Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

DC v Heller - A Personal Perspective
03/21/08 | Pistolshot

Posted on 03/21/2008 6:29:24 AM PDT by Pistolshot

I have spent a lot of time surfing some of the other discussion threads on the hearing before the US Supreme Court of DC v Heller. A lot of comments have been about the testimony about machine guns, rifles, Miller, and a host of zealousness that makes gun-owners look as bad as the most strident anti-gunner. It does NOT serve us well.

Heller is about handguns, and the ownership, use and ability to protect ones self in the home.

It is not about NFA ‘34

It is not about GCA ’68.

It is not about Hughes.

It is narrowly defined by the SCOTUS to handguns.

Now, there are pie-in-the-sky zealots who want everything put in order, the way it was, in one-shot. The bad news is that is NOT going to happen.

Now that we have gotten that out of the way, lets look at what we can get.

We get a definitive ruling that the restrictive law of DC is in direct violation of the individual right to own a firearm, specifically a handgun, and that the restrictive DC law is overturned, affirming the lower courts decision. The DC City Council will have to come up with something that will pass judicial muster. Most likely a complete reversal of the 'secure' weapons in the home provisions along with opening of registration of handguns in the city, as the law read before the Council banned all handguns.
We get the perception from the courts that they would like to correct Miller. Justice Kennedy – “Miller may be deficient.” The translation here is : “Bring us a case we can rule on.”

Heller opens this door.

What else do we get?

We get the chance to find the correct case to bring to the justices to roll back Hughes, which will roll back the restrictions on new machine guns.

We get the chance to bring the correct case to roll back GCA ’68 and the importation of surplus weapons

All of these are dependent on how the Supremes rule in Heller, but it will not signify that a total revolution in gun control and gun laws has taken place

It only means we have won one battle, and there are many, many more to come.

The right of ‘the people’ has been taken incrementally, a bit at a time. The only way will get that right completely restored is in the same fashion.

Incrementally, one piece at a time.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: banglist; guns; heller; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-129 next last
I've seen, read, and heard so many comments from the all-or-nothing crowd that makes me wonder whose side you are really on. The zealousness of some sound like the most vehement anti-gunner, except on the opposite side of the spectrum.

Take a deep breath, folks. It will be a long struggle, maybe one we leave to our children to carry on, but our first steps have been taken.

1 posted on 03/21/2008 6:29:26 AM PDT by Pistolshot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pistolshot

-—good post—


2 posted on 03/21/2008 6:32:17 AM PDT by rellimpank (--don't believe anything the MSM tells you about firearms or explosives--NRA Benefactor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: Pistolshot; Joe Brower

Ping please?


4 posted on 03/21/2008 6:37:44 AM PDT by Pistolshot (Remember, no matter how bad your life is, someone is watching and enjoying your suffering.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pistolshot

Thanks, good summarization for us non legal types.


5 posted on 03/21/2008 6:39:48 AM PDT by deuteronlmy232 (Before you have sex outside of marriage read Deuteronomy 23:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pistolshot
I have added the the FR "banglist" keyword to this thread.

It is my understanding that the primary argument in Heller is that the 2A is an individual right, not specifically the type of firearm.

Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!

6 posted on 03/21/2008 6:44:08 AM PDT by Joe Brower (Sheep have three speeds: "graze", "stampede" and "cower".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pistolshot
As a Federal armed guard, Heller was the perfect poster boy to challenge the DC personal hand gun restrictions.

Assuming citizens successfully re-secure an individual right to armed self-defense subject to strict scrutiny, then a hunt will be on to find a similar stellar candidate to challenge/establish/incorporate the militia clause.

My guess is it will be someone in the reserves (officer rank, Iraq veteran?) who resides in a state where he/she is banned from possessing the very weapon(s) he/she commands in a Nat'l Guard.

Machine guns are too limited - we need to re-establish the concept that the People form the militia and have pre-existing rights to possess sufficient firepower to both help in common defense and/or challenge a potentially tyrannical government.

7 posted on 03/21/2008 6:46:58 AM PDT by semantic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pistolshot

If there aren’t handguns in vending machines by Thursday, we’ve lost it all.


