[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Reading through this, I'm struck by a repeated theme: > > The opinion of the court repeatedly references Justice Steven's dissent, > and in several instances literally belittles his view. To wit, on page 30: > > "But even assuming that this legislative history is relevant, JUSTICE > STEVENS flatly misreads the historical record." > > I liked the line when they called it "wrongheaded". My reaction was, "Are you kidding" In public? OH MY GOODNESS!" > Is this common on a close (5-4) decision? > > I don't recall those kinds of things in close decisions but I'll await comments from the real scholars. > And a couple of questions about the precedents that are set: > > The decision says the 14th amendment issue was not presented by this > case (footnote 23 on page 48), although the dicta clearly supports > incorporation (page 43-44). So, incorporation doesn't appear to be > "official". Can we expect that such a case will be filed soon? Will it > have to go all the way to the Supreme Court, or will the appeals courts > read the writing on the wall? > > The question I see is that in order to do an incorporation someone has to bring the precisely correct lawsuit. I would think that a State law has to be involved. DC not being a State could have influenced that issue but I could be very wrong. I never can figure out exactly what that District really is, anyway.... > I'm a bit confused about the type of weapons that have been protected by > this ruling. It appears to fall back on Miller and the qualifier "in > common use at the time". This appears to put the cart before the horse > and offers an incentive to ban a particular weapon before it can be put > into common use. > > I think the decision was pretty clear myself and I agree. If someone comes up with a new variation of a weapon that is outside the mold of normal usage I think the decision DOES stand for the proposition that it is not a "protected" weapon. "Common use" is a touchy issue, too. How common is common? How many 50 caliber shooters are there and is caliber an issue? We'll see. I'm waiting for cane-sword case my own self! Or maybe a concealed Bowie knife! ;-) > However, I could see this qualifier being used to challenge a ban on > "scary-looking rifles" (yes, I mean the expired assault-weapon ban), > since they are readily available and in common use for a variety of > purposes -- both sporting and defensive. > > Already in common use probably means all semi-automatic weapons are going to be covered but I could be wrong again! Litigation is guaranteed, I agree, a challenged is coming!
And I see by the subject line of another e-mail that "NRA Files Second Amendment Lawsuits In Illinois And California Following Supreme Court Ruling" the floodgates are open! ***GRJ*** _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
