SCOTUS poised to strike down D.C. gunban.

[Broomstick]

You've got it the wrong way around, though. Technical and specific legislation needs less interpretation, because it clearly spells out the conditions under which the law applies. The Constitution is vague on many, many points, which judicial decisions clarify. Without that authoritative clarification, it would be difficult to apply the Constitution consistently if at all. "Something as simple as am I allowed to carry weapons yes or no" is not at all simple when the law doesn't say specifically say yes or no on the matter.

If the Constitution doesn't say shit, then it shouldn't even get to the Supreme Court. They can refuse. So, local jurisdictions can make their own laws.

And, normally, local jurisdictions do, in fact, make their own laws.

But when there is a dispute or question about the law (because laws can be badly written, or just bad to begin with) then we have the courts. In fact, we have several layers of courts, with the Supreme Court being the top layer.

What is wrong with that line of reasoning? Especially since there's been loathing by the justices to even hear these types of cases, indicating they have the same reservations.

I'm not sure where you're getting this idea of a "loathing" or even reluctance to hear cases. The SCotUS can't just randomly say "We're re-evaluating Amendment 6 and 12 this week, and restrictions on snowmobiles in national parks". The can only rule on cases that go through sufficient appeals to reach them. If the disputing parties decide to stop appealing decisions at a lower level that's it - is never reaches the SCotUS. Or, in some circumstances (such as the 2000 election) they may be specifically asked to make a ruling by appropriately high levels of government, but it's only what comes to their door, they can't go out looking for cases.

You forget as well that the high courts don't sit to deliver pronouncements on what the law is and is not; their job is to resolve legal disputes the same as the lower courts. The reasoning they use in the resolution becomes the standard by which the law is understood, until future cases change that. The vary fact that legal disputes arise over laws - even very specific ones - indicates that judicial interpretation is necessary, otherwise how would the laws be usefully applied? The courts are not panels of high priests handing down pronouncements whenever they feel like it, or even when legislators ask them to.

So how do you explain the Supreme Court's refusal to hear certain cases?

1) They can only give a ruling on those cases that are appealed to the SCotUS.

2) In a country the size of the US a lot of court cases are appealed every year, with the result that the pool of cases appealed to the SCotUS is quite large, more than sufficient to fill their schedule. As a result, they can exercise the opt to not rule on something, in which case whatever the most recent ruling in the courts was would continue to apply.

The SCotUS does make an effort to select cases that would have the greatest import to the nation as a whole - hence, cases such as Roe vs. Wade, Brown vs. Board of Education, and Dred Scott v Sandford,.

I should also note that their decision do not always make people happy - Dred Scott, for one, was a factor in the US vs. CSA Civil War. In that instance they ruled in accordance with the constitution as it was in the 1850's. This decision had a LOT to do with why, post-war, the 13th and 14th Amendments was added to the list. At which point the Dred Scott ruling was overturned by making explicit changes in the Constitution. Nowadays, if the same situation was brought before the court the ruling would be the opposite because of the 13th and 14th.

This is why, ever since Roe v. Wade, the anti-abortion camp have agitated for a Constitutional Amendment, as that is the only way to impose their views on everyone else. So far, they have not convinced sufficient numbers of their fellow citizens to go along with the idea and thus Roe v. Wade, for all its flaws, remains the final law of the land. Specifically, abortion is a right through the first trimester, after which it is up to the States to make the rules -- but not such rules that they effectively ban first trimester abortions. Don't like it? Change the Constitution. Or get the SCotUS to re-evaluate it, but that is extremely unlikely. First, you'd have to have a case appealed all the way to the SCotUS. Second, they tend not to overturn precedent (thought sometimes they do). Granted it wasn't a unanimous decision - most of them aren't and one reason for have NINE justices on the SCotUS is to limit how much one person's interpretation and bias affects the rulings.

I won't claim it's a perfect system, but it is the one the US has used for over 200 years.

The fact that some cases leak through and make it in doesn't change what their ideal job is: dealing with national crisis.

I'm sorry - where did you get the idea that that was their primary job?

[brianeyci]

Except the Constitution does "say shit." It just says it vaguely enough that disputes arise and are taken to court.

You're acting as if this is a science. As if someone can look at that, with enough training and experience and say it means x and y. That's hogwash. If it is vague, a perfectly fine answer is I don't know, or forget it. You forget that the burden of proof is on whoever claims the constitution has been violated, rather than on Washington to prove that their handgun law obeys the constitution.

What do you mean by 'leak through'? Are you seriously saying the the Supreme Court should turn down any case on any issue that doesn't threaten to precipitate a political crisis?

The Court's job isn't to deal with national crisis, for crying out loud. It's job is to serve as a court of final appeal. They can turn down cases for a plentitude of reasons, and do, but they do so at their own discretion - and accept them on their discretion too.

Constitutional crisis is a national crisis. The Supreme Court should deal with issues of national importance. Whether I say the Supreme Court turns down cases for political crisis or not is irrelevant -- they already do this. What the fuck do you think discretion means? They don't want to hear bullshit.

You guys keep explaining things as if it rebuttals my point, but in the end you don't realize the burden of proof is on you guys, since you want to change the system so the SC hears more cases and makes more final rulings. The Supreme Court has already rejected hearing these gun cases for so long, and this is apparently a milestone, forced on them because of contradictory lower court rulings. But some of you want them to hear cases about whether this or that type of gun is constitutional, or want this to be the final word on gun possession. I hope the ruling is an extremely limited ruling, not carte blanche for anybody in the US to be armed regardless of local laws, or vice versa, declaring handgun ownership unconstitutional.

After all, the constitution doesn't say one word about abortion.

Here lies the danger. The end was right, but the justification was shoddy. Thankfully I don't worship constitutions, any constitution, so it's not such a low blow. I don't personally justify my support of abortion due to words on a page.

As for lower courts having different interpretations, that is a serious problem. But already a literalist interpretation allows only males 17 - 45 to be covered by the second amendment. The biggest justification for guns -- personal defense -- goes out the window. Petite woman with snub nose revolver, where is that in the second amendment? That's right, the second amendment only guarantees weapons for the Militia, which by the Militia Act looks to be 17 - 45 males, the NG and females in the NG.

This would be the correct ruling it appears, and one which will not satisfy anybody. I suppose if you do not care about the means at all (the other part of the debate in this thread) then you could have the justices rule that possessing a weapon is supported by the constitution and therefore should be allowed. I honestly see no problem in DC having a handgun ban... if the people there don't like it, they can vote in new politicians and get rid of it just like the assault weapons ban, and it's not as if there's a radical jump in crime either way if there's more legal handguns or less legal handguns.

[phongn]

The Wall Street Journal has posted a transcript of the oral arguments presented today.

[Broomstick]

Constitutional crisis is a national crisis. The Supreme Court should deal with issues of national importance.

Perhaps it does not appear so to you, but I assure that the question of gun ownership (who, when, where, for what reason, who can't, why, etc.) IS of national importance in the US, and has been for some time.

The Supreme Court has already rejected hearing these gun cases for so long, and this is apparently a milestone, forced on them because of contradictory lower court rulings.

