Heller v D.C. (aka Heller II) - mixed decision

[gc70]

The D.C. Circuit decided Heller v D.C. (aka Heller II) today.

The ruling sustained four D.C. firearms regulation requirements: registration, fingerprinting and photos, fees, and safety training.

The ruling struck down four other D.C. firearms regulation requirements: inspection, periodic re-registration, a knowledge test, and a one-a-month limit on pistol registrations.

[kilimanjaro]

Sounds like that 'reasonable regulation' the original Heller postulated. We'll see what parts of it are upheld by the SCOTUS, I bet all of it, either by decision or by choosing not to hear the case, presuming it goes up the ladder.

[NJgunowner]

I wonder if this (if it stands) will get rid of NJ and other states 1 handgun a month law since it strikes down the limit on handgun registrations?

[dakota.potts]

Waiting periods on purchases made by existing gun owners and similar 1 a month laws have been struck down before, but never at a Federal level that I'm aware of.

I think we'll probably continue to see "reasonable" regulations upheld. To some extent, it may be something that we have to accept. The issue then will be winning the battle on things that are unreasonable (such as registration, licensing to possess, etc.)

[NJgunowner]

Yeah I'd really love to see NJ's permit to purchase thrown out, it's such a pain.

[62coltnavy]

Unless it goes up to SCOTUS and is affirmed, the Second Circuit is unlikely to pay any attention at all to the D.C. circuit's decision on this issue, as it is not bound by it and has yet to see a firearm regulation that did not pass the minimal scrutiny it claims is "intermediate review." Same for Maryland and the Fourth Circuit, which upheld Maryland's may issue carry law with absolutely no evidence in the legislative record supporting the Legislature's decision. And one would presume the same for California and the Ninth Circuit, a circuit which is, with rare exceptions, antagonistic to the Second Amendment. These courts will instead follow the same analysis argued for in the dissent which accords essentially conclusive effect to legislative determinations of public policy as an area i which the Courts should not tread. "Rational basis" review by any other name smells as rancid when it comes to Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

[KyJim]

At least some gun control advocates want D.C. to take this to the Supreme Court. An article in The Daily Beast aims specifically at the decision that struck down the number of firearms that could be purchased per month. The author thinks Justice Kennedy, and possibly C.J. Roberts, could swing the other way from Heller and McDonald. He thinks mass shootings are more in the limelight and that the Supreme Court cares about opinion polls. Conversely, however, he argues the court is not afraid of the NRA.

While I certainly don't think the court is afraid of the NRA, I also don't think they're looking at opinion polls. And, bottom line, I don't think SCOTUS will take this up, though I have been wrong more than once.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...amendment.html.

[NJgunowner]

Scotus doesn't need to run for election, they could care less what people think. They'll do what they want.

[44 AMP]

No, SCOTUS does not run for election, and more importantly does not ever run for re-election.

That part of the original plan, they have not yet screwed up.

The Founders believed that would make them resistant to political pressure. They hoped SCOTUS would be immune, but I think they were realists enough to recognize this could only be the ideal, and in practice, fallible humans would not hold to it 100%.

The 9m men ( & women, today) in black robes being the final arbiter of what is, and is not Constitutional, who are not "beholding" to the political process is a great strength of our system.

However, when those same men & women, are (personally) political, it makes for the greatest weakness of our system.

Remember the court is NOT OUR FRIEND, never has been. The Court is (sadly) a political creature, if not to the degree of congress and the presidency.

SCOTUS upheld slavery, SCOTUS upheld the interment of Japanese in (concentration) camps. SCOTUS has upheld a number of very bad things over the years, and only SOME of those things have been redressed by later court rulings.

It is not a perfect system, but its the best one the Founders could come up with.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

...SCOTUS upheld slavery, SCOTUS upheld the interment of Japanese in (concentration) camps. SCOTUS has upheld a number of very bad things over the years, and only SOME of those things have been redressed by later court rulings. ...

But it's really not the proper role of a court to decide if the result is good or bad. Courts decide cases, and it's the job of a court to apply the the law and applicable precedent to decide the case. That is the nature of an exercise of judicial power. The result of applying the law and precedent can in fact be unsatisfactory. We could think that a law is a bad idea or bad public policy, and that law could be entirely within the power of Congress to enact and perfectly constitutional. Being constitutional does not guarantee that a law is a good thing.