8 posted on 03/21/2008 6:49:04 AM PDT by Lazamataz (We're all gonna die!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS GRANTED LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION:

WHETHER THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS - D.C. CODE §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), AND 7-2507.02 - VIOLATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY STATE-REGULATED MILITIA, BUT WHO WISH TO KEEP HANDGUNS AND OTHER FIREARMS FOR PRIVATE USE IN THEIR HOMES? CERT. GRANTED 11/20/2007

QUESTIONS PRESENTED:
Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning private possession of handguns while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns.

9 posted on 03/21/2008 6:49:24 AM PDT by Pistolshot (Remember, no matter how bad your life is, someone is watching and enjoying your suffering.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Pistolshot

I’d be happy if Heller just confirms the individual right.
From there, we can start defining what is “infringement.”


10 posted on 03/21/2008 6:49:39 AM PDT by umgud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pistolshot
You don't know your law. At this level, it is a matter of Constitutional rights and power, and not of a particular law. That was settled at the lower Federal courts, which threw out the D.C. ordnances.

Anyways, the 2nd Amendment is not about crooks, or burglars, or hunting bears. It is about the citizens having military weapons to attack and commit violence and killing upon tyrannical government forces.

11 posted on 03/21/2008 6:56:19 AM PDT by Leisler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leisler
Sorry, you don't know the SCOTUS.

This decision will be as narrow as the cert described. Answering the question that was presented and dealing only with that question. Does the District of Columbia have the right to ban an entire class of weapons. Specifically handguns.

12 posted on 03/21/2008 7:09:00 AM PDT by Pistolshot (Remember, no matter how bad your life is, someone is watching and enjoying your suffering.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: harpseal; TexasCowboy; nunya bidness; AAABEST; Travis McGee; Squantos; Shooter 2.5; wku man; SLB; ..
OK, Pistolshot, I don't usually flag my private list for vanities, but your question is obviously a good one.

Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!

13 posted on 03/21/2008 7:15:00 AM PDT by Joe Brower (Sheep have three speeds: "graze", "stampede" and "cower".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower

Thanks. I appreciate the comments from bang-list.


14 posted on 03/21/2008 7:17:37 AM PDT by Pistolshot (Remember, no matter how bad your life is, someone is watching and enjoying your suffering.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
If there aren’t handguns in vending machines by Thursday, we’ve lost it all.

ROFL.

15 posted on 03/21/2008 7:25:51 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (I'm out on the outskirts of nowhere . . . with ghosts on my trail, chasing me there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Leisler
> the 2nd Amendment is not about crooks, or burglars, or hunting bears. It is about the citizens having military weapons to attack and commit violence and killing upon tyrannical government forces <

I can't entirely agree with you. I say the 2nd Amendment not only protects the people's ability to overthrow a tyrannical government, but it also recognizes and strengthens the individual citizen's God-given right of self-defense -- a right that pre-dated the U. S. Constitution.

Therefore, in my opinion, and in addtion to the other aspects of its original understanding, A-2 most certainly IS about crooks and burglars and bears -- and even those hostile "Indians" mentioned by Justice Kennedy during oral argument.

16 posted on 03/21/2008 7:26:54 AM PDT by Hawthorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: semantic
My guess is it will be someone in the reserves (officer rank, Iraq veteran?) who resides in a state where he/she is banned from possessing the very weapon(s) he/she commands in a Nat'l Guard.

That would be any a National Guard Soldier in CA, IL, NY or any other state that band the posession of automatic weapons. All M-16's are select fire.

17 posted on 03/21/2008 7:32:37 AM PDT by Centurion2000 (su - | echo "All your " | chown -740 us ./base | kill -9 | cd / | rm -r | echo "belong to us")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Pistolshot
Good post. I agree that the ruling will only be ruled very narrowly to address the DC ban. The greatest win IMO is that it sets the brady crowd and others back to the stone age as the collective argument they have propagated for decades will be totally destroyed.

It will clearly take one step at a time to get back to our roots. That is exactly what the other side has patiently done for years and that has brought us to where we are now.

I am encouraged that Heller will win.

18 posted on 03/21/2008 7:33:28 AM PDT by beltfed308 (Heller: The defining moment of our Republic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pistolshot

SCOTUS of the last several decades have been very loathe to issue broad rulings. This SCOTUS is no exception.

I would love to be able to install a happy switch on my ARs with this forthcoming ruling. It won’t happen, as you pointed out. They will only answer the question posed. Another case (or several) will have to brought forward to address the rest.