Um... MOST of the SCotUS cases are due to "contradictory lower court rulings". Usually, if the lower courts aren't disagreeing there would be little reason to bring a matter before the SCotUS.

In actual fact, the SCotUS is the only court specifically required by the Constitution - all other lower courts are optional. What the other Federal courts are, in a sense, is a delegation of duties that would otherwise be too burdensome for just one court to hear, leaving only the most important/difficult/appealed cases for the SCotUS to deal with directly.

But some of you want them to hear cases about whether this or that type of gun is constitutional, or want this to be the final word on gun possession.

I don't think anyone wants them ruling who which gun types are permitted - at most a ruling on the appropriate level of government to make such rules (Federal, state, county, munipal, whatever)

And, whether anyone likes it or not, it COULD be the "final word" on gun possession in the US.

I hope the ruling is an extremely limited ruling, not carte blanche for anybody in the US to be armed regardless of local laws, or vice versa, declaring handgun ownership unconstitutional.

First of all, the earlier precedent establishes that non-Federal levels of government do, in fact, have the authority to regulate gun ownership so this decision will NOT be "carte blanche" for anyone to be armed in the US - if they decide that the 2nd applies to individuals as well as the states then all the local regulatory laws will still be in place except for those that completely ban ownership. A city such as Chicago (as example - their gun law was based on the DC one) would see the outright ban lifted, but they could restrict firearms, prevent them from being carried into government buildings (as is already the case even in states like Indiana or Arizona - Arizona allows "open carry" but there's a sign on all the post offices saying very explicitly you can not take your guns inside with you, or at least there was when I last visited Phoenix), insist on a lengthy firearms training and safety course prior to granting a license, and so on and so forth.

Second - they could, in fact, say that the 2nd does NOT apply to individuals, ONLY state militias. In which case it will NOT be a sweeping ban across the nation but rather will revert to local jurisdictions. Chicago, for example, will keep its ban. Indiana might declare all adults who aren't mentally ill or past felons are in the militia. Whatever. The Constitution and it's Amendments are most constraining on the Federal government - each State has a constitution of its own as well, and what, if anything, those 50 separate documents have to say on the issue of gun ownership varies greatly.

After all, the constitution doesn't say one word about abortion.

Here lies the danger. The end was right, but the justification was shoddy. Thankfully I don't worship constitutions, any constitution, so it's not such a low blow. I don't personally justify my support of abortion due to words on a page.

The US Constitution is the framework for our government. It's the rulebook we all play by here. It's the supreme law of the land. It's not that we worship it, but civilized and law-abiding citizens are bound by it - as is our government.

No, Roe v. Wade was not a neat, tidy, decision. In a dispassionate and logical world we would draft a clearer statement on the matter and incorporate it into the foundational document. We don't live in such a world. Until such time that a sufficient consensus can be reached or the issue is once again ruled on by the Court, though, Roe v. Wade is the final say. As I said, it's not a perfect system, but it IS the one I and a lot of other people happen to live under.

As for lower courts having different interpretations, that is a serious problem. But already a literalist interpretation allows only males 17 - 45 to be covered by the second amendment. The biggest justification for guns -- personal defense -- goes out the window. Petite woman with snub nose revolver, where is that in the second amendment?

Males 17-45 isn't in the 2nd Amendment either - you're referring to the Militia Act, which is the legislature's interpretation of what a "militia" is. As a result, it has the force of law until it is before the SCotUS - at which point it may or may not be upheld as constitutional, but even if constitutional it may or may not be a good law or a good definition or a good anything.

That's right, the second amendment only guarantees weapons for the Militia, which by the Militia Act looks to be 17 - 45 males, the NG and females in the NG.

Actually, whether or not that's what the 2nd says is EXACTLY what is in dispute - does it mean JUST the militia, or militias AND 'the People" as individuals as well?

This would be the correct ruling it appears, and one which will not satisfy anybody.

If it satisfies no one, it wouldn't be the first time. Why do you think we have continued to add Amendments over time?

The SCotUS can overturn any lower court ruling.

The SCotUS can rule any law unconstitutional

The SCotUS can be overruled only by amending the Constitution - but any SCotUS ruling can be overruled in that manner.

I honestly see no problem in DC having a handgun ban... if the people there don't like it, they can vote in new politicians and get rid of it just like the assault weapons ban, and it's not as if there's a radical jump in crime either way if there's more legal handguns or less legal handguns.

Actually, the residents of DC are the only city in the nation who CAN NOT vote in new politicians to make such decisions. The District of Columbia is NOT part of a state and thus its true local government is, in fact, the Federal Congress. Since Federal law pre-empts local law, I would expect that the city council and mayor of DC have far, far less power than their counterparts anywhere else. To add insult to injury, although Congress has ultimate authority over DC, the residents are not represented by a voting member of Congress, and can not vote for anyone in Congress. Thus, the laws of DC are made by people from elsewhere, elected by people elsewhere, and those same people do not answer to the residents of the city.

Which makes it a very unusual place by US standards. And no, they can't vote for a different group of people to impose laws upon them. They're not allowed to do so.

[Turin]

The nation, but keep up the hyperbole, it amuses me.

Dumbshit, 1991 per the number of people living in DC, DC had the highest murder rate per-citizen of both the entire US and the world. By actual numbers as in physical number of people dead then yes you can argue it's only number three for that year. Excuse me, the 3rd place runner up in the total number of people dead in 1991, that of course makes it so much better!

Fine, conceded.

as if I or anyone else is making an argument that gun control is the sole factor involved in the problem. Obviously we have to look at the other factors as well -- the economic situation in a given city being of course the primary factor.

No one here is making that argument why bring it up?

Because it is the argument you're making, you're just not noticing it (see below).

This is not to say pre-ban did not have some bad years(And there were a few) but the simple fact is per the numbers the handgun ban had no measurable effect at all.

This gets back to why I brought up other factors. If, for example, a city experiences a sudden rapid increase in the crack epidemic, that factor will overwhelm the handgun ban. Only a fool would say that a handgun ban is going to reduce the number of homicides in absolute terms without considering other factors. The authors of the study I previously mentioned did consider these other factors and concluded that it did have an effect. (I will track details on this study down... it was published in the pre-internet era, so I'm understandably having a bit of trouble with this.)

Two things
1. You totally missed the point where I mentioned the DC Metro Police have the final say on your ownership of any particular gun and can deny you the ability to bring a gun anywhere into DC at will? If they think you are in any way shape or form "off" or whatever variable they chose to describe you with, your ownership of a gun can be denied with no chance of appeal except via changing the law since all DC lawsuits have been sided with the city.

"All DC lawsuits have been sided with the city." That is, you're implying that the courts are somehow conspiring to remove the ability for law-abiding citizens to have firearms, rather than trying to keep the number of firearms in general down.

2. A gun that must be dissembled or locked in a safe is useless for home defense unless your burgler, rapist or murder is kind enough to phone ahead.

If you don't already have the gun in your hand, it's not going to help you if you're surprised. I'll admit that making homeowners have locks on their guns isn't particularly useful, but it's really a red-herring to the overall issue of eliminating firearms on the street.

