How will the Court rule on the DC Handgun Case?

[Senator Ben]

This is the law for those interested:

§ 7-2502.02. Registration of certain firearms prohibited.



(a) A registration certificate shall not be issued for a:


(1) Sawed-off shotgun;

(2) Machine gun;

(3) Short-barreled rifle; or

(4) Pistol not validly registered to the current registrant in the District prior to September 24, 1976, except that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any organization that employs at least 1 commissioned special police officer or other employee licensed to carry a firearm and that arms the employee with a firearm during the employee's duty hours or to a police officer who has retired from the Metropolitan Police Department.


(b) Nothing in this section shall prevent a police officer who has retired from the Metropolitan Police Department from registering a pistol.


§ 22-4504. Carrying concealed weapons; possession of weapons during commission of crime of violence; penalty.



(a) No person shall carry within the District of Columbia either openly or concealed on or about their person, a pistol, without a license issued pursuant to District of Columbia law, or any deadly or dangerous weapon capable of being so concealed. Whoever violates this section shall be punished as provided in § 22-4515, except that:


(1) A person who violates this section by carrying a pistol, without a license issued pursuant to District of Columbia law, or any deadly or dangerous weapon, in a place other than the person's dwelling place, place of business, or on other land possessed by the person, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both; or

(2) If the violation of this section occurs after a person has been convicted in the District of Columbia of a violation of this section or of a felony, either in the District of Columbia or another jurisdiction, the person shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.


(b) No person shall within the District of Columbia possess a pistol, machine gun, shotgun, rifle, or any other firearm or imitation firearm while committing a crime of violence or dangerous crime as defined in § 22-4501. Upon conviction of a violation of this subsection, the person may be sentenced to imprisonment for a term not to exceed 15 years and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a mandatory-minimum term of not less than 5 years and shall not be released on parole, or granted probation or suspension of sentence, prior to serving the mandatory-minimum sentence.

[A18]

Judging by the oral argument, it seems very likely that Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy (huzzah!), Thomas, and Alito will vote to strike down the handgun ban. Interestingly, Justice Kennedy seemed to go the farthest in dismissing the importance of the preamble, and suggested that perhaps the Miller standard was deficient.

Justices Stevens and Souter seem like sure votes for DC. Although the arguments (er, "questions") they put forward were somewhat better than those of DC's advocate, they were paradoxically somewhat more bizarre as well--often making strained analogies from contemporaneous state provisions with markedly different wording.

It thus appears that at least two judges on our highest court are firmly in the camp of DC--and on its weakest, most intellectually bankrupt argument, to boot.

Justice Ginsburg also looks like a strong vote for DC, though I'm less confident as to her. Meanwhile, Justice Breyer seemed to be looking for some theoretical middle ground, but in practice came across as ready to bury the Second Amendment--just preferably alive, and while no one is looking.

Happily, though, it appears that Heller has five votes.

[True Federalist]

Probably overturn 5-4.  It'll only be overturned 6-3 if the ruling (or Breyer's concurrence) is a narrow one that doesn't address whether the second amendment's right to bear arms is a collective or individual right.

[Senator Ben]

Can anyone get a link to the oral argument?  The C-Span one doesn't seem to be working

[Χahar]

Overturn 5-4.

On ideological lines, of course.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

Overturn 5-4.

On ideological lines, of course.

more like party lines. Though I think it will be 6-3.

[bullmoose88]

Overturn 5-4.

On ideological lines, of course.

more like party lines. Though I think it will be 6-3.

Err..you do understand Souter and Stevens are Republicans...right?

[A18]

Can anyone get a link to the oral argument?  The C-Span one doesn't seem to be working

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290/argument/

Enjoy.

[Senator Ben]

Can anyone get a link to the oral argument?  The C-Span one doesn't seem to be working

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290/argument/

Enjoy.

Thanks a lot

[WalterMitty]

5-3 to strike down the ban.

breyer, stevens and ginsburg in dissent.

[Senator Ben]

5-3 to strike down the ban.

breyer, stevens and ginsburg in dissent.

Which Justice doesn't vote?