19 posted on 03/21/2008 7:42:57 AM PDT by ex 98C MI Dude (All of my hate cannot be found, I will not be drowned by your constant scheming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Pistolshot
It is not about NFA ‘34 It is not about GCA ’68. It is not about Hughes.

It _IS_, however, about re-establishing core principles which, if applied honestly and correctly in Heller, will make it clear those are void as well. Further cases may be needed to take those down, but it will be a matter of enforcing the final Heller verdict instead of battling them independently. There's a reason 922(o) was a frequent theme in oral arguments and the SG's brief: much as they want to issue a narrow verdict, they can't overturn the DC ban without either establishing solid grounds to toss other bans/restrictions, or gutting the 2nd entirely.

20 posted on 03/21/2008 7:43:49 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (The average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. - Ratatouille)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pistolshot
Pistolshot,

while I appreciate your concern about the over zealousness of some reagrding MGs etc, please dont be too critical of the opinions...we've been derided as too ignorant to understand the nuances of plain English for so long that the simple thought of reading the plainly written text is a long overdo 'I told ya so' to the libtards that have preached collectivism down to us podunkerz for so many years...

that said, its frustrating to realize that although I believe there will be an 'individual right' ruling...it will be virtually meaningless for many years to come. It took the Heller case what, 14 years to work thru the system???

My hope is that there are already those 'perfect' plaintiffs that have been recruited thru the Hellar years, with all the paperwork ready to file the day the decision is handed down, preferably in the most conservative districts across the country...

The other 'vision' I had is that the supremes, being a fairly learned bunch, will realize that they could distinguish themselves amongst their beltway brethren by ruling as broadly as possible , which would go a long ways in 'kevlar-ing' themselves from the ultimate implosion of the country if the socialists keep advancing at the current pace...

The fact that the question was narrow doesnt restrict their decision/opinion, but the fact that the 'progun' counsel was willing to concede ground when given an opportunity to deliver a strong argument is really frustrating...

That and knowing how a lawyer can redefine the word 'is', leaving our Rights in their hands is a crap shoot...

LFOD...

21 posted on 03/21/2008 7:44:39 AM PDT by Gilbo_3 (Choose Liberty over slavery... the gulag awaits ANY compromise with evil...LiveFReeOr Die...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000

More accurately: that would be any National Guard soldier seeking to buy a new copy for himself of whatever MG he’s issued on the job. State is irrelevant; there is a federal ban on new M4s et al.


22 posted on 03/21/2008 7:46:21 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (The average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. - Ratatouille)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMajority

Well, good on ya...

but you must remember that civil disobedience includes acquiescence to the punishment that the law provides for that disobedience.

Thanks for standing up for what’s right.


23 posted on 03/21/2008 7:49:27 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
whatever MG he’s issued on the job

Which of course is the linear decendant of Hellars argument...

24 posted on 03/21/2008 7:49:41 AM PDT by Gilbo_3 (Choose Liberty over slavery... the gulag awaits ANY compromise with evil...LiveFReeOr Die...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Pistolshot
Good post, well thought out.

I saw many of the same arguments that derided the incremental approach with Concealed Carry permits. The approach has proven itself. It has worked very, very, well. We would not be at this point today, if the Concealed Carry Permit system had not shown the nation how false the anti-gun premises were.

25 posted on 03/21/2008 7:51:29 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
If there aren’t handguns in vending machines by Thursday, we’ve lost it all.

How on earth can you be so persistently wrong about everything? How!

Vending machines? You racist, homophobic, capitalist pig-dog! Do you think those in need of quick cash…those that, because of society, must take down a liquor store…have cash for a vending machine? Do you?

This is why I am calling for a federal program that provides universal hand gun ownership. The days where only the rich can own sweet-assed hand guns are over!

26 posted on 03/21/2008 7:53:07 AM PDT by Fundamentally Fair (Experience Change!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Pistolshot
I agree with you on one thing the "It's all or notghing crowd" suffers from ADD or just does not care. In any court case you MUST look at the question the court was asked. In Heller it (unfortunately) is a very narrow question. I was disappointed by several of Gura's answers to the Justices but he did OK being his first case in front of the court. Dellinger had a bad day now matter how you spin it. When the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court mocks you from the bench it is a bad day. He may never go back to this court.

