On 12/9/2015 2:00 PM, Henry Schaffer wrote:
A discussion of the firearms-related cases which weren't granted cert.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/supreme-court-gun-rights/419160/
The Atlantic's article presented one very interesting comment as far as
I was concerned, namely, "perhaps they are just waiting for the right
case". It's a fascinating statement. I am sort of worn out from
telling people that the Supremes *TOLD US* that "reasonable"
restrictions were permissible. There is nothing shocking about this
denial of certiorari under such circumstances. If they want to expand
the RKBA, or limit it, they need a case that does not include
miscellaneous issues like magazine capacity or "ugly" assault type
weapons. For purists those issues are central; for someone who is not a
purist something more is required. Telling an American citizen he
cannot have X but can still have Y in re firearms easily falls into the
realm of "reasonableness". I can totally understand why the Supremes
don't want to deal with such matters - the type of weapon, the
description of a weapon, or how many rounds it holds don't get to the
essence of the issue sufficiently to warrant a new ruling, whether an
expansion or a diminution.
My first reaction to the _Friedman_ decision was annoyance at the
National Rifle Association for even being involved or permitting the
case to go up on appeal to the SCOTUS. I'm a long time Patron member
and I am fixing to tell them that they need to get their thinking
straight - find a GUN RIGHTS case, not an ugly gun/ammunition capacity case.
Throwing mud on the wall to see what sticks is NOT my idea of a good
legal strategy if the _Heller_ and _McDonald _decisions are to be expanded.
I am reminded of the decision in _Moose Lodge No. 107 v Irvis_. It's
such an interesting ruling, the bottom line of which being that "we"
can't tell private citizens what to do even though racial discrimination
is bad thing - if the state didn't do it then it's not covered by the
14th Amendment". My twisted legal mind says the other side of the coin
works, too, to wit, "if we already told you that the 2nd Amendment
applies to the states (and local government) through the 14th Amendment,
but that reasonable restrictions are permissible" then "we" cannot tell
local governments that it is unreasonable to restrict magazine capacity
or certain types of firearms as long as the local government doesn't
restrict access to all firearms".
Maybe I'm just not sufficiently a purist - but I did spend years trying
to explain to people that their state governments _could _restrict
firearms because the RKBA didn't apply to the states - thank goodness I
don't have to do THAT any longer!
***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.
