Supreme Court Prediction

[Joe Cool]

May 5th, 2008; Washington Township, NJ
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Media Contact: Robert Kreisler

In a stunning first-of-its-kind announcement, the New Jersey Coalition for Self Defense (NJCSD) predicts that the Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) will confirm an individual right interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in Heller vs. DC, foreshadowing an end to decades of acrimonious debate over the meaning of what is widely considered to be a core principle for many Americans.

Using an advanced market research method known as a KJ analysis (named after its creator, Kawakita Jiro) a team of five analysts independently reviewed the statements made by the Justices during testimony in the Heller vs. DC case to arrive at this conclusion. The KJ method was developed as a way to examine complex problems where differing interpretations may exist and has become popular in business for its effectiveness.

The project was conceived and led by Joe Ficalora of SBTI Inc., a Texas-based management consulting firm. This is the first known time such an analysis has been applied to a contemporary legal issue and represents a groundbreaking implementation of this method. “Though we've been painstaking in our analysis, there’s always the remote possibility we may be surprised,” said Ficalora. “However, my experience indicates that the Supreme Court will confirm an individual right interpretation. I’m willing to stake my reputation on this in public, and in front of my colleagues in this industry.”

For many years, anti-gun factions have argued that an earlier decision by the Supreme Court in US vs. Miller established that the 2nd Amendment implied a collective right, meaning that private citizens had no individual right to own or carry firearms for self-defense or home protection.

“We're relieved that the hard facts point to what we've known all along - that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a personal right guaranteed to the American people as our legacy of freedom, preserved for us by our Founders and does not apply solely to the military or National Guard as some mistakenly believe," said Robert Kreisler, President of the NJCSD. “While we don’t mean to be presumptuous by leading the Supreme Court with this announcement, it is important to give America hope that our nation has not swung hopelessly toward socialism and that there are still those who support a traditional view of our Constitution and the liberties it was intended to enshrine through all ages.”

Arthur Rosbury-Yoder, NJCSD’s Executive Director, added, "This is just one example of the out-of-the-box kind of thinking we try to do at the NJCSD. Our organization exists to overcome the fear and ignorance perpetuated by liberals and socialist zealots who appear determined to eliminate our natural rights and by a mass media by a liberal bias against core principles of liberty, especially when it comes to gun rights and self-defense. When was the last time you heard the media put out a positive gun story of any kind?”

The New Jersey Coalition for Self Defense is a not-for-profit organization which has a focus on self-defense and Second Amendment rights. For more information please visit www.njcsd.org or call 877-690-5460.

– ## –

[awkx]

... the New Jersey Coalition for Self Defense (NJCSD) predicts that the Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) will confirm an individual right interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in Heller vs. DC...

Using an advanced market research method known as a KJ analysis (named after its creator, Kawakita Jiro) a team of five analysts independently reviewed the statements made by the Justices during testimony in the Heller vs. DC case to arrive at this conclusion.

I too look forward to the Supreme Court correctly deciding this case in June. But you don't need an "advanced research method" to figure this out. In his questions in oral arguments, Justice Kennedy makes it perfectly clear that he believes that the Second Amendment protects the right of ordinary people to keep & bear arms for personal self-defense:

www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290/argument/

Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia will obviously uphold the original meaning of the Second Amendment. Based on their backgrounds, one would expect Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito to also uphold the Second Amendment, and this suspicion is confirmed by their questions at oral arguments. Also, remember that Justice Alito, in his former position as an appellate judge, voted to overturn the FOPA '86 ban on new machine-guns on Commerce Clause grounds (United States v. Rybar, 1996).

[tmg19103]

This will be a great win, but unless you live in a city like D.C. with an outright ban, I don't think it will mean much unless SCOTUS really puts some teeth in their decision, but I doubt they will as they will just address the D.C. ban.

Thus, the 2A will be declared an individiual right as we already know and SCOTUS will declare the D.C. BAN unconstitutional, but I believe they will leave open for interpretation for the courts what a "reasonable restriction" is, so don't expect the draconian gun laws in, say, PRNJ to change, as they should pass a reasonable restriction scrutiny under the law, even though I believe the way PA does it should be the law minus the handgun registry and minus the character and reputation part of getting a LTCF. I have no problem with NICS/PICS and keeping guns out of the hands of those adjudicated a danger to themselves or others and of convicted felons, though I think those who were once suicidal 20 years ago but are fine now or those convicted of non-violent felonies should be able to regain their rights once they serve all time and probation and with a petition to the court, which I think you can now do for certain cases anyway in PA.

Hopefully this SCOTUS ruling will make it tougher for anti-gun states to pass so called AWB's and to legislate what "mentally ill" is. Some gun grabbers think you are mentally ill if you own a "cache" of 5 firearms, let alone one.

[X-Man]

I'm also looking forward to the decision on the "Heller" case. However, there is a curve ball here; Article 1 Sec 8 - Congress shall "exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District.... ". Wash. D.C. is a unique part of America because of the clause. This case may have been chosen to further cloud the issue. It would clearer if the litigants were state Citizens. Now maybe the SCOTUS will rise to the occasion. It's well established that the Bill Of Rights are for the Citizens of the Several States. But there is this slight difference with the "Heller" case and I have to wonder. I'd really like to see a challenge to NYC's Sullivan Law.