"It is not about the right to shoot, it is about the right to shoot back."

Richard Quigley 1941-2007

27 posted on 03/21/2008 7:55:21 AM PDT by mad_as_he$$ (John McCain - The Manchurian Candidate? http://www.usvetdsp.com/manchuan.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pistolshot

Thanks for the reality check, Pistolshot.


28 posted on 03/21/2008 7:55:40 AM PDT by gitmo (From now on, ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pistolshot

I agree totally. The guy who bankrolled this deserves a thanks. He did EXACTLY what a former in-law of mine (an ACLU lawyer) told me they do with their cases. They find the perfect person and the perfect case. Then they take it all the way. That is what was done on this case and it will work.

Unfortunately, the “all-or-nothing” crowd have been in charge before and brought loser cases to the courts (I remember the millions of dollars that the NRA spent on taking the machine gun ban to the Supreme court — and lost). And we have lost every time.

I hope that the NRA (and the “all-or-nothing” crowd) have learned how to win with this case. Take it one step at a time. Make gains incrementally. Get the perfect case with the perfect people (even if you have to manufacture it), then push it all the way.

That is how the liberal/left has been doing it for 40 years and look how successful they have been.


29 posted on 03/21/2008 8:06:19 AM PDT by jim_trent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$

Some of Gura’s answers were a smoke screen as far as I can tell. What he needed to do was to 1) win this case and 2) setup for the next ones. What was said in oral argument is not going to be the true when certain facts and cases are looked into. Its going to be an “Oops, my bad!”

Let me give you one specific about registration which Gura mentioned in oral argument. If we get an individual right ruling (and this looks promising) then there’s no way that the Supes can OK registration later without throwing out stare decisis. They really don’t want to do that people. What am I talking about? Well, there has already been a ruling that states cannot license federal rights. Yep, its in the bag folks. So, all this bs in oral argument was pablum for Ginsberg and Breyer. Those two don’t know enough to know that they’ve been had. Heh.

“A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down... a person cannot be compelled ‘to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.”
— MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA 319 US 105 (1942)


30 posted on 03/21/2008 8:33:48 AM PDT by RKV (He who has the guns makes the rules)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: RKV

;-)


31 posted on 03/21/2008 8:38:03 AM PDT by mad_as_he$$ (John McCain - The Manchurian Candidate? http://www.usvetdsp.com/manchuan.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Hawthorn
First threats fist.

Nothing preys upon man more then fellow men. Crooks and burglars are just unorganized predators. Government is a organized predators with wood pulp paperwork back up the killing and thieving.

32 posted on 03/21/2008 8:47:26 AM PDT by Leisler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

33 posted on 03/21/2008 8:56:28 AM PDT by Jasper (Stand Fast, Craigellachie!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Pistolshot
This is so simple to understand that even a child could figure it out. The government has abused the rights of the people.

The arguments presented before the SCOTUS were afraid to state the rather obvious:

The people of the United States of America can keep and bear arms, and the government is not allowed to infringe upon that basic right. No government regulations concerning arms is allowed.

This is a subject that the government is not allowed to be involved with in any way. The government is specifically forbidden to address this subject!

Now "Miller" defined arms as those which are used by the military. It may be rather twisted, but I can accept that legal argument.

I personally own many arms which were actually used in combat.

From my swords to rifles, there is no way that they could not be classified as militia related arms, since each and every one of them were used by the militia in actual combat.

Why is such simple language so darn difficult to understand?

34 posted on 03/21/2008 9:26:18 AM PDT by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB
"but you must remember that civil disobedience includes acquiescence to the punishment that the law provides for that disobedience."

I dunno...I gotta disagree. Strictly IMNSHO, if a law is unconstitutional, immoral, or wrong, then the punishment for disobeying said law is unconstitutional, immoral or wrong. That doesn't mean you're not going to be punished for violating the law, but I'd be damned if I "accepted" it willingly.

Just my $.02.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

35 posted on 03/21/2008 9:39:45 AM PDT by wku man (BLOAT while you can...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Leisler; semantic

semantic:  "...we need to re-establish the concept that the People...have pre-existing rights to possess sufficient firepower...to challenge a potentially tyrannical government."

Leisler:  "...the 2nd Amendment...is about the citizens having military weapons to attack and commit violence and killing upon tyrannical government forces."