You miss the point again Turin, there already exists a system for purchasing a gun designed to weed out those with violent pasts, mental problems and the like. In DC the police have the ability, even if you've passed Federal checks to deny you gun-ownership at will.

And passing Federal checks is trivially easy even if you're a thug, so long as you don't have a criminal record. Actually, I think it's you who's missing the point of this law. In DC, the police have the ability to deny you gun-ownership at will. Which means that local police can identify trouble-makers and those likely to cause trouble and deny them the opportunity to have access to legal weapons. Which also gives the police an additional enforcement tool -- if they stop some dumbass on a traffic stop and decide that he's squirrelly, they can easily snag his gun in the process.

I should point out that I'm not opposed to firearm ownership in general, and in fact I've considered purchasing a firearm myself at various points in my life. But there's a gigantic difference between the circumstances surrounding people in suburban or rural communities (or non-crime-ridden urban communities) and those urban communities that have become near war-zones.

[Master of Ossus]

You're acting as if this is a science. As if someone can look at that, with enough training and experience and say it means x and y. That's hogwash. If it is vague, a perfectly fine answer is I don't know, or forget it. You forget that the burden of proof is on whoever claims the constitution has been violated, rather than on Washington to prove that their handgun law obeys the constitution.

The very definition of a right is something that one is morally entitled to be able to do. In order to VIOLATE a person's constitutional rights, the GOVERNMENT must prove a compelling interest in doing so. There are classes of laws that are so suspect that the burden is on the government to prove that the laws are in keeping with the constitution.

Constitutional crisis is a national crisis. The Supreme Court should deal with issues of national importance. Whether I say the Supreme Court turns down cases for political crisis or not is irrelevant -- they already do this. What the fuck do you think discretion means? They don't want to hear bullshit.

But when they exercise their discretion to actually hear a case you jump down their throats and say that they shouldn't have bothered. That's the whole point of this discussion.

You guys keep explaining things as if it rebuttals my point, but in the end you don't realize the burden of proof is on you guys, since you want to change the system so the SC hears more cases and makes more final rulings. The Supreme Court has already rejected hearing these gun cases for so long, and this is apparently a milestone, forced on them because of contradictory lower court rulings. But some of you want them to hear cases about whether this or that type of gun is constitutional, or want this to be the final word on gun possession. I hope the ruling is an extremely limited ruling, not carte blanche for anybody in the US to be armed regardless of local laws, or vice versa, declaring handgun ownership unconstitutional.

I have not seen anyone on this thread arguing that the Supreme Court should make specific rulings on the constitutionality of banning individual classes of weapons, although that doesn't strike me as being terribly unreasonable. After all, the Supreme Court has issued rulings as to what types of classifications the government is allowed to make when distinguishing between groups of people, what types of speech are protected under "free speech," and what restrictions government actors are allowed to place on the free exercise of religion, press, assembly, etc.

Here lies the danger. The end was right, but the justification was shoddy. Thankfully I don't worship constitutions, any constitution, so it's not such a low blow. I don't personally justify my support of abortion due to words on a page.

Saying that you don't rely on the US constitution when making your own values is irrelevant--the constitution is the source of the Supreme Court's authority, and outlines the government's authority in the US. Therefore, if the GOVERNMENT, or the Supreme Court, ignored the constitution it would be a big deal even if you agreed with their extra-constitutional policy--they would have no moral (or legal) authority to implement it, independent of whether or not you or I thought it was a good idea.

As for lower courts having different interpretations, that is a serious problem. But already a literalist interpretation allows only males 17 - 45 to be covered by the second amendment.

That's absurd. Women cannot serve as part of the militia? No one older or younger than your arbitrary classification can serve as part of the milita? We have people outside that group serving as ACTIVE DUTY SOLDIERS. It would be a violation of Equal Protection to create such a distinction based on sex. Moreover,

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

That gives the REASON for the amendment, but the active clause of the amendment can be viewed independently from the reason for its creation.

The biggest justification for guns -- personal defense -- goes out the window. Petite woman with snub nose revolver, where is that in the second amendment? That's right, the second amendment only guarantees weapons for the Militia, which by the Militia Act looks to be 17 - 45 males, the NG and females in the NG.

But it would be a violation of Equal Protection to allow for similarly situated groups to be treated differently--if you allow a 25 year old man to get a gun, it's a violation of Equal Protection to BAR a 25 year old woman to buy an identical weapon. You cannot interpret the constitution as literally as you would argue. I think there's a constitutional law phrase that goes something like, "It's a constitution; not a legal code." It's true. You cannot say, "Hmmm... I have free speech. Too bad that doesn't protect any hand gestures I make while speaking."

This would be the correct ruling it appears, and one which will not satisfy anybody. I suppose if you do not care about the means at all (the other part of the debate in this thread) then you could have the justices rule that possessing a weapon is supported by the constitution and therefore should be allowed. I honestly see no problem in DC having a handgun ban... if the people there don't like it, they can vote in new politicians and get rid of it just like the assault weapons ban, and it's not as if there's a radical jump in crime either way if there's more legal handguns or less legal handguns.

Again, if the Supreme Court found your argument to be compelling (which I virtually guarantee you it will not), then people would go along with that even if they disagreed with it. I'm still astounded by your willingness to allow the government to freely ignore the very constitution that is the source of its own moral and legal authority. Moreover, even if people do not like a law, that is no guarantee that it will be overturned and you know it. The AWB was never repealed--it EXPIRED. There is no expiration clause in the DC ban on handguns. Moreover, would you have a problem with the government passing a law forbidding criticism of the Legislature? After all, people could just vote in new politicians to get rid of it if they didn't like it. What about a law preventing black people from owning handguns, but allowing all other groups of people to have firearms? Blacks could just vote to get rid of the ban if they didn't like it.

[Master of Ossus]

You forget the whole theory of codification of law, which is that the common man should be able to read it and understand it. If they cannot, then the law should either be rewritten or stricken down. This is at odds with the idea that the law needs semantic whoring interpretations as its highest body.

The Constitution is not a legal code. Moreover, the common man is LESS able to understand statutes than they are capable of understanding the Constitution because it is so much shorter and interpreted in a manner much more consistent with common readings. For example, "cruel and unusual punishment" is commonly understood to include forms of punishment like "lopping off thieves' limbs," and "burning people at the stake." A statute would have to list all of the various forms of punishment embodied in that phrase, but the expansive reading of the constitution is very well understood by the public.

Ideally the highest body simply strikes down unconstitutional laws, not interprets them.

How can you determine if a law is unconstitutional if you cannot interpret it? Moreover, what about laws that are on their surface constitutional, but that are applied in such a way as to violate someone's rights (for instance, allowing everyone the right to vote if they pass a literacy test which coincidentally only a tiny fraction of blacks are capable of passing but which a much higher fraction of whites have no trouble with)?

Practically I agree it is not possible to rewrite the constitution, but at least one other person an American in this thread says the ambiguity should ideally be dealt with. If I offended you with my "change the Militia Act hur hur" then I'm sorry, since I'm not trying to make light of a serious problem.

