Chicago Boyz

What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?

Recommended Photo Store
Buy Through Our Amazon Link or Banner to Support This Blog
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Lex's Tweets
  • Jonathan's Tweets
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • The Supreme Court and the DC Appeals Court’s 2nd Amendment Decision

    Posted by Jonathan on March 18th, 2007 (All posts by )

    If the Supreme Court upholds the decision, great. If the Supreme Court reverses, the political template for what follows may be Kelo.

    I hope the decision holds. But if it doesn’t, I expect that some state legislatures will be forced to strengthen their own explicit protections for the RKBA. Of course it may also be reasonable to expect that other states, and particularly cities, would see a reversal as license to increase restrictions or move from restriction to outright firearms prohibition. However, the laws in some of the more restrictive jurisdictions are currently so stringent that formal prohibition might not be much worse than what they have now, and severe new laws might energize opponents.

    I think Steve Chapman is probably right that political trends mean that the DC court’s decision is more likely to cause problems for gun prohibitionists than for the RKBA.


    3 Responses to “The Supreme Court and the DC Appeals Court’s 2nd Amendment Decision”

    1. Vibe Says:

      The SCOTUS will have to reverse not only the DC courts decision, but much of US v Miller as well. Not likely. The Miller decision held that a short barreled shot gun was not “of use to the militia” due to a lack of PRESENTED evidence. Considering that Miller was not represented at this trial at all (as he was presumably dead at the time), the lack of a defense team to present said evidence probably had something to do with it. Not that there was any lack of evidence to support the usefullness, our military used trench sweepers quite a lot, still does. This fact may even get brought up in dictum in the US v DC hearing. At least we can hope it will.

    2. JohnMc Says:

      Set the judical considerations aside for a moment. Think workload. If SCOTUS reverses what happens? Their workload increases on this matter. Local, Regional and State bodies will formulate rules vis a vis any reversal. Challenges will be mounted that will wind thru the federal courts. Of the hundreds of challenges, tens of them will end up being pressed to SCOTUS for review.

      Ultimately, SCOTUS would have to reverse itself or whittle away at it’s own ruling in needing to clairify the reversal. Essentially the same mess that was generated by the BCRA would ensue here. I would hazard that the Court will consider very carefully the avalanche of work that would fall on the Judicary with such a reversal.

      If you really believe that the Court only considers the Constitutional aspects of a case then I have a bridge to sell.

    3. The doge Says:

      Affirmance of Parker v. District of Columbia will not have a widespread effect on gun laws. The second amendment finally will be given some real meaning consistent with its text, but the second amendment will still apply only to the federal government and not to the states or their political subdivisions. In Parker the court says that the second amendment applied directly to the District of Columbia because it is a Federal District ultimately controlled by Congress (n. 13).

      Thus, whether the case is affirmed or reversed, state and regional governments will have no need to re-formulate their rules on the RTKBA. New questions will arise, as they always do in the wake of a Supreme Court decision. But the federal courts have procedures to handle that, including denying certiorari. Speculation on whether caseload will go up or down depending on the outcome won’t be a factor in the Supreme Court’s decision. It would be more reasonable to buy John Mc’s bridge than to buy his argument.

    Leave a Reply

    Comments Policy:  By commenting here you acknowledge that you have read the Chicago Boyz blog Comments Policy, which is posted under the comment entry box below, and agree to its terms.

    A real-time preview of your comment will appear under the comment entry box below.

    Comments Policy

    Chicago Boyz values reader contributions and invites you to comment as long as you accept a few stipulations:

    1) Chicago Boyz authors tend to share a broad outlook on issues but there is no party or company line. Each of us decides what to write and how to respond to comments on his own posts. Occasionally one or another of us will delete a comment as off-topic, excessively rude or otherwise unproductive. You may think that we deleted your comment unjustly, and you may be right, but it is usually best if you can accept it and move on.

    2) If you post a comment and it doesn't show up it was probably blocked by our spam filter. We batch-delete spam comments, typically in the morning. If you email us promptly at we may be able to retrieve and publish your comment.

    3) You may use common HTML tags (italic, bold, etc.). Please use the "href" tag to post long URLs. The spam filter tends to block comments that contain multiple URLs. If you want to post multiple URLs you should either spread them across multiple comments or email us so that we can make sure that your comment gets posted.

    4) This blog is private property. The First Amendment does not apply. We have no obligation to publish your comments, follow your instructions or indulge your arguments. If you are unwilling to operate within these loose constraints you should probably start your own blog and leave us alone.

    5) Comments made on the Chicago Boyz blog are solely the responsibility of the commenter. No comment on any post on Chicago Boyz is to be taken as a statement from or by any contributor to Chicago Boyz, the Chicago Boyz blog, its administrators or owners. Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners, by permitting comments, do not thereby endorse any claim or opinion or statement made by any commenter, nor do they represent that any claim or statement made in any comment is true. Further, Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners expressly reject and disclaim any association with any comment which suggests any threat of bodily harm to any person, including without limitation any elected official.

    6) Commenters may not post content that infringes intellectual property rights. Comments that violate this rule are subject to deletion or editing to remove the infringing content. Commenters who repeatedly violate this rule may be banned from further commenting on Chicago Boyz. See our DMCA policy for more information.