Heller hanging fire

[smores]

I think we will be seeing a change in the Brady mantra; "legitimate sporting purposes" will be replaced by "self-defense in the home". I do NOT think this is progress. For one thing, note the specific reference to "in the home", not just "self defense". "On the street"? Sorry, too dangerous. "In your business"? Sorry, not necessary.

Also, as much as we like to point out that the Second Amendment isn't about hunting (or fishing, per Obama), it is still the number one use of firearms in the US. So if the paradigm shifts to "self-defense in the home", it blows away a LOT of sporting firearms. Ruger #1? Not suited for home defense. Chipmunk .22? Not suited for home defense. Anything with a scope? Likewise. It also lets them align with PETA and the Humane society, giving them common cause against hunters and sports shooters.

That's a scary thought.... BUT after all these years of saying guns have "legitimate sporting purposes" I think it would be extremely difficult for them to switch and say that those are now not necessary or whatever. They have been grasping at straws for a while, and hopefully this ruling will once and for all prove that they're a bunch of jackasses, and anyone that supports them (except for the most anti-gun) will probably re-think their support if the Bradys result to that tactic.

 

[SoMDGuy]

That's a scary thought.... BUT after all these years of saying guns have "legitimate sporting purposes" I think it would be extremely difficult for them to switch and say that those are now not necessary or whatever. They have been grasping at straws for a while, and hopefully this ruling will once and for all prove that they're a bunch of jackasses, and anyone that supports them (except for the most anti-gun) will probably re-think their support if the Bradys result to that tactic.

It won't be difficult at all. Politicians do it all the time. "What I say today is what I have always said, and if anyone remembers or has recordings of me saying the exact opposite last week, then I was quoted out of context and the tape's a fake and I'm being smeared by the vast other-wing conspiracy."

 

[BraveUlysses]

I really hope Justice Scalia writes the majority opinion. If so, I think it will be clear, descisive and strongly support the individual right.

If you haven't read his descenting oppinion of the recent Guantanamo case I highly recommend it! He looks well beyond the detainees at Guantanamo and sees the implications with the the war fighter on the ground and enemy POWs in the future. Its a very good read. Here are some quotes...

I think it appropriate
to begin with a description of the disastrous consequences
of what the Court has done today.
America is at war with radical Islamists. The enemybegan by killing Americans and American allies abroad: 241 at the Marine barracks in Lebanon, 19 at the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, 224 at our embassies in Dar es Salaam
and Nairobi, and 17 on the USS Cole in Yemen. See National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report, pp. 60–61, 70, 190 (2004). On September 11, 2001, the enemy brought the battle to American soil, killing 2,749 at the Twin Towers in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon inWashington, D. C., and 40 in Pennsylvania. See id., at 552, n. 9. It has threatened further attacks against our homeland; one need only walk about buttressed and barricaded
Washington, or board a plane anywhere in the country, to know that the threat is a serious one. Our Armed Forces are now in the field against the enemy, in Afghanistan and Iraq. Last week, 13 of our countrymen in arms were killed.

...

It was reported only last month that a released detainee carried out a suicide bombing
against Iraqi soldiers in Mosul, Iraq. See White, Ex-Guantanamo Detainee Joined Iraq Suicide Attack, Washington
Post, May 8, 2008, p. A18. These, mind you, were detainees whom the military had concluded were not enemy combatants. Their return to the kill illustrates the incredible difficulty of assessing who is and who is not an enemy combatant in a foreign theater of operations where the environment does not lend itself to rigorous evidence collection. Astoundingly, theCourt today raises the bar, requiring military officials to appear before civilian courts and defend their decisions under procedural and evidentiary rules that go beyondwhat Congress has specified.

But even when the military has evidence that it can bring forward, it is often foolhardy to release that evidence to the attorneys representing our enemies.

...