Fair enough. I agree that my first response was excessive, given your comment, and apologize for that.

I have no problem with you saying the Supreme Court should render relatively final decisions -- only that I don't understand what you meant by final in the context of your interaction point, and more importantly in the context of what I said since you were replying to me. Get this: the Court can still refuse to hear certain cases, yet with the cases they do hear can still be final enough. My original point was I didn't want them to be forced to hear cases. I didn't even mention final in my first post: it is the thing you inserted in, so obviously I'm going to think you want final rulings on:

1. Automatic weapons

2. Shotguns

3. Other minutiae

1. I was saying that it is the role of the Supreme Court to render final judgments on matters brought before it. From your comments, I had understood your position to contravene this role.
2. Just because someone wants final judgment on one thing does not mean that they want a final judgment on all even tangentially related points. Saying that I want "hate speech" banned does not mean that I wish to classify any particular form of speech to be classified as hate speech.

Well too bad: the constitution can be semantic whored to mean many things, which is the profession of lawyers. That is the nature of the English language. Much was said about how Judge Alito, about how he would shed his conservative garb and become more free to interpret the constitution properly. Meanwhile after he got in, he struck down consumer protection laws and the Supreme Court is right now a conservative junket, destroying your line of reasoning.

The fact that one justice has particular views destroys my line of reasoning? Moreover, the sorts of ideological differences on the Supreme Court are not always the same as the ones that divide the country--see, for instance, the Supreme Court's ruling about medicinal marijuana in which virtually every justice advanced views contrary to their political views (i.e., ruling that medicinal marijuana fell under Federal preemption, even though they personally would like to see that states be allowed to experiment with it, and vice-versa).

Justices will interpret the constitution how they wish it, which is why it's important to put intelligent liberals on the bench. You will bring up that the Justices support liberal precedents like Roe vs. Wade, but only because it's a precedent, history, tradition, and they don't want to destroy their own system. You can bet your fucking balls certain justices on that bench think that Roe vs. Wade violates the constitution.

There was dissent in Roe v. Wade. Of course justices may disagree with the ruling, but they tend to disagree with old rulings on constitutional grounds, and not on political ones--their reading of the constitution either supports or contradicts the decision.

Only because the law is so convoluted as to have bad comma breaks (Coyote is right, it all comes down to the commas -- it should not) and is too difficult for the common man to understand by reading it.

First of all, I disagree with your understanding that the common man should necessarily be able to read and understand the law on his own. The "common man" is shockingly, offensively stupid. At most, he should be able to get counsel and ask to have laws explained to him as they relate to his situation. No country in the entire world has managed anything even APPROXIMATING the sort of a legal code that you envision (except, arguably, Islamic fundamentalist states that use Sharia Law, and even the Koran allegedly takes years to read and understand for native Arabic speakers and there are scholarly debates about the proper interpretation of its text).

Further, though, it's not hard to look up old Supreme Court opinions on the various clauses of the Constitution, though, if you put forth the effort, which is the minimum level that I think entitles someone to even argue that he ought to be able to understand the law. Further, though, commas ARE part of the English language, as is punctuation. If someone is incapable of understanding English grammar, how the fuck are they supposed to understand any version of a legal document that is written in English?

And this interpretation can change over time, which is why I have an issue with your wording final. You seem to ignore my point that the less important rulings can be dealt with in lesser courts, and the ones that leak through are few and far between. How many appeals to the Supreme Court are competely rejected, yet would be what you call constitutional interpretation? Exactly.

But the Supreme Court CAN review any lower court ruling, if it so chooses. That's the whole point. On many issues of constitutional interpretation, the answer is obvious. Of course a college student can say "fuck" in a state university dorm. I am not questioning the ability of a lower court to make rulings; I am asserting that the SUPREME COURT can render final judgment on constitutional matters, particularly when the various Circuits disagree.

[Simplicius]

You're acting as if this is a science. As if someone can look at that, with enough training and experience and say it means x and y. That's hogwash. If it is vague, a perfectly fine answer is I don't know, or forget it. You forget that the burden of proof is on whoever claims the constitution has been violated, rather than on Washington to prove that their handgun law obeys the constitution.

No, I'm acting as if a law, any law must be understood in a clear manner to be usefully applied. When the law is vague, somehow that vagueness has to be sorted out, or else the law itself is of no use. The US' particular approach was to create a hierarchical courts system which, in the process of resolving legal disputes, is allowed to authoritatively interpret laws. The Supreme Court, at the top of the hierarchy, is allowed the last word because it's at the top.

There's no science about it - the US has said to its justices, "When we need to resolve a dispute over what a law means, we'll accept your judgement." I don't see why you find this so hard to grasp.

Constitutional crisis is a national crisis. The Supreme Court should deal with issues of national importance. Whether I say the Supreme Court turns down cases for political crisis or not is irrelevant -- they already do this. What the fuck do you think discretion means? They don't want to hear bullshit.

The Court does not respond to constitutional crises. It responds to legal disputes. The fact that most of these legal disputes revolve around some provision of the Constitution does not mean that there is an upheaval over what the law means. Consider the spate of First Amendment cases which have done nothing more than say whether or not specific acts, such as flag burning, count as 'speech.' Consider Gideon v. Wainright which only interpreted the Sixth Amendment to require state courts to provide counsel to indigent criminal defendants. What constitutional crises were at stake there?

The answer is none. I've said it before, and I'll say it again - the Supreme Court is a court of final appeal which frequently interprets parts of the Constitution in order to resolve specific legal disputes. Is any of this getting through, or are you going to continue to wave your ignorance around?

You guys keep explaining things as if it rebuttals my point, but in the end you don't realize the burden of proof is on you guys, since you want to change the system so the SC hears more cases and makes more final rulings.

Every ruling the Court makes is final, because it is a court of final appeal.

The Supreme Court has already rejected hearing these gun cases for so long, and this is apparently a milestone, forced on them because of contradictory lower court rulings. But some of you want them to hear cases about whether this or that type of gun is constitutional, or want this to be the final word on gun possession. I hope the ruling is an extremely limited ruling, not carte blanche for anybody in the US to be armed regardless of local laws, or vice versa, declaring handgun ownership unconstitutional.

So the Court has decided to hear a Second Amendment case, for reasons it may or may not elaborate upon in its opinion. This case will resolve a particular legal dispute and may, or may not, resolve a broader debate over the meaning of the Second Amendment. Why are you shitting yourself over what the Court should do, when what the Court does is entirely at its own discretion?

I don't want to change the system at all. The Court's discretion to choose or deny petitions not only keeps the Court politically independent, it keeps its docket manageable. But I object to your absurd assertion that the Court should only respond to constitutional crises, as if it was some league of judicial superheroes swinging into action. And I find it incredibly stupid that you think the Court has somehow been 'forced' to hear this case when, as with every other case the Court has ever heard, it chose to hear it.

Now, I'm no Second Amendment scholar, so I can't speculate as to why they chose to hear this case and not earlier ones, but they did. Their decision may be a good one which resolves previous contradictions in the law. It may be a poor one that will eventually be overturned by some future Court.

