D.C. Gun Ban Crystal Ball Contest Winners
A week before today's Supreme Court decision tossing out Washington's gun ban, some of you still harbored the belief (hope?) that the 32-year-old law would be upheld, some predicted a very narrowly argued opinion getting rid of the ban but otherwise providing little in the way of a path forward on gun issues, and a few got it just right.
Our contest here on the big blog brought just about every possible kind of prediction, but the winners--who should contact me by email with your name and street address so that I can ship you your prizes from the Vast Vault of Values--are:
"Dean J" for this: "5-4, Roberts, explicitly defining the Second Amendment as enumerating the right of the individual, allowing for reasonable restrictions of carrying concealed weapons." The opinion was in fact written by Justice Antonin Scalia rather than the chief, but otherwise Dean J was spot on.
"Proxli2" also came quite close, writing that the majority opinion would be "5-4 deciding that the right to bear arms is NOT restricted to the purpose of a well regulated militia and that the necessity of a well restricted militia is only a single enumerated reason for the right (self-defense will be mentioned as amongst unenumerated reasons for the right), Thomas for the majority.
They will specifically mention in cause for the repeal the parts of the FCRA that make a firearm functionally useless." Proxli2 got the vote and the reasoning right, but again, missed on the author of the opinion, and also misfired by predicting that a separate 6-3 majority would repeal the District's law overall.
"Civilrightist" got the vote right, and the alignment of justices, and wins bonus points for also predicting that Justice John Paul Stevens would write the main dissent and that it would be a well-reasoned one lacking the anger that might be found elsewhere.
Many of the other entries lost because they predicted, reasonably enough, that there would be a plethora of opinions, both concurring and dissenting, as the justices felt compelled to spell out their individual conceptions of the Second Amendment and its roots and evolution. But the majority was happy to let Scalia do all the talking, and the dissenters as well put almost all their eggs in Stevens' basket, with the exception of Justice Stephen Breyer, who advanced the only District-specific argument in any of the opinions.
Thanks to all for playing. The three winners should contact me by email at firstname.lastname@example.org with name and address and I'll get your prizes out to you as soon as possible.
Please email us to report offensive comments.
Posted by: Leesburger | June 26, 2008 5:03 PM
Posted by: M Street | June 26, 2008 6:23 PM
Posted by: Fisher | June 26, 2008 7:34 PM
Posted by: wayneh | June 26, 2008 9:50 PM
Posted by: Dean J | June 26, 2008 10:56 PM
Posted by: Leesburger | June 27, 2008 11:44 AM
Posted by: Leesburger | June 27, 2008 11:52 AM
Posted by: Leesburger | June 27, 2008 11:59 AM
Posted by: Leesburger | June 27, 2008 1:37 PM
Posted by: Leesburger | June 27, 2008 1:38 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.