Can those currently in positions of leadership be expected to openly come out with such clarity if  the Founders themselves were reluctant to clearly word the Amendment as follows:

The Right of the People to alter or to abolish a Government and to institute new Government, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms necessary to do so shall not be infringed.

36 posted on 03/21/2008 9:41:28 AM PDT by KrisKrinkle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: wku man
If the SCOTUS makes the wrong choice, then the people can use arms against them.

Is that clear enough?

37 posted on 03/21/2008 9:48:20 AM PDT by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Hunble
Now if the SCOTUS makes the wrong choice, and if the people decide to react, then the people will use all possible arms against them.

Arms could be anything from bactria to atomic weapons, and they will never know what will be targeted against them.

That is why the government was forbidden to be involved with this subject in any way. If they abuse their powers, then the people can and will use arms against them.

38 posted on 03/21/2008 10:07:43 AM PDT by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Pistolshot
BUT WHO WISH TO KEEP HANDGUNS AND OTHER FIREARMS...

According to the language above, the USSC broadened the case from specifically handguns to other types as well. I wouldn't read a lot into the specific type of firearm, unless you're talking full auto etc. But I'll bet the USSC gives the folks in DC the right to keep handguns, rifles and shotties as long as they don't violate NFA or GCA limits. THOSE we'll have to address in the near future, methinks. However, it is just as likely that the high court might give us the whole ball of wax, too. But at the minimum, my money is on a decisive and definitive ruling on Heller that will apply across the board and will have inclusion as a by-product.

39 posted on 03/21/2008 10:27:11 AM PDT by ExSoldier (Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: umgud

From where I sit registration is an infringement. I do not want to register my weapons with any government agency, that someday I may resist.

If I could buy ten BRAND NEW belt-fed .50 caliber Browning machine guns for $1000 each from the USMC only under the condition that I MUST register them with the BATFE, I would turn down the offer.

I refuse to own a silencer or any weapon that requires me to register it with our government. If I want to go and play with one they are for rent at a couple of ranges around the country. I don’t have to give the owner anything but cold hard cash. He doesn’t take my thumb print, my picture, a blood sample or require annual address change forms.

When and if the time comes that I would need one then I imagine I’ll deal with the situation at the time. With the advancement of military type weapons, who knows it may be a smarter choice to hijack a rig that busts ear drums or causes the enemy to vomit than one where the ammo belt needs continious observation and maintenance.


40 posted on 03/21/2008 10:38:35 AM PDT by B4Ranch ("In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." FDR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Gilbo_3
Gilbo_3 said: ".. but the fact that the 'progun' counsel was willing to concede ground when given an opportunity to deliver a strong argument is really frustrating..."

Ginsberg KNOWS that this case is about machine guns as much as handguns. Is the Heller Court going to invent yet a new "self-defense" category of firearms that is protected by the Second Amendment? That "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" can be constrained by whatever the Court decides are suitable arms for whatever purposes the Court recognizes? I think Ginsberg knows that isn't going to happen.

If Ginsberg votes for individual right, then how can she vote for less than strict scrutiny? And if she votes for strict scrutiny, then machine guns are IN.

Ginsberg and the other commies have decided that there is a right to privacy that prohibits the government from preventing a school teacher from taking a pregnant teenager out of school without her parents' permission to allow a physician to kill the unborn child. How on earth can they articulate a reason to keep a combat veteran, for example, from keeping in his home the same weapon that his government demanded he carry in a foreign city?

41 posted on 03/21/2008 11:02:19 AM PDT by William Tell (RKBA for California (rkba.members.sonic.net) - Volunteer by contacting Dave at rkba@sonic.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RKV

Is the SCOTUS held by lower court stare decisis? No, so why are they hesitant to deal with a multiple issue case?


42 posted on 03/21/2008 11:07:23 AM PDT by B4Ranch ("In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." FDR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ExSoldier
ExSoldier said: "But I'll bet the USSC gives the folks in DC the right to keep handguns, rifles and shotties as long as they don't violate NFA or GCA limits. "

There's just no way that the Court is going to mention existing federal legislation. Such legislation is subject to change at the whim of Congress and mentioning it would be make no sense to future Courts that would be charged with judging cases based on the protection of the Second Amendment.

If the Second Amendment doesn't protect machine guns, that lack of protection is completely independent of any acts of Congress. Similarly, if the Second Amendment does protect machine guns, then an act of Congress saying otherwise is irrelevant.