As for lower courts having different interpretations, that is a serious problem. But already a literalist interpretation allows only males 17 - 45 to be covered by the second amendment. The biggest justification for guns -- personal defense -- goes out the window. Petite woman with snub nose revolver, where is that in the second amendment? That's right, the second amendment only guarantees weapons for the Militia, which by the Militia Act looks to be 17 - 45 males, the NG and females in the NG.

A literalist interpretation says no such thing. You are presenting what you, brianeyci, think the Second Amendment says as the clear, incontestable wording of the amendment, when the actual text of the law is neither clear nor incontestable. You are doing, in short, what you think Supreme Court justices have no business doing, and you don't even have the acquiescence of the US public to back you up.

[Loner]

IANAL, but if they strike down DC's law, wouldn't it be considered a de facto incorporation or would DC's unique status prevent the precedent from being set?
On the other hand, if Heller was from Chicago and the court struck down Chicago's handgun ban, would that be considered to incorporate the 2nd?

From my understanding, that is correct. If the SC votes that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and strikes down the D.C. ban, it will not affect bans from other states. However, there has been talk that should that ruling occur, there are parties that will challenge those bans. *cough*CA AWB*cough*

[brianeyci]

That's so much bullshit that even from you it's noteworthy. The very definition of a right is something that one is morally entitled to be able to do. In order to VIOLATE a person's constitutional rights, the GOVERNMENT must prove a compelling interest in doing so. There are classes of laws that are so suspect that the burden is on the government to prove that their laws are in keeping with them, such as Due Process.

Wrong. The question is whether egg comes before the chicken, or the chicken before the egg. I say that question is unimportant -- if someone says a particular law is unconstitutional, they must prove it.

But when they exercise their discretion to actually hear a case you jump down their throats and say that they shouldn't have bothered. That's the whole point of this discussion.

Wrong again. Perhaps it morphed into that, and I took your righeteous outrage as real (I'm not sure if it's real) which is why I responded to you and not to other people. But it started out as me saying, the justices can choose not to hear cases if they don't want to.

I have not seen anyone on this thread arguing that the Supreme Court should make specific rulings on the constitutionality of banning individual classes of weapons, although that doesn't strike me as being terribly unreasonable. After all, the Supreme Court has issued rulings as to what types of classifications the government is allowed to make when distinguishing between groups of people, what types of speech are protected under "free speech," and what restrictions government actors are allowed to place on the free exercise of religion, press, assembly, etc.

It's right up there above my first post. You know, the post I responded to.

Saying that you don't rely on the US constitution when making your own values is irrelevant--the constitution is the source of the Supreme Court's authority, and outlines the government's authority in the US. Therefore, if the GOVERNMENT, or the Supreme Court, ignored the constitution it would be a big deal even if you agreed with their extra-constitutional policy--they would have no moral (or legal) authority to implement it, independent of whether or not you or I thought it was a good idea.

The Constitution can be semantic whored to mean certain things. It's too bad you decided to strawman this acknowledgement of the imperfection of human language into ignoring the Constitution, as if I was advocating replacing the entire US Government.

That's absurd. Women cannot serve as part of the militia? No one older or younger than your arbitrary classification can serve as part of the milita? We have people outside that group serving as ACTIVE DUTY SOLDIERS. It would be a violation of Equal Protection to create such a distinction based on sex. Moreover,

You seem to have missed Coyote's point earlier that the NG is a discriminatory organization.

That gives the REASON for the amendment, but the active clause of the amendment can be viewed independently from the reason for its creation.

It does not have to be. It's a comma splice, but commas are used to associate independent and dependent clauses. We can argue about this all you want, but it seems pointless. The point is it can be interpreted more than one way.

But it would be a violation of Equal Protection to allow for similarly situated groups to be treated differently--if you allow a 25 year old man to get a gun, it's a violation of Equal Protection to BAR a 25 year old woman to buy an identical weapon. You cannot interpret the constitution as literally as you would argue. I think there's a constitutional law phrase that goes something like, "It's a constitution; not a legal code." It's true. You cannot say, "Hmmm... I have free speech. Too bad that doesn't protect any hand gestures I make while speaking."

You're acting as if it was a done deal, that ownership of a gun is a right, when that is the very matter in dispute. You also seem not to see the point: that the Militia Act could be changed to argue that all citizens of the United States are part of a militia. That would crush all the ambiguity. Oops, looks like you missed my entire point, that solutions can be reached without ever resorting to a neverending series of legal precedents from high arbiters interpreting language for the sheep. Apparently you thought my point was to ban guns in the US.

Again, if the Supreme Court found your argument to be compelling (which I virtually guarantee you it will not), then people would go along with that even if they disagreed with it. I'm still astounded by your willingness to allow the government to freely ignore the very constitution that is the source of its own moral and legal authority. Moreover, even if people do not like a law, that is no guarantee that it will be overturned and you know it.

The AWB was never repealed--it EXPIRED. There is no expiration clause in the DC ban on handguns. Moreover, would you have a problem with the government passing a law forbidding criticism of the Legislature? After all, people could just vote in new politicians to get rid of it if they didn't like it. What about a law preventing black people from owning handguns, but allowing all other groups of people to have firearms? Blacks could just vote to get rid of the ban if they didn't like it.

Who said they wouldn't go along with it?

You seem to miss the point of me mentioning the assault weapons ban -- that DC handguns is a DC issue, not a national issue. I admit I did not take into account of the special nature of jurisdiction in DC, but I thought I didn't have to since some have already said that argument is bullshit and DC is part of the nation.

I like how you arbitrarily make potential gun owners in DC a protected class of person, to compare DC citizens owning guns to blacks owning guns.

[brianeyci]

No, I'm acting as if a law, any law must be understood in a clear manner to be usefully applied. When the law is vague, somehow that vagueness has to be sorted out, or else the law itself is of no use. The US' particular approach was to create a hierarchical courts system which, in the process of resolving legal disputes, is allowed to authoritatively interpret laws. The Supreme Court, at the top of the hierarchy, is allowed the last word because it's at the top.

There's no science about it - the US has said to its justices, "When we need to resolve a dispute over what a law means, we'll accept your judgement." I don't see why you find this so hard to grasp.

None of this is hard to grasp at all. I already understand all of this. It's too bad that you don't understand my point, that individual jurisdictions can interpret the law in what best suits their constituents. This idea that judges cannot be trusted, that zero-tolerance is the only way to go and to micromanage cities is total bullshit. It's entirely possible that a handgun ban in one jurisdiction can be constitutionally valid and in another jurisdiction can be constitutionally valid, using the vagueness of the constitution. You want to crush this vagueness, when this vagueness was deliberately constructed.

The Court does not respond to constitutional crises. It responds to legal disputes. The fact that most of these legal disputes revolve around some provision of the Constitution does not mean that there is an upheaval over what the law means. Consider the spate of First Amendment cases which have done nothing more than say whether or not specific acts, such as flag burning, count as 'speech.' Consider Gideon v. Wainright which only interpreted the Sixth Amendment to require state courts to provide counsel to indigent criminal defendants. What constitutional crises were at stake there?

