So, after the DC handgun ban was overturned, numerous people sued various municipalities and states claiming that their bans, too, are unconstitutional. SCOTUS has just said they will hear some cases on this, and Chicago is #1 on the list. Linky.

 

Discuss.

 

thought this would happen.

 

Also, was kind of annoyed that the SC is continuing to take such vague stands that open it up to case by case rulings. Surely they can come up with SOME standard to apply here.

thought this would happen.

 

Also, was kind of annoyed that the SC is continuing to take such vague stands that open it up to case by case rulings. Surely they can come up with SOME standard to apply here.

I wrote some papers on various implication of 2A, back in college. Part of the reason SCOTUS avoided 2A cases like the plague for so many decades, and why they are so vague on it now, is that the most clear interperetations of 2A would result in jurisprudence that would be unacceptable to most everyone. As in the Miller case, it was stated that, taken to its full extent, 2A by nature actually protects all including the most powerful of weapons. But I don't think anyone (well, almost anyone) wants people to have tanks and bazookas.

 

This means that any specific stand taken is, in essence, legislating from the bench, and would be labeled as "activist" or otherwise panned by one or both parties politically.

 

This means that any specific stand taken is, in essence, legislating from the bench, and would be labeled as "activist" or otherwise panned by one or both parties politically.

 

Of things I absolutely don't care about, the quote above. Clearly the lawmakers at local/state/fed level are looking for some guidance on what is constitutional and what isn't. In other words, do your job. Setting standards can help.

Yeah, but they're appointed for life so that they aren't pressured by politics so much.

thought this would happen.

 

Also, was kind of annoyed that the SC is continuing to take such vague stands that open it up to case by case rulings. Surely they can come up with SOME standard to apply here.

That's a bigger issue then just 2A cases, for sure.

Yeah, but they're appointed for life so that they aren't pressured by politics so much.

 

how is this pressured by politics, they ignored an issue for years because it was too hard and so state/local/fed gov'ts ran wild not caring, they basically just punted for years, and now they are going to punt again. They are supposed to interpret the constitution. So do it.

how is this pressured by politics, they ignored an issue for years because it was too hard and so state/local/fed gov'ts ran wild not caring, they basically just punted for years, and now they are going to punt again. They are supposed to interpret the constitution. So do it.

Frankly, I don't think this court is going to punt again. I get the general impression that the people on this court realize that this is probably the most conservative court we'll see for the next 50 years, and if there is ever going to be law made from the conservative side, this is their chance. I think the Roberts 4 will push things as far as they can possibly go without getting Kennedy to vote against them, and they'll then defy everyone that follows to overturn it.