wrote in message
...
On Dave Hinz wrote:
Gerry wrote:
[...]
Or the chance to totally screw it up with a fu'd decision like they
did with emminant domain a year ago.

What, decide that it's a state issue and no a federal one? I don't
think there's any chance of that.

Well, until the Second is incorporated under the Fourteenth, that's
largely the way things stand now. The Feds have some gun control in
effect (passed and/or upheld under their tax and interstate commerce
authority), but so far they've demonstrated a "hands off" attitude
regarding State/local restrictions. Look at Morton Grove.

Since the appellant isn't a resident of a State, I'd think that the
Supremes could easily avoid the incorporation issue, leaving the
States free reign to pass their own gun control legislation, but still
setting a precedent for DC and the territories.

Yeah, and that was intentional on the part of the plaintiffs -- or rather
the lawyers who concocted the case. They didn't want to take a chance of
winning the principle and then losing the case on the incorporation issue.


SCOTUS doesn't always adhere to doctrine of deciding their cases as
narrowly as possible (IMHO), so I think that this case in particular
is something of a crap shoot, with regards to implications for most of
the country.

Yes. They could very well decide to incorporate at the same time, just to
get it all out at once.

However, they'll be accused of judicial activism if they do, for decades to
come. We'll see how well Scalia plays both sides of the fence on this one.
d8-)


That said, I think that there's a fair chance that they will address
incorporation. A lot of people think that it's long overdue and I
think that that includes some of the Justices.

Agreed. That's my sense of it, too.

--
Ed Huntress