Justice Scalia dead

[Skip]

NPR mentioned that a back-alley message had been sent by the Senate Republicans to Obama saying that if a Democrat wins the Presidency the Senate will confirm Garland in the lame duck period to prevent a more radical choice from the incoming Democratic president.

Regarding Heller, the concept of stare decisis still exists. SCOTUS doesn't just overturn previous decisions.

Serious question here...

Miller (1939) is a previous decision that sets the bar at "common use" after NFA (1934). It should be fully legal to own assault weapons, magazines, and anything else in common use by MIL and/or LE. Today, we derive no benefit from this whatsoever (AFAIK) and see an effort to eliminate the private ownership of anything that remotely looks MIL or LE (many would like gun ownership reduced to bolt action rifles for hunting).

Could Heller go the same way?

[Rucker61]

Serious question here...

Miller (1939) is a previous decision that sets the bar at "common use" after NFA (1934). It should be fully legal to own assault weapons, magazines, and anything else in common use by MIL and/or LE. Today, we derive no benefit from this whatsoever (AFAIK) and see an effort to eliminate the private ownership of anything that remotely looks MIL or LE (many would like gun ownership reduced to bolt action rifles for hunting).

Could Heller go the same way?

IANAL, but based on the 2nd Circuit Court's ruling on the Connecticut and New York assault weapons/ magazine bans, the courts don't care anyway. The majority opinion in the ban acknowledged that both "military style" semiautomatic weapons and "high capacity" magazines were protected by Heller and Miller, but could still be considered "dangerous and unusual" and thus eligible for further restrictions. With that mindset all bets are off.

[asmo]

Serious question here...

Miller (1939) is a previous decision that sets the bar at "common use" after NFA (1934). It should be fully legal to own assault weapons, magazines, and anything else in common use by MIL and/or LE. Today, we derive no benefit from this whatsoever (AFAIK) and see an effort to eliminate the private ownership of anything that remotely looks MIL or LE (many would like gun ownership reduced to bolt action rifles for hunting).

Could Heller go the same way?

Absolutely. Read the opinion. It specifically mentions the impact on Miller (none), and there is enough in Heller that could be used to neuter it away to nothingness.

[davsel]

Potentially good news:
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/2...arland-in-1997

Prominent Republican senators voted against judge Merrick Garland in a 1997 confirmation — a fact that casts further doubt over whether the GOP will allow President Obama's Supreme Court nominee a hearing.
The Senate confirmed Garland to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1997 by a vote of 76-23. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and current Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) both voted against him.

[Skip]

IANAL, but based on the 2nd Circuit Court's ruling on the Connecticut and New York assault weapons/ magazine bans, the courts don't care anyway. The majority opinion in the ban acknowledged that both "military style" semiautomatic weapons and "high capacity" magazines were protected by Heller and Miller, but could still be considered "dangerous and unusual" and thus eligible for further restrictions. With that mindset all bets are off.

Yup.

All firearms are dangerous and unusual is subjective; common use = usual (hence Miller). In a Liberal household a firearm would indeed be unusual (unless their amoral psychopathic child on SSRIs had one, of course). We've already heard that it is unusual for people in a developed nation to have guns given the successes in Europe and Australia.

Absolutely. Read the opinion. It specifically mentions the impact on Miller (none), and there is enough in Heller that could be used to neuter it away to nothingness.

That's why I asked. We've had lengthy debates here on legal action in opposition to the mag ban and the consensus is that Miller isn't enough to overturn it. Even asking the Supreme Court to consider it is risky--Scalia said the right that SHALL NOT INFRINGED is not unlimited.

It's the precedent that never was.

---

It's turning into might makes right. And I think the political process is broken (IRS, voter fraud, Chicago 3/10).