The answer is none. I've said it before, and I'll say it again - the Supreme Court is a court of final appeal which frequently interprets parts of the Constitution in order to resolve specific legal disputes. Is any of this getting through, or are you going to continue to wave your ignorance around?

Constitutional crisis are a subset of legal disputes.

None of what you said is in dispute. You seem particularly angry that I suggest the Supreme Court limit the number of cases it hears to relevant ones, when it already does so.

So the Court has decided to hear a Second Amendment case, for reasons it may or may not elaborate upon in its opinion. This case will resolve a particular legal dispute and may, or may not, resolve a broader debate over the meaning of the Second Amendment. Why are you shitting yourself over what the Court should do, when what the Court does is entirely at its own discretion?

I don't want to change the system at all. The Court's discretion to choose or deny petitions not only keeps the Court politically independent, it keeps its docket manageable. But I object to your absurd assertion that the Court should only respond to constitutional crises, as if it was some league of judicial superheroes swinging into action. And I find it incredibly stupid that you think the Court has somehow been 'forced' to hear this case when, as with every other case the Court has ever heard, it chose to hear it.

Now, I'm no Second Amendment scholar, so I can't speculate as to why they chose to hear this case and not earlier ones, but they did. Their decision may be a good one which resolves previous contradictions in the law. It may be a poor one that will eventually be overturned by some future Court.

Why am I shitting myself on what the Court can do? Because I'm not a mindless, constitution worshipping sheep.

The "forced" bit was from Glocksman, who said the courts were forced to hear the case due to disputes in lower courts.

You seem to think there should be no barrier of access from the lowest to the highest court, and that whether or not the highest court should hear cases is due to their "discretion." Yeah right sure, as if discretion explains anything about why they choose to hear cases. At least I provide a mechanism: national relevance.

A literalist interpretation says no such thing. You are presenting what you, brianeyci, think the Second Amendment says as the clear, incontestable wording of the amendment, when the actual text of the law is neither clear nor incontestable. You are doing, in short, what you think Supreme Court justices have no business doing, and you don't even have the acquiescence of the US public to back you up.

Wrong. I am doing what I think the Supreme Court justices would do if they ruled on the literal interpretation of the text. I don't think they should rule at all for this reason, because it will result in a poor decision for all parties.

It's too bad you don't acknowledge that constitutions are especially vague for a reason.

[brianeyci]

Perhaps it does not appear so to you, but I assure that the question of gun ownership (who, when, where, for what reason, who can't, why, etc.) IS of national importance in the US, and has been for some time.

It seems very much to be a regional issue. If I am wrong about this, and RedImperator is right and it could have wide ranging consequences, then fine. I don't particularly like the idea of wide ranging consequences or blanket decisions over whether a man can own a gun or not, when the United States is so varied.

Um... MOST of the SCotUS cases are due to "contradictory lower court rulings". Usually, if the lower courts aren't disagreeing there would be little reason to bring a matter before the SCotUS.

In actual fact, the SCotUS is the only court specifically required by the Constitution - all other lower courts are optional. What the other Federal courts are, in a sense, is a delegation of duties that would otherwise be too burdensome for just one court to hear, leaving only the most important/difficult/appealed cases for the SCotUS to deal with directly.

So what is your mechanism for choosing what gets to the top or not?

I don't think anyone wants them ruling who which gun types are permitted - at most a ruling on the appropriate level of government to make such rules (Federal, state, county, munipal, whatever)

And, whether anyone likes it or not, it COULD be the "final word" on gun possession in the US.

The justices will be aware of that; like I said earlier they do not live in a vacuum. They won't want to be accused of judicial activism when changing the constitution is like you said, impossible, and a politically active segment of the population oppose gun ownership. But still, it seems that the best decision is to leave something smaller than the Federal, but higher than the municipal. Perhaps the state level.

First of all, the earlier precedent establishes that non-Federal levels of government do, in fact, have the authority to regulate gun ownership so this decision will NOT be "carte blanche" for anyone to be armed in the US - if they decide that the 2nd applies to individuals as well as the states then all the local regulatory laws will still be in place except for those that completely ban ownership. A city such as Chicago (as example - their gun law was based on the DC one) would see the outright ban lifted, but they could restrict firearms, prevent them from being carried into government buildings (as is already the case even in states like Indiana or Arizona - Arizona allows "open carry" but there's a sign on all the post offices saying very explicitly you can not take your guns inside with you, or at least there was when I last visited Phoenix), insist on a lengthy firearms training and safety course prior to granting a license, and so on and so forth.

Second - they could, in fact, say that the 2nd does NOT apply to individuals, ONLY state militias. In which case it will NOT be a sweeping ban across the nation but rather will revert to local jurisdictions. Chicago, for example, will keep its ban. Indiana might declare all adults who aren't mentally ill or past felons are in the militia. Whatever. The Constitution and it's Amendments are most constraining on the Federal government - each State has a constitution of its own as well, and what, if anything, those 50 separate documents have to say on the issue of gun ownership varies greatly.

Seems to violate the spirit of rulings if a city can say, we'll make a person required to have a 2 year training course or pay x dollars to own a gun, if the ruling is every person has the right to own a firearm.

As for state militias, I suggested a mechanism: changing the Militia Act. I'm not sure how practical that is, but it's at least far more practical than changing the constitution.

The US Constitution is the framework for our government. It's the rulebook we all play by here. It's the supreme law of the land. It's not that we worship it, but civilized and law-abiding citizens are bound by it - as is our government.

No, Roe v. Wade was not a neat, tidy, decision. In a dispassionate and logical world we would draft a clearer statement on the matter and incorporate it into the foundational document. We don't live in such a world. Until such time that a sufficient consensus can be reached or the issue is once again ruled on by the Court, though, Roe v. Wade is the final say. As I said, it's not a perfect system, but it IS the one I and a lot of other people happen to live under.

Males 17-45 isn't in the 2nd Amendment either - you're referring to the Militia Act, which is the legislature's interpretation of what a "militia" is. As a result, it has the force of law until it is before the SCotUS - at which point it may or may not be upheld as constitutional, but even if constitutional it may or may not be a good law or a good definition or a good anything.

Good. Now will you be angry if the ruling doesn't go along with your jurisdiction's needs? I would be. If it was I would try and find a way around it.

Actually, whether or not that's what the 2nd says is EXACTLY what is in dispute - does it mean JUST the militia, or militias AND 'the People" as individuals as well?

The question seems unanswerable unless a shitload of historical documents are brought in, and I'm not in favor of prostrating to what the founding fathers thought (I did my exercise to start as a thought experiment.) Meanwhile, I suggested the court simply not rule. This roused a lot of anger in people for some reason.

If it satisfies no one, it wouldn't be the first time. Why do you think we have continued to add Amendments over time?

The SCotUS can overturn any lower court ruling.

The SCotUS can rule any law unconstitutional

The SCotUS can be overruled only by amending the Constitution - but any SCotUS ruling can be overruled in that manner.

