]

Some of you may be interested in reading the (many) briefs submitted to the Court. They can be found at
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/ ... l#district. This case is the third listing down, District of Columbia v. Heller, docket number 07-290.

A transcript of the oral arguments before the Court is available at
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_argu ... 07-290.pdf.

In reading those, keep in mind the exact wording the Court used to form the question they would address

The petition for a Writ of Certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?

The Court itself formed the question, since apparently petitioner and respondent (i.e., DC and Heller) couldn't agree on how to frame the 2d Amendment question.

I believe Liko81 explained all three DC Code sections in a note above. My compliments and thanks to him for his exceptionally well-written explication of the issues and of the considerations that will influence the Court in reaching a ruling.

[casingpoint]

It would be a legal absurdity to be permitted to keep firearms in your home without the corresponding right to bear them. I doubt the SCOTUS will promulgate in the forthcoming historic opinion a doctrine characterized by legal absurdity on an issue as important as Second Amendment rights. There may be dicta, but it will be quickly snapped up by the lower courts in subsequent cases. Problem is, somebody will have to pay the legal bill again. There should have been a better, more robust case than Keller for this occasion. The Second Amendment is quickly becoming an economic absurdity.

[stevie_d_64]

The SCOTUS decision will be very narrow in nature and will not satisfy the freedom cravings that reside in most of us.

Well, I have a craving for pizza at times...

And you are absolutely on the money with the narrow scope on the outcome of this...That was going to happen anyway...

All that may happen, will only hold the line where we are across the country, in regards to the RKBA...

We'll just have to wait and see...

Those that know me well, know I am not holding my breath...

And I hope most know I wish to be proven wrong in my "negative nancy" attitude about this one...

Interesting times we live in...