It is also a well settled principle of law that the courts give deference to legislative acts and presume statutes valid and enforceable. As the Supreme Court said in Brown v. State of Maryland, 25 U.S. 419 (1827), at 437:

...It has been truly said, that the presumption is in favour of every legislative act, and that the whole burden of proof lies on him who denies its constitutionality....

And much more recently in U.S. v Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000):

...Due respect for the decisions of a coordinate branch of Government demands that we invalidate a congressional enactment only upon a plain showing that Congress has exceeded its constitutional bounds. See United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S., at 568, 577_578 (Kennedy, J., concurring); United States v. Harris, 106 U.S., at 635. With this presumption of constitutionality in mind, we turn to the question whether §13981 falls within Congress' power under Article I, §8, of the Constitution....

If an application of the law by a court produces a bad result, the fault lies with the law.

We still elect our legislators and executive officers. And the separation of powers/checks and balances works. So a court might override a statute, but sometimes the legislature then overrides the court. I often cite the case of Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) as an example of this phenomenon. It was a ruling on a technical point of eminent domain law (specifically involving the "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment applied to the States through the 14th Amendment and the meaning of "public use"). The result was found to be unsatisfactory by many. As a consequence, the legislatures of 42 States revised those States' eminent domain laws to avoid a Kelo result. "Checks and balances" at work.

Whenever a court makes a major decision that one disagrees with, the judicial system is broken and the judges corrupt. Whenever a court makes a major decision that one agrees with, the judges are great scholars (except any dissenters, who are corrupt), and our courts are the last bulwark against the machination of the political toadies bought and paid for by special interests. There has been, and probably always will be, a huge negative reaction by a large number of people to every important to the public Supreme Court decision. There are plenty of folks who loved Roe v. Wade and hated Heller, and perhaps as many who hated Roe v. Wade and loved Heller.

[leadcounsel]

The court has single handedly eroded the laws of the Constitution. Yes, they have protected the Constitution from time to time, BUT THAT'S THEIR JOB.

I take great issue as the erosion that occurs on their watch. They "barely" got Heller and McDonald right.

I greatly fear any near term future gun cases since it's a swing court that has badly screwed up other cases recently, which we all know about. And there is great likelihood that more anti-gun liberals will be freshly appointed soon changing the balance.

It is a great weakness when the POTUS (clearly political) can appoint SCOTUS members with little meaningful imposition by Congress. That's among his more powerful tools to stack the Court for decades to come.

[thallub]

Reference the case that is the subject of this thread. A judge appointed by president Bush I dissented. Judge Patricia A. Millett, appointed by president Obama, voted with judge Ginsburg overturn part of the DC law.

“Taken to its logical conclusion, that reasoning would justify a total ban on firearms kept in the home,” wrote Ginsburg, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan. Ginsburg was joined by Judge Patricia A. Millett, who was appointed by President Obama.

Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson disagreed, calling the one-gun-a-month limit a temporary, acceptable burden.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...679_story.html

A reporter asked then former president Eisenhower about mistakes he made as president. Ike replied that he made two major mistakes: Both were sitting on the SCOTUS. One was Earl Warren.

[44 AMP]

I understand the role of the Court is not to make law, and I understand that a "bad law" CAN be Constitutional.

What irks me is when the Court has chosen to stick to its strictly defined role, and when it has chosen to go further. Those instances seem to be political rule, rather than the strict rule of existing law.

That, and seemingly arbitrary choice of what cases to hear, or decline.

And yes, I'm one of the ones who feels they are fine when they agree with me, and idiots /corrupt when they don't.

But, feelings don't matter much when the law is at stake, now do they?

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

...What irks me is when the Court has chosen to stick to its strictly defined role, and when it has chosen to go further. Those instances seem to be political rule, rather than the strict rule of existing law....

And of course not everyone agrees on where the line it.

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

...seemingly arbitrary choice of what cases to hear, or decline...

On the other hand, the Supreme Court gets about 10,000 petitions for certiorari a year and hears about 70 -- 80 cases. It takes the votes of four Justices to grant a petition.