Waiting line for Heller argument already begins

I strongly recommend that some of you there in DC organize a sampling of those people waiting in line....exhaustive sampling if possible.

Of primary importance would be to ask each if they generally support Respondent (Heller) or Petitioner (DC). It also might be interesting to compile audio or written comments based on the question "What does the second amendment mean to you?"

I predict that of those waiting in line, you will get 85-90% that support Heller. But regardless the outcome, these would be important numbers to take away from this "phenomenon."

Concur. This is going to get VERY interesting, as I think SCOTUS has no clue about how big this really is.

The question is, will this affect either the ruling or the timing of the ruling?

Given the number of amicus briefs which have been filed, I suspect SCOTUS has a clue how big this is. That said, odds that they will rule consistent with the plain literal meaning of the text of the Constitution are no better than 50/50. Remember Kelo.

Posted by: RKV at March 17, 2008 08:41 AM:

Given the number of amicus briefs which have been filed, I suspect SCOTUS has a clue how big this is.

Agreed. I too am certain that the Justices know what is at stake here, and comprehend the public's interest.

That said, odds that they will rule consistent with the plain literal meaning of the text of the Constitution are no better than 50/50. Remember Kelo.

Disagreed. Remember Concord? That the 2A protects an individual right to keep and bear not necessarily tied to organized militia service is almost certain to be recognized by the majority. This case will hinge on what infringements are "reasonable" and standard of review is applicable.

Professor Hardy, will any of your group be able to get in? Have you hired a "line-stander" perhaps?

I think SCOTUS has a pretty good idea of how big a deal this is. I'm guessing they caught on somewhere around maybe the 50th or 60th amicus.

I agree with the Kelo comment but I would like point out that the political calculus was very much in favor of leaving those ED schemes in place- witness the largely ineffective "backlash" that followed Kelo. It was basically a bunch of state and local governments acting in collusion with moneyed interests in a way that doesn't seem to attract lasting or focused political opposition. Sad, but that's reality.

That contrasts sharply with the political calculus in this case, in which the individual rights model is supported by a vast and politically active social movement that has completely marginalized the opposition. If they go against us in this case, there will be unpredictable but probably forceful political backlash. I don't think the liberals on the court want that in 2008.

Dave D., Hardy will be flattered by the title you granted him, but Dave Hardy is not a professor! Great guy, but not a professor. I've heard that he and his group will be standing in line to get in. However, at least Hardy and probably Olson (who really is a law professor) are members of the Supreme Court Bar, which allows them to stand in a different line.

The line for members of the Supreme Court Bar may be shorter, but only 50 or 100 will get in from that line. People seem not certain on the number allowed in from the lawyer line.

I agree with Carl. The political repercussions of not recognizing an individual right are difficult to describe - about like being at Ground Zero for a nuclear explosion.

The real fight will be over whether or not DC's gun ban is a "reasonable restriction". Kindly note that this is only one of three issues in the Heller case, and I would not be terribly surprised to see one of the other issues either go against Heller, or be remanded. The requirement for firearms to be stored in a non-functional state, in particular, might be remanded for the collection of evidence on just how long it takes to get a gun ready to fire.

Carl, An idividual right with less than strict scrutiny, which can be overrun willy nilly by state legislatures (as is sadly the case in my home state) isn't much of a right. What I don't hear in the conversation up to this point is that legislation which restricts RKBA significantly,denies Congress (and the President as CinC) the resource of the militia - directly contrary to Article 1 Section 8. "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions." A disarmed militia (which is effectively what we have since FOPA '86) can't be expected to "repel invasions" for instance. "Called forth" with shotguns and .22s won't cut it.

A disarmed militia can't be expected to "repel invasions" for instance. "Called forth" with shotguns and .22s won't cut it.

I'm not sure I agree. We seem to be sending our soldiers into battle armed with shotguns and .22s. I personally would not lead an invasion against 90,000,000 militiamen armed thus. What sort of arms would you assert could "cut it"?

"The requirement for firearms to be stored in a non-functional state, in particular, might be remanded for the collection of evidence on just how long it takes to get a gun ready to fire."

Jeez, I hope not. Such inanity is the foundation of truly awful law-making. This would effectively constitute a "non" decision. I hope the Supremes don't punt like that. Whether a particular government regulations unconsitutionally infringed on a constitutional right such as that guaranteed by the 2A cannot turn on such illusory concepts as how long it takes to assemble a gun and be ready to fire. What kind of gun? How disassembled? Assembled by whom? Under what conditions? You might be able to dig up some speed-shooting champion who can assemble his firearm in the dark, upside down, with one hand, in 45 seconds. This can't mean that the law is constitutional. If how long it takes to assemble a gun is the measure of the law's constitutionality, what is the magic number? 10 seconds? 60 seconds? 5 minutes?

If the law prevents you from having any functioning firearm in your own home, it is an unconstitutional infringement on your individual right to "keep" arms, period.

Standard issue for the military and/or police is just what should be protected for the people. At the founding this was muskets. Now its M16s and M4s. Pretty much like they do it in Switzerland and Israel. Except of course it's already unconstitutional to require a license to exercise a right (MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA). When its hand-held lasers, then they're what's protected. Not too hard to figure and pretty much what the Supes said in Miller - of course look where that got us. Again, back to Article 1 Section 8. Arms are protected that serve the purposes of the militia's three Constitutional missions.

I think the Court understands that their credibility is seriously on the line here. After decades of inventing rights, the nullification of a very popular and specifically enumerated one would convince large portions of our population that the Court is not a serious body. If the Court loses its credibility, it loses everything.

My concern is the standard of review they will adopt. They could very well rule very narrowly, as petitioner suggests, and not reach the question of what standard of review to apply. I hope they don't do that. There are some state supreme courts that have applied a rational basis standard for the RKBA in their constitutions. I would prefer no ruling on standard of review to that! Still, no other fundamental, enumerated right has such a low standard.

I wish I had to time to go stand in line for 40+ hours to get in. I was down there last week and was very tempted to be first in line, but my schedule just won't allow that :(

As much as I wish I held another opinion, I think this will ultimately be settled in the streets by force.

I do not expect much affirmation by this court of any individual rights. They do not have a stellar reputation in that arena.

First the education system, then the main stream media, then the courts. If the SCOTUS rules against strict scrutiny and individual right, then I think the "progressive"/communist left will have conquered almost everything of consequence. Next, both houses and the POTUS will be the coup de grace. Even if it isn't a "vast left wing conspiracy" (complete with talking points and flying spittle) it sure seems to be playing out like one. Stalin and Mao would be proud.

>>As much as I wish I held another opinion, I think this will ultimately be settled in the streets by force.

I do not expect much affirmation by this court of any individual rights. They do not have a stellar reputation in that arena.

I'm afraid you may be right.

The Court has gutted the First Amendment with the Campaign Finance decision, the Fifth with the Kelo decision, and the confrontation clause of the Sixth with the decision in Maryland v. Craig.

However, I'd suggest that jury nullification of unconstitutional laws should be attempted before taking it to "the streets".

JMHO