Today the Court warps our Constitution in a way thatgoes beyond the narrow issue of the reach of the Suspension
Clause, invoking judicially brainstormed separationof-
powers principles to establish a manipulable “functional”
test for the extraterritorial reach of habeas corpus(and, no doubt, for the extraterritorial reach of other constitutional protections as well). It blatantly misdescribes
important precedents, most conspicuously Justice Jackson’s opinion for the Court in Johnson v. Eisentrager. It breaks a chain of precedent as old as the common law that prohibits judicial inquiry into detentions of aliensabroad absent statutory authorization. And, most tragically,
it sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving to a civilian court, under whatever standardsthis Court devises in the future, that evidence supports the confinement of each and every enemy prisoner.
The Nation will live to regret what the Court has donetoday. I dissent.
...

His opinion is HERE. It starts on page 111.

 

[Jaybeez]

It won't be difficult at all. Politicians do it all the time. "What I say today is what I have always said, and if anyone remembers or has recordings of me saying the exact opposite last week, then I was quoted out of context and the tape's a fake and I'm being smeared by the vast other-wing conspiracy."

"We've always been at war with Eastasia."

 

[Phoronus]

I just find that story about the guy we let go who then bombed a place to be so ironic. One of two scenarios occured. 1) He wasn't a combatant, we detained him, eventually let him go, and then he became a combatant. or 2) He was a combatant and the military was incorrect. In case 1, perhaps we should be a bit more selective about who we detain without civil rights/humane treatment so as not to, ya know, create more terrorists. Sounds like a great place for civilian oversight. In scenario 2, clearly someone else needs to be making these decisions, as the military was wrong and allowed this bombing to take place. Sounds like a great place for civilian oversight.

And, I think Scalia was about as wrong as wrong can be in his dissent. The ruling was a good thing and restores at least a teeny tiny bit of our honor as a nation.

 

[Drmsparks]

Let's not forget one thing- if we declared them POW's we would not have to let them go. The procedures the military established are sufficient.

I don't want civilian oversight, the military can do it just fine. The procedures overturned were imposed by civilians on the military. The armed forces were perfectly content to use the established regulations.

It's the insistence the the people in Washington make the calls instead of the guys in the field that caused the problems. The guys in the field are much better at figuring out who matters and who doesn't. Once the prisoners get back here nobody wants them, nobody has access to the evidence, and nobody wants the responsibility to get rid of them. Talk about a catch 22.

 

[Norton]

Focus folks.....this is about Heller. Not the other decision.

 

[novus collectus]

I had a wierd dream last night. I dreamt that the SC made an announcement that a number of cases they had this session they were going to address more in the next session because they need more time. So therefore, among others, the Heller case would not be announced this June and it may not be untill December, or next year or something.

Wierd dream, but I wonder if that can technically happen?

 

[Norton]

that sounds more like a nightmare scenario, novus.

I'm not sure we can count on surviving until next June for a decision if Osama wins in November. He's sworn in in January, which leaves him several months to create mischief for us.

 

[Drmsparks]

Focus folks.....this is about Heller. Not the other decision.

Sorry Norton,

When I read the posts from BraveUlysses to Phoronus I thought I was in the habeous thread. My bad.

It might be best to move those four posts to the right thread....

 

[Phoronus]

Sorry about that, got carried way.

 

[CharlieFoxtrot]

No opinion today. Still 17 decisions from this term outstanding. Next days for the Supremes to announce decisions are Thursday (6/19) and Monday (6/23).
I think technically it can happen but don't think your dream will come true Novus.

 

[TheYoshi]

It's somewhat amazing how eager I am to have this decision read. Waiting is so agonizing.

 

[Boxcab]

My money is on the 23rd. This being such a hot topic.

-Boxcab

 

[alucard0822]

My money is on the 23rd. This being such a hot topic.

-Boxcab

Heller decision announcement pool

 

[PresentArms]

It's somewhat amazing how eager I am to have this decision read. Waiting is so agonizing.

Waiting Sucks

 

[foxtrapper]

BTW anyone betting on what B-mo's total murder count will be at the end of the year?

 

[BenL]

BTW anyone betting on what B-mo's total murder count will be at the end of the year?

Actually, these days, it's way under. Go figure...

 

[novus collectus]

Actually, these days, it's way under. Go figure...

Yeah, but if the trend from the past week or so continues they may soon catch up.

 

[rob b]

Actually, these days, it's way under. Go figure...

wait till the summer heat kicks in and people are stranded at home due to gas $