The Court must decide that the right to keep and bear arms is an indivdidual right.

The Court must decide that the right encompasses self-defense as well as preparation for militia service.

The Court must decide what level of scrutiny is to be applied, UNLESS they can rule that any level of scrutiny would forbid the banning of a useful category of arms. But that would immediately suggest that machine guns cannot be banned categorically.

All of this has tremendous immediate relevance to statutes throughout the country. The Ninth Circus has a bucket full of cases which have been decided based on the "collective rights" nonsense, denying standing to people whose rights have been infringed. They are going to lose their favorite method for denying the right to keep and bear arms. They will no doubt come up with something else, but, hopefully, the Supreme Court will stop denying cert for such cases.

43 posted on 03/21/2008 11:19:52 AM PDT by William Tell (RKBA for California (rkba.members.sonic.net) - Volunteer by contacting Dave at rkba@sonic.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
I do agree that the SCOTUS can define the term and what Arms the militia is allowed to use.

However, since the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines are members of the militia, anything that the SCOTUS prohibits MUST apply to our military forces.

What arms that the people use against the SCOTUS, if they make the wrong legal decision, will be up to the people of the United States of America.

Arms could be anything from oil on the front steps of their homes, or bacteria in their next meal. They will never know, until it is too late.

44 posted on 03/21/2008 11:43:46 AM PDT by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

There is a hierarchy. If the 9th Circuit (for instance) decides a certain way that prescedent is valid for that specific circuit. IANAL, but that’s my best knowledge. Obviously when the Supes decide its supposed to be valid for all.


45 posted on 03/21/2008 11:48:08 AM PDT by RKV (He who has the guns makes the rules)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
Is the SCOTUS held by lower court stare decisis? No, so why are they hesitant to deal with a multiple issue case?

This is not a multiple issue case. It's about handguns banned in a city that allows rifles and shotguns kept in the home if they are disassembled or lacked.

The Cert by the SCOTUS is to answer this question only. Nothing more, nothing less.

Each one of the laws we have to change will need it's own challenge, one that can win in the SCOTUS. Heller is a first step.

We are not going to get it all this time around. No matter how hard anyone wishes it.

46 posted on 03/21/2008 11:49:16 AM PDT by Pistolshot (Remember, no matter how bad your life is, someone is watching and enjoying your suffering.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Pistolshot
I know, what you are saying is correct from your point of view.

Each one of the laws we have to change will need it's own challenge, one that can win in the SCOTUS. Heller is a first step.

I am trying to state that 300 Million people may stand up to the 7 members of the SCOTUS and tell them:

Hell NO!

Question: When did you become a subject?

As for me, the SCOTUS was hired to support the people since we the people are the government.

When they no longer do their job, then they should be fired.

47 posted on 03/21/2008 11:58:52 AM PDT by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Pistolshot
We get the perception from the courts that they would like to correct Miller. Justice Kennedy – “Miller may be deficient.” The translation here is : “Bring us a case we can rule on.”

Heller opens this door.

What else do we get?

We get the chance to find the correct case to bring to the justices to roll back Hughes, which will roll back the restrictions on new machine guns.

We get the chance to bring the correct case to roll back GCA ’68 and the importation of surplus weapons

All of these are dependent on how the Supremes rule in Heller, but it will not signify that a total revolution in gun control and gun laws has taken place

Very good post and follow-up comments.

The simple fact is, as others here and elsewhere have posted, that the Supreme Court is highly unlikely to issue a broad ruling. The fact that it granted cert with a very narrow set of questions on which it would rule is a huge hint at this. All of the questions regarding full autos were an attempt to trip up Gura, to get him off message and to give folks like Ginsburg an opportunity to vote with DC.

I personally think that we're going to win on the issue of individual vs. collective right. That is HUGE. That is really the crux of the 2nd Amendment debate, and we're only about 3 months away from winning it. I think that we'll even get 6 votes. Look, we've got Alito, Roberts, Scalia & Thomas for sure. Kennedy, based on the oral arguments, is also in our camp. IMHO, the big surprise will be Granny Ginsburg - she CAN'T vote against an ENUMERATED right being individual, and almost HAS to vote for strict scrutiny...or else a bunch of states are going to pass restrictive abortion laws and base their defense of them on this case AND the fact that the "right" to an abortion isn't an enumerated right. She's been sick and doesn't look well, and I have to believe that she wants to leave the law in such a state as to prevent (or make as difficult as possible) a repeal of Roe v. Wade. If that means that this uber-liberal anti-gunner has to accept guns, she'll do it - because abortion is more important to her than taking our guns.