[Senator Ben]

After listening to the oral argument, it seems to me that at least 5 Justices are going to overturn the law.  Dellinger seemed to fumble over his words a little bit, and his logic seemed rather faulty.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

Overturn 5-4.

On ideological lines, of course.

more like party lines. Though I think it will be 6-3.

Err..you do understand Souter and Stevens are Republicans...right?

Bush and Ford, right? but they are as republican as the pope is baptist.

[WalterMitty]

5-3 to strike down the ban.

breyer, stevens and ginsburg in dissent.

Which Justice doesn't vote?

typo.  i meant to type 6-3.

[Senator Ben]

5-3 to strike down the ban.

breyer, stevens and ginsburg in dissent.

Which Justice doesn't vote?

typo.  i meant to type 6-3.

Interesting; what makes you think Souter will go with the conservatives?

[bullmoose88]

Overturn 5-4.

On ideological lines, of course.

more like party lines. Though I think it will be 6-3.

Err..you do understand Souter and Stevens are Republicans...right?

Bush and Ford, right? but they are as republican as the pope is baptist.

They're just as Republican as anyone else in the party...let's not forget that Republican really isn't an ideology in the United States...anyone can rightfully be a Republican...but they're as conservative as the Pope is Baptist.

[Senator Ben]

Overturn 5-4.

On ideological lines, of course.

more like party lines. Though I think it will be 6-3.

Err..you do understand Souter and Stevens are Republicans...right?

Bush and Ford, right? but they are as republican as the pope is baptist.

They're just as Republican as anyone else in the party...let's not forget that Republican really isn't an ideology in the United States...anyone can rightfully be a Republican...but they're as conservative as the Pope is Baptist.

No, the Pope is more Baptist than Stevens is conservative.

[bullmoose88]

Overturn 5-4.

On ideological lines, of course.

more like party lines. Though I think it will be 6-3.

Err..you do understand Souter and Stevens are Republicans...right?

Bush and Ford, right? but they are as republican as the pope is baptist.

They're just as Republican as anyone else in the party...let's not forget that Republican really isn't an ideology in the United States...anyone can rightfully be a Republican...but they're as conservative as the Pope is Baptist.

No, the Pope is more Baptist than Stevens is conservative.

Couple of things...1) Stevens is actually pretty pro-law and order and tends to favor the government when its challenged, 2) Stevens also sits in William O Douglas' seat...perhaps its influenced him in some way

[Senator Ben]

Overturn 5-4.

On ideological lines, of course.

more like party lines. Though I think it will be 6-3.

Err..you do understand Souter and Stevens are Republicans...right?

Bush and Ford, right? but they are as republican as the pope is baptist.

They're just as Republican as anyone else in the party...let's not forget that Republican really isn't an ideology in the United States...anyone can rightfully be a Republican...but they're as conservative as the Pope is Baptist.

No, the Pope is more Baptist than Stevens is conservative.

Couple of things...1) Stevens is actually pretty pro-law and order and tends to favor the government when its challenged, 2) Stevens also sits in William O Douglas' seat...perhaps its influenced him in some way

I haven't noticed Stevens being pro law and order, what opinions has he written for that point of view?

[Frodo]

There would be a 6 to 3 majority on the Supreme Court if the question is simply whether the Second Amendment protects, first and foremost, an individual right to bear arms (assuming what I hear about Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is correct).

As to the DC gun ban, then the numbers would be more like 5 to 4 in favor of declaring such bans unconstitutional, as well as subjecting current and future gun control measures to strict scrutiny by the courts. 

[SPC]

Overturn 5-4.

On ideological lines, of course.

more like party lines. Though I think it will be 6-3.

Err..you do understand Souter and Stevens are Republicans...right?

(WARNING: WANDERING OFF TOPIC)

Yet another reason why the "Vote for McCain to keep strict constructionists on the court" argument is bullsh**t.

[Sam Spade]

Probably 7-2, with the ruling being less friendly to gun rights activists than people think (though better than the current situation).

[Frodo]

I know the decision is expected this month, but does anyone happen to know when in June they will rule on this case? 

[A18]

I know the decision is expected this month, but does anyone happen to know when in June they will rule on this case? 

There's no fixed date, known in advance. But probably June 26.