Assume that cert is granted on the Parker ruling overturning the DC gun ban. Now, imagine you are on the Supreme Court and that, whatever your personal opinion on gun rights and gun control, your goal as a Justice is to get this extremely hot potato away from you as quickly and efficiently as possible, with an absolute minimum of fuss and drama.
Even better, imagine, on top of that, that you are in fact Chief Justice Roberts, and that you are a judicial minimalist and very consensus-minded, and want to create an opinion that will get a bigger majority than just 5-4.
So, barring an alternative like this, what can you come up with? What would be the most uncontroversial way for the Court to rule on this case?
I’m interested in the answer because that’s what I strongly suspect will happen…
It seems like the court can always narrow a ruling by making it explicitly highly fact-dependent. But not knowing the facts I don’t know which they could seize on.
The Circuit Court almost disposed of this case on standing grounds.
Six people sued DC in district court. Each one of them said, in essence: “I want to possess a handgun or long gun in my home, use it for self defense, and carry it from one part of my home to another. All of these actions are illegal under DC law, and I had a credible fear of prosecution if I do.” Their suit asked for a declaratory judgement that DC’s enforcment of the law was unconstitutional.
The DC Circuit Court found that these people had no standing to sue. Because they had not suffered an injury-in-fact, they couldn’t attack the law; the mere fear that they might be prosecuted was not enough.
Had it not been for one additional fact, the case would have died right there. But it was saved by one of the plaintiffs, Dick Heller. Heller added one additional claim to the mix: that he had sought, and been denied, a permit to possess a handgun. That was, the court decided, an actual injury, not speculative in the least. The other plaintiffs were only guessing that they might have been prosecuted; Heller had actually been denied a permit.
I hope you’re wearing comfortable shoes in that there line, Cowboy. Even if the SC confirms Parker word-for-word, D.C. can just relax their gun laws just enough to resemble N.Y., N.Y.
You can own a handgun in N.Y.
If you’re rich enough, and connected politically.
The avergae “peasant” joe? Fuckin’ fuhgeddaboutit.
What’s the situation in New York? I thought that everywhere but DC they couldn’t actually ban working handguns as completely unownable. Registration and licensing, sure. Impossible to get a carry permit, sure, but can they make it illegal to keep a gun in your private residence?
Oh, I was thinking of New York state. I forgot that local city ordinances can often be much more restrictive than state law. Does New York City have a blanket ban on private gun possession?
(As a hijack, that brings up the whole question of just what local municipalities can and can not ban in the name of civil order. For example requiring parade permits for demonstrations, etc.)
I always find it tyrannically ironic that many municipalities ban any sort of fireworks whatsoever on the 4th of July. Even benign ones that don’t fly or explode.
You can celebrate freedom & liberty but only in a manner that the government allows.:rolleyes: