imported post
Deanimator wrote:
They've got to be dragging this out for a reason. I think that in addition to the telling questions asked by the Justices during oral arguments, the gloomy pronoucements by Brady and VPC tend toward not just a win, but a big win. I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that Ginzburg's or Stephens' people had leaked the bad news to them so that they wouldn't be blindsided.
I feel like I'm waiting in London to hear if we've taken Omaha Beach.
If the news on the actual decisionhad been leaked, it would be a SERIOUS breach of protocol. NOBODY besides the justices, their assistants, and other people who work there and can't help but know are supposed to know the decision until the justices release it. As such, that information is considered classified under the same rules as U.S. intelligence reports, and if you leak it intentionally, go get your orange jumpsuit, do not pass go, do not collect $200. I would find it VERY difficult to believe that the Bradys would have that information and not the NRA even if it were leaked only to the Bradys. I would also find it incomprehensible that the NRA wouldn't broadcast that to the world; what better a weapon to haveagainst theBradys than proof that they're breaking Federal law to further their agenda.
The Brady Center is more than likely making an educated guess just like the rest of us, based on the weight of arguments to either side and the tone of the justices during oral arguments, that their decision will define the 2A as an individual right. That breaks the back of the major argument for D.C.'s ban and thus the laws composing it will likely be struck down. Thus Brady is shifting to Plan B: given an individual right, what "reasonable restrictions" would pass the standard of review likely to be imposed?
SCOTUS is dragging this out because it is alandmark decision. This case is expected to provide firm ground and a standard of review for judgement of other gun laws, and as such it needs to be well-thought-out; virtually all parties to the oral arguments agreed that
Miller needed clarification and possibly a re-thinking of its interpretations.I would not be surprised if it were revealed that themajority opinionwas co-authored by more than one justice. It would be an unusual step, but given this case's importance in a crucial area of law, it is not impossible.