Actually, the residents of DC are the only city in the nation who CAN NOT vote in new politicians to make such decisions. The District of Columbia is NOT part of a state and thus its true local government is, in fact, the Federal Congress. Since Federal law pre-empts local law, I would expect that the city council and mayor of DC have far, far less power than their counterparts anywhere else. To add insult to injury, although Congress has ultimate authority over DC, the residents are not represented by a voting member of Congress, and can not vote for anyone in Congress. Thus, the laws of DC are made by people from elsewhere, elected by people elsewhere, and those same people do not answer to the residents of the city.

Which makes it a very unusual place by US standards. And no, they can't vote for a different group of people to impose laws upon them. They're not allowed to do so.

This is very good information. If DC is a special case, then maybe it deserves to go all the way up. But I'm uneasy about applying a blanket law across the land on the ownership of what in some jurisdictions is a toy and in others a necessary part of survival.

[Broomstick]

You're acting as if it was a done deal, that ownership of a gun is a right, when that is the very matter in dispute. You also seem not to see the point: that the Militia Act could be changed to argue that all citizens of the United States are part of a militia. That would crush all the ambiguity. Oops, looks like you missed my entire point, that solutions can be reached without ever resorting to a neverending series of legal precedents from high arbiters interpreting language for the sheep.

Ideally, resolving the dispute either through clearer legislation or a sudden attack of clear-thinking in the majority of the population would be best, but that hasn't happened in over 200 years. Hence, this winds up in front of the SCotUS. For the second time in 200 years, which doesn't strike me as a "neverending series of legal precedents" they way the multitude of 1st Amendment cases have marched across the SCotUS docket.

At one time the 2nd Amendment was non-controversial because everyone carried guns pretty much all the time everywhere in the US, except maybe in the heart of cities like New York and Boston. Well, our culture is changing. Maybe what made sense in 1790 isn't so sensible now. This issue is becoming more of an issue, not less. Maybe that's why the SCotUS is electing to take this case. I don't know, really. The founders did have the sense to realize they would not be able to account for all situations and that is precisely why the SCotUS and the option to amend the Constitution exist - so the US government could be modified when modifications were needed and not simply become a fossil of another time.

I admit I did not take into account of the special nature of jurisdiction in DC

As a Canadian you would have no reason know of the special circumstances in DC. In fact, many Americans are ignorant of it because it is a singular exception to how the rest of the cities and villages in the country are run.

but I thought I didn't have to since some have already said that argument is bullshit and DC is part of the nation.

It is part of the nation, but it is also unique

I like how you arbitrarily make potential gun owners in DC a protected class of person, to compare DC citizens owning guns to blacks owning guns.

The population of DC is, in fact, very much made up mostly of blacks whereas some of the surrounding suburbs are nearly lily-white. Banning gun ownership in DC while permitting it in surrounding communities is a de facto disarming of black people while allowing whites to remain legally armed. That may not have been the intention, but it certainly is a result.

But, again, I would not expect someone from outside the US to be cognizant of the racial make up of the communities in the DC area.

[Simplicius]

None of this is hard to grasp at all. I already understand all of this. It's too bad that you don't understand my point, that individual jurisdictions can interpret the law in what best suits their constituents. This idea that judges cannot be trusted, that zero-tolerance is the only way to go and to micromanage cities is total bullshit. It's entirely possible that a handgun ban in one jurisdiction can be constitutionally valid and in another jurisdiction can be constitutionally valid, using the vagueness of the constitution. You want to crush this vagueness, when this vagueness was deliberately constructed.

A particular law must be consistently applied throughout the area to which it is subject, or else that law is undermined. When the law is a national law, as the Constitution is, it must be apply the same way to the whole nation. It's not possible for a ban in one jurisdiction to be constitutionally valid and the same ban constitutionally invalid in another, in the same way that a law which says "The speed limit in Middleburg is 55 mph" can't be valid in the west part of town and invalid in the east. The rule of law demands consistency.

There is already a mechanism in place to prevent the Constitution from becoming locked into specificity: justices can revise, expand upon, or overturn earlier rulings. In the mean time, vagueness has to be sacrificed when real people are counting on the outcomes of particular cases.

Constitutional crisis are a subset of legal disputes.

None of what you said is in dispute. You seem particularly angry that I suggest the Supreme Court limit the number of cases it hears to relevant ones, when it already does so.

And yet you insist that the court should limit itself only to constitutional crises. To what end?

The Court only limits itself to nationally relevant cases in that the Constitution is a law that applies to the whole country, so any change in the interpretation of a national law could have national-level consequences. But when the Court reviews state laws or local ordinances, as it has done many times in the past, how is the issue 'nationally relevant' save in the manner I described above?

Why am I shitting myself on what the Court can do? Because I'm not a mindless, constitution worshipping sheep.

And I am? The Constitution is part of the body of US law, so why should judges and justices be obliged to treat it differently then they do other laws, i.e. be denied the authority to interpret it in order to resolve legal disputes.

You seem to think there should be no barrier of access from the lowest to the highest court, and that whether or not the highest court should hear cases is due to their "discretion." Yeah right sure, as if discretion explains anything about why they choose to hear cases. At least I provide a mechanism: national relevance.

As I have already said, the job of the Supreme Court is to serve as a court of final appeal for any case in its jurisdiction. So yes, I think anyone in the jurisdiction should be allowed to petition the Court, otherwise the Court is not fulfilling its stated purpose.

The Court has its own doctrine for deciding whether or not cases ought to be heard, in the categories of standing, mootness, ripeness, advisory opinions, and political question doctrine. To elaborate: Are the parties to the case directly affected by the issue at hand? Will a decison by the Court provide redress? Will the ruling have effect? Is the issue developed enough to allow for a ruling? Are we being asked to give an opinion on an issue instead of resolving a case? Is the issue at hand too politicized? And, lastly, do we have enough room in our docket to hear this case?

Any intelligent person will realize that the answers to all of those questions are the opinion of the judges or justices who will hear a case, so in fact discretion has everything to do with whether or not a case will be heard.

Wrong. I am doing what I think the Supreme Court justices would do if they ruled on the literal interpretation of the text. I don't think they should rule at all for this reason, because it will result in a poor decision for all parties.

It's too bad you don't acknowledge that constitutions are especially vague for a reason.

...You don't think the court should rule at all because you think one possible ruling would be a bad one? What the hell?

You're stating your opinion of what the literal interpretation of the text is as if there could be no other literal interpretation. Why can't you realize that by admitting the Second Amendment is vague, you acknowledge that there is no clear literal interpretation, which is the reason this case exists to be heard in the first place.

It's too bad you don't acknowledge that constitutions are especially vague for a reason.

Pff. I'm not the one sitting here and saying that it' perfectly okay for a national law to be inconsistently applied just because it's vague.

Oh, and the reason for constitutional vagueness isn't to allow fragments of a jurisdiction to read it however they want to. It's to allow the document to be passed and ratified without there being a million and a half minute details to argue over, and it's to allow people who had never drafted a constitution in their lives to get it done by putting off some of the harder decisions for future generations. That it happens to allow those future generations flexibility in interpreting the laws is a fortuitous side benefit.

