An interesting week before us

. . . as in, "may you live in interesting times"?

Heh.

Gotta get incorporation before Obama gets any more picks.

Sorry, gotta slut my link here:

I wonder whether the Supremes will, discreetly, read transcripts of the Nordyke hearing, and would Nordyke, in turn, influence any Justices to hear or not hear the Chicago cases?

Today at the Moot Court Room at the University of Richmond Law School in Richmond, VA, at 12:00 noon - Federalist Society is hosting a debate about the meaning of Heller and whether 2A is (or should be) incorporated against the states under the 14th. On the "pro" side is none other than Alan Gura. On the "con" side, I don't know, but I've heard it's someone from the Brady Campaign.

I'll be there.

OK, back from the Federalist Society debate.

On the other side against Alan Gura (but actually not totally "against" him) was Michael Herring, Commonwealth's Attorney for the City of Richmond, VA.

The encouraging thing is that both of them stated that it is highly likely - in fact, they seemed to think it was nearly a certainty - that the Court will find that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states via the 14th. What is less clear is how they will go about doing it, but Alan is encouraging them to overrule the Slaughterhouse Cases, as he said the overwhelming consensus among law perfessers, regardless of ideology or political philosophy, is that Slaughterhouse was simply wrong in interpreting what "privileges or immunities" means.

Alan was of the opinion that a due process argument was a "slam dunk," based on precedent, although, as we know, Scalia and Thomas are not fans of "substantive" due process. But they at least likely would concur in the result, based on stare decisis, I suppose, if nothing else.

Alan expressed his opinion that one way or another, 2A will be incorporated, whether there are multiple opinions, some based on due process; some based on the P&I clause; either way, we'll get there. Herring agreed.

What did not get the same level of agreement was the nature of the right protected by the 2A and how that right should properly be understood, and then what effect incorporation would have on states and their ability to regulate firearms. They seemed to generally agree that incorporation will not and should not create a "free-for-all" that means unregulated and unfettered ownership and carrying of guns. The next step after incorporation, of course, is finding out what level of review the right is subject to (Alan of course argued that Heller indicates it should be strict scrutiny or something similar), and what regulations and restrictions may be "reasonable".

One thing that irked me a bit was Herring's somewhat disingenuous complaint about state legislators introducing legislation to "allow people to carry concealed in bars", and how "the last thing I would want to have in my hand if I am carrying a gun is a glass of alcohol." He went on about how people's decision-making is impaired when they're drunk, and how people shouldn't be allowed have guns in bars, etc.

Big problem with that whole line of argument:

1. Virginia doesn't have "bars", per se. We have "establishments" where alcohol is served for on-premises consumption - i.e., restaurants. This includes Red Robin and TGI Friday's. So we're not talking about bikers hanging out at The Dive-in Dugout and getting hammered while strapping. We're talking about me taking my family out for a burger.

2. Last year, our governor signed legislation that allows any Commonwealth's Attorney or Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney (many of whom are fresh-faced, wet-behind-the-ears, straight-from-lawschool-and-the-bar-exam 20-somethings) to carry a concealed handgun "anywhere in the Commonwealth," with no permit, no training, no registration, no requirement to notify anyone, no qualifications, period.

So here we have the CA for Richmond telling us how dangerous it is to have guns in "bars," yet it's perfectly legal for him and his assistants to carry guns in establishments with ABC on-premises licenses - and the law does not forbid them from having a drink while they're packing.

Please note that a bunch of the folks from Calguns are planning on attending the Nordyke Hearing in San Francisco. We did this for the original hearing, too.

We'll follow up with a lunch and a panel discussion of the case. Please join us.

Details can be found here:

http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/events/74-nordykelunch

Bil, thanks very much for the the report, very interesting. There seems to be some thinking that Slaughterhouse cases will ro should be overturned. I'm not so sure I agree, although I do think they were wrongly decided.

At this point, I am mostly concerned about the level of scruitny on restrictions. Time will tell.

I'm convinced that whatever the SCOTUS rules will NOT be constitutional. Look at Heller. It's a fundamental individual right but can be infringed on grounds of "reasonable restrictions" such as "sensitive places". It's ALL BS! The courts, the administration, the Congress, The State Governors and right on down the line are ALL CORRUPT and I have absolutely NO CONFIDENCE that the Constitutional protection of the RKBA will be treated as the fundamental "shall not be infringed" right that was intended by the framers.

Nex ut Tyrannus!