Dave Hardy Chat...

Dave Hardy of Arms of the Law (and one author of amici briefs in Heller) participated in an online chat on the Heller case last Friday.  I logged in to get a few of my own questions answered.  Here's my first question:

TriggerFinger: Blogger TriggerFinger here. We know Scalia's opinion covered a number of "suggested as reasonable" gun control laws. Those suggestions, including such things as the ban on felons in possession, are not strictly necessary to reach the decision in Heller. Could you briefly explain the concept of "dicta" versus a binding part of a core ruling and maybe give us a feel for how lower courts and future supreme courts will consider Scalia's words in future cases? How much weight is due, for example, to Scalia's discussion of felon-in-possession laws as constitutional when Heller, the plaintiff at issue, is not a felon?

David H (davehardy): Holding: the part of a decision that binds future Courts (they can depart from it only by overruling the prior decision). These are the facts here which were key to the decision. I'd say the Heller holding is that a federal entity cannot outlaw handguns nor require guns to be trigger-locked in the house. That's the law at issue and the court's decision on it. Anything is considered dictum. The Court may quote it later to buttress an argument, but it can depart from it without overruling. Laws about felons, government buildings, etc. were not at issue in Heller, so a future Court could decide those issues differently without having to overrule Heller. Icing on the cake, not binding.