[LittleRedToyota]

In a stunning first-of-its-kind announcement

i guess these people don't read many gun forums.

people been saying this ever since the oral arguments were heard.

and, frankly, as mentioned above, it really takes the language comprehension skills of a 5th grader to figure out what the justices were saying.

of course, i would not want to get in the way of any management consultants charging companies millions of dollars to tell them that the way to increase profits is to either cut costs, increase revenue, or both.

so, i guess i won't tell any of their prospective clients that their announcement isn't so "stunning" or "first-of-its-kind" after all...or that their "advanced market research" is a fluffed-up version of "listening and comprehending" combined with "common sense"...

[tmg19103]

I'm also looking forward to the decision on the "Heller" case. However, there is a curve ball here; Article 1 Sec 8 - Congress shall "exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District.... ". Wash. D.C. is a unique part of America because of the clause. This case may have been chosen to further cloud the issue. It would clearer if the litigants were state Citizens. Now maybe the SCOTUS will rise to the occasion. It's well established that the Bill Of Rights are for the Citizens of the Several States. But there is this slight difference with the "Heller" case and I have to wonder. I'd really like to see a challenge to NYC's Sullivan Law.

Good find! I think we need to take the Powers of Congress statement in a larger context:

"To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings: And, ..."

And you have a good point I had not thought of. Section 8 is saying here that Congress (the federal government) has exlusive control over legislation in all cases in Washington D.C. and federal lands within the states. If we were to follow the Constitution literally (as I believe we should), then the current D.C. handgun ban is already unconstitutonal because Congress did not pass it. The Mayor of Washington D.C. who has brought this suit has no legal standing the way I read Section 8 - he is just a fugure head. If you want D.C. to have its own local government that is not run by Congress, you need to pass a constitutional amendment and I am not aware of one.

The jurisprudence of the Second Amendment is almost wholly confined to laws enacted by the federal government. D.C. is something of a curiosity due to Section 8. While D.C. is considered by Congress to be a state for some purposes, how does Congress decide this when it is supposed to have "exclusive" federal authority over D.C.? In Heller, the D.C. Circuit ruled that the Second Amendment does apply to the District because the city “is a Federal District, ultimately controlled by Congress… The Supreme Court has unambiguously held that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are in effect in the District.”

I'd say that per the Constitution D.C. is a unique federal enclave that — like the rest of the federal government — has to obey the Second Amendment. Now SCOTUS just has to decide it is an individual right, but the funny thing is that if you take Section 8 literally, the local D.C. government has no standing, is a basically a Banana Republic, and its laws (such as a 30 year old handgun ban) are unenforcable to begin with.

No doubt Congress has probably passed some legislation over the years giving local powers in D.C., but passing power down to local authorities does not sound like "exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever" to me, unless one were to say that the "exclusive" legislation Congress has over D.C. allows it to form a local government that can make its own laws.

Anybody not confused by this? I know I am! Anybody know who pays the paychecks for the D.C. police and the mayor? Is it the federal government or local D.C. taxpayers? If it is local taxpayers, I'd say that is an unconstitutional local government as the funds should come from federal taxes per Section 8. Now, I am sure there is case law supporting a local D.C. government, but as in so many cases, I bet it twists the Constituion into a pretzel, which is what gets us in these messes to begin with.

[awkx]

"To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district..."

No doubt Congress has probably passed some legislation over the years giving local powers in D.C., but passing power down to local authorities does not sound like "exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever" to me, unless one were to say that the "exclusive" legislation Congress has over D.C. allows it to form a local government that can make its own laws.

IIRC, Congress delegated authority to the local DC gov't, and this local gov't can pass ordinances under the authority of Congress. Of course, Congress can always overrule the DC gov't or even revoke its grant of authority at any time. So in this sense, Congress has exclusive legislative power in the District (i.e., there is no higher or equal legislative authority).

[tmg19103]

IIRC, Congress delegated authority to the local DC gov't, and this local gov't can pass ordinances under the authority of Congress. Of course, Congress can always overrule the DC gov't or even revoke its grant of authority at any time. So in this sense, Congress has exclusive legislative power in the District (i.e., there is no higher or equal legislative authority).

And that may be true, but as a strict constructionist I don't buy it. Congress is to "exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever". By delegating authority that's like having township code where the commissioners have exclusive legislative authorty to vote as a whole on whether to pass a zoning law, for instance, but instead the commissioners delegate that decision to someone else. Does not pass the smell test. In the case of D.C. I'd say, as a strict constructionist, that either Congress has to be in charge of all D.C. local legislation or the Constitution needs to be amended. If a federal navy yard wants to build a battleship, it had better be approved by Congress. You ask me, if D.C. wants to chime in on a fundamental constitutional right, it had better be approved by Congress.

But what the Hell, its only a piece of paper after all? And its attitudes like that, which we see all the time in Congress and even by the courts, that have eroded our rights.

[Philadelphia]

May 5th, 2008; Washington Township, NJ
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Media Contact: Robert Kreisler

Using an advanced market research method known as a KJ analysis (named after its creator, Kawakita Jiro) a team of five analysts independently reviewed the statements made by the Justices during testimony in the Heller vs. DC case to arrive at this conclusion.

I've used the same type of advanced analysis to conclude that night follows day.

Anyone sane person who listened to the oral argument has already reached the same conclusion. It's not exactly a longshot.

What's really disturbing and of a lot of concern is the fact that a complete and total handgun ban in one's own home had to go all the way to the SCOTUS to be once and for all overturned (which I predict will happen -- can I become a highly paid consultant too? ). I want to see recognition of a national right to carry -- to bear arms.

[reels18]

We all may have our gripes about how the president is running the country, but, his appointments to the Supreme Court just may save our freedoms.

I also think the Supremes will rule the second amendment was worded for the individual's right to keep and bear arms.

I shudder to think of who Gore or Kerry would have appointed.