Justice Scalia dead

[Gman]

The Republican party is as organized as the '100 yards for people with no sense of direction' in the Monty Phython Silly Olympiad




Their own self-interests make them unable to support a viable candidate for President...but they'll make a stand against the SCOTUS appointment. Riiiiight.

[kidicarus13]

Merrick Garland....

JCN chief counsel Carrie Severino said in a blog post that Judge Merrick’s record on the bench since 1997 “leads to the conclusion that he would vote to reverse one of Justice Scalia’s most important opinions, D.C. vs. Heller, which affirmed that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms.”

[hurley842002]

Merrick Garland....

JCN chief counsel Carrie Severino said in a blog post that Judge Merrick’s record on the bench since 1997 “leads to the conclusion that he would vote to reverse one of Justice Scalia’s most important opinions, D.C. vs. Heller, which affirmed that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms.”

Well, now probably more than ever, we need the R's to make the right choice (for THE PEOPLE), I won't hold my breath tho.

[roberth]

Merrick Garland....

JCN chief counsel Carrie Severino said in a blog post that Judge Merrick’s record on the bench since 1997 “leads to the conclusion that he would vote to reverse one of Justice Scalia’s most important opinions, D.C. vs. Heller, which affirmed that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms.”

Another effing commie, thanks to all the obama asshole babies on this board.

[Rucker61]

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.

[O2HeN2]

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

FIFY.

O2

[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.

[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).

[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.