And as for burdens of proof, since you are the one rooting for a change in the present order of business, I believe it falls on you to carry it.

[Simplicius]

The Court only limits itself to nationally relevant cases in that the Constitution is a law that applies to the whole country, so any change in the interpretation of a national law could have national-level consequences.

Ghetto edit: The implication of this is that every case the Court hears is nationally relevant by default.

[Broomstick]

Perhaps it does not appear so to you, but I assure that the question of gun ownership (who, when, where, for what reason, who can't, why, etc.) IS of national importance in the US, and has been for some time.

It seems very much to be a regional issue. If I am wrong about this, and RedImperator is right and it could have wide ranging consequences, then fine. I don't particularly like the idea of wide ranging consequences or blanket decisions over whether a man can own a gun or not, when the United States is so varied.

A regional issue becoming a national issue, or the resolution of a regional dispute setting a precedent for the entire nation, is not entirely new. As an example (also dealing with constitutional rights) the court case Yoder v. Wisconsin originated as a dispute between several Amish families and the New Glarus, Wisconsin school district yet the SCotUS decision impacted not only Amish education across the nation, but also whether or not other groups such as Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn could establish private schools in accordance with their religious beliefs (it would also permit atheists to set up their own private schooling as well, for that matter - it's not just for conservative religions)

In actual fact, the SCotUS is the only court specifically required by the Constitution - all other lower courts are optional. What the other Federal courts are, in a sense, is a delegation of duties that would otherwise be too burdensome for just one court to hear, leaving only the most important/difficult/appealed cases for the SCotUS to deal with directly.

So what is your mechanism for choosing what gets to the top or not?

I'm not entirely clear on all the details, but I do know the most common way is for a court case to be appealed a number of times, working its way up the hierarchy, until the SCotUS is the only one left, at which point the SCotUS decides (in the case of Yoder v. Wisconsin all prior courts had sided with Yoder - the SCotUS affirmed that those decisions were constitutionally sound. In other cases, the SCotUS reversed lower court decisions.)

I don't think anyone wants them ruling who which gun types are permitted - at most a ruling on the appropriate level of government to make such rules (Federal, state, county, munipal, whatever)

And, whether anyone likes it or not, it COULD be the "final word" on gun possession in the US.

The justices will be aware of that; like I said earlier they do not live in a vacuum. They won't want to be accused of judicial activism when changing the constitution is like you said, impossible, and a politically active segment of the population oppose gun ownership. But still, it seems that the best decision is to leave something smaller than the Federal, but higher than the municipal. Perhaps the state level.

Well, the SCotUS can rule that in fact it should be determined on the state level. The recent decision on eminent domain had a flavor of that - the SCotUS said that the constitution allowed a very broad interpretation of eminent domain but that it was within the power of the individual states to further restrict eminent domain within their borders. And some did.

And, in fact, it IS possible to change the Constitution - the US could, in fact, call another constitutional convention and rewrite the whole damn thing. It's just incredibly unlikely. More likely is changing it by amendment - which has been done 27 times. (interesting trivia - the 27th Amendment was proposed in 1789. It was ratified in 1992!) Gee, that didn't take very long, did it?

Seems to violate the spirit of rulings if a city can say, we'll make a person required to have a 2 year training course or pay x dollars to own a gun, if the ruling is every person has the right to own a firearm.

True. And that's why literacy tests for voting privileges were deemed unconstitutional, as violating the 15th Amendment, even though that amendment says nothing about being able to read and write.

On the other hand, no right is infinitely unlimited - the famous SCotUS quote regarding shouting fire in a theater, also known as the "clear and present danger" standard. Your right to speak freely has limits, you are not permitted to endanger others with your words or your manner of speech.

Even if the decision is that individual people in the US have the right to own weapons that would not bar limitations in the name of safety, such as restricting ownership by age or barring the mentally ill from purchasing them. Requiring that gun owners be educated on safety is not unreasonable - making it a 5 year program only military special forces could pass IS unreasonable.

As for state militias, I suggested a mechanism: changing the Militia Act. I'm not sure how practical that is, but it's at least far more practical than changing the constitution.

Easier is not always better, because the militia act could just as easily be revised again based on the same arguments. If the wording of the Constitution or an Amendment is ambiguous then it really should be rectified, don't you think? Amending the document is deliberately difficult, but not impossible. Amendments have, on occasion, passed in a relatively short span of time.

Good. Now will you be angry if the ruling doesn't go along with your jurisdiction's needs? I would be. If it was I would try and find a way around it.

It doesn't matter if I'm angry about a SCotUS ruling - such a ruling IS the supreme law of the land. The only recourse, really, is to amend the constitution. I can either work to get an amendment passed, or I can find a way to live with the situation.

Actually, whether or not that's what the 2nd says is EXACTLY what is in dispute - does it mean JUST the militia, or militias AND 'the People" as individuals as well?

The question seems unanswerable unless a shitload of historical documents are brought in, and I'm not in favor of prostrating to what the founding fathers thought (I did my exercise to start as a thought experiment.)

Well, the problem with ambiguity is that there's always the question of what the guys who wrote it meant to say, as opposed to what they did say. Then there is the fact that American English has changed over the past couple hundred years so while the meaning may have been plain to people in 1790 it's murky now. Going back to historical documents can shed some light on these matters, although it's rare for them to be resolved entirely by that method.

Meanwhile, I suggested the court simply not rule.

Well, now that they've agreed to hear the case they kind of have to rule on it.

This roused a lot of anger in people for some reason.

It's a divisive issue in the US. People are really passionate about it.

Actually, the residents of DC are the only city in the nation who CAN NOT vote in new politicians to make such decisions. The District of Columbia is NOT part of a state and thus its true local government is, in fact, the Federal Congress. Since Federal law pre-empts local law, I would expect that the city council and mayor of DC have far, far less power than their counterparts anywhere else. To add insult to injury, although Congress has ultimate authority over DC, the residents are not represented by a voting member of Congress, and can not vote for anyone in Congress. Thus, the laws of DC are made by people from elsewhere, elected by people elsewhere, and those same people do not answer to the residents of the city.

Which makes it a very unusual place by US standards. And no, they can't vote for a different group of people to impose laws upon them. They're not allowed to do so.

This is very good information. If DC is a special case, then maybe it deserves to go all the way up. But I'm uneasy about applying a blanket law across the land on the ownership of what in some jurisdictions is a toy and in others a necessary part of survival.

There is precedent in US law for laws and regulations to vary from hugely from one state to another. In many ways, saying it is up to the individual states to determine whether individuals have a right to own weapons solves that problem - Maryland might decide that no guns suits them, and in Alaska where wildlife can still pose a significant threat they can allow you to carry all the time. Or the court can say that while individuals have the right to own guns that right is limited by the interest of the state or Federal government to protect public safety. Another option might be to limit gun ownership to militia members, but let the states define "militia" - thus, in Maryland that might be defined as strictly that National Guard and in Alaska every adult not otherwise disqualified due to mental problems. That's one reason why the write-up of the court's decisions, including dissenting opinions, is important, so that the reasoning can be followed and some guidance given to the people who write laws.