Once we win on the individual right, that does open the door. First and foremost, this allows individuals to bring cases and not have the lower level courts in gun-hostile districts and circuits toss them for "failure to state a claim."

Regarding Hughes, which is the law I'd most like to see tossed out (short term, anyway), once we win this case we've essentially won that one. How? Because of 2 factors. First, the federal ban is virtually identical in effect to the DC law (i.e. if anyone hasn't registered a subject gun by X date, then they are forever prohibited from registering it-which, of course, prevents even mere ownership). The 2nd factor, the bridge between handguns and full autos, is the Miller case.

As most here know, Miller himself was a moonshiner. He and his partner were caught by "revenuers" with a sawed-off shotgun, which was and is illegal under the '34 NFA unless you have the tax stamp. He didn't, being both a criminal and also not so stupid as to pay a $200 tax to have a $20 shotgun with a short barrel. Long story short, he won his case on the District Court level, and the feds appealed directly to the Supreme Court. Miller was unrepresented (and also dead), and the Court ultimately decided that a short-barreled shotgun was not protected as a militia arm under the 2nd Amendment, since it (and I'm paraphrasing) tend to improve the effectiveness or the efficiency of the militia. Also, it wasn't in common use.

So where does that leave us? If we win in Heller on the individual rights issue and on the unconstitutionality of bans on whole classes of firearms (and I believe we will, given Kennedy's performance), then a plaintiff who has applied for a tax stamp to purchase a post-5/19/1986 full auto (preferably an M16, for reasons I'll state below) can bring a case in the DC District Court (because that's where the BATFE "lives"). Being a ban on a whole class of firearms, the law will immediately be suspect. Coupled with reams of evidence that the M16 was and is both the main infantry longarm of the armed forces, all of the state National Guard units and most state police forces, this will prove that the M16 meets the Miller test. BTW, the reason the "reams of evidence" is important is because in Miller the Court could say that a short barreled shotgun didn't have militia utility only by saying that "...it is not within Judicial Notice...." Reams of evidence ARE Judicial Notice. No weasling out on THIS one.

OK, why the M16? Because there was no such thing as the M4 in 1986. My ideal plaintiff is a squeaky-clean model citizen who happens to own a pre-ban M16, and who is turned down in his application for the tax stamp for an identically-featured post-'86 M16. If you really want a legal wet dream, let's deal with one gun made and registered with BATF on 5/18/86, and one made on 5/20/86 in the same factory, with the same exact features that couldn't be added to the NFA Registry because of its post-ban status. So, here you'll have Mr. Squeaky Clean, who the feds think is fine and dandy to own a pre-ban, but the same guy can't own a virtually identical gun made in the same factory only 2 days later. This defies ANY strict scrutiny argument and, in fact, defies ANY rational reasoning. The Court will, of course, also consider that full autos have NEVER been outlawed, and that some 160,000 are freely transferrable among probably 150 million adults in this country, that the guns aren't in common use ONLY because of the '34 NFA and, of course, the '86 ban, and that the crime rate among registered owners of full autos is miniscule. Further, repealing the '86 ban just puts us where we were 22 years ago - you still have the tax stamp, you still have the background check, LEO signoff (unless you form a trust or corporation), etc. Was the country like Somalia or Iraq before the ban, when anyone with about $700 could get a full auto? No way, and the Court won't buy the horror stories of the antis on this one. I think that we win a repeal of the Hughes act easily in a case like this.

Prediction: we'll be able to buy new full autos, or install new happy switches for existing semi-autos, within 5 years.

My goal: let's get 1 million or 5 million full autos into the hands of the citizenry. When you don't have "blood in the streets" the level of unease about them - and other guns - will subside substantially. Also, the more full autos out there, the less likely that some tyrant-wannabee is going to go for the brass ring (and, after all, isn't that the WHOLE POINT of the 2nd Amendment?). Once there are literally millions of full autos in public hands, I can see an a new law repealing import bans of all types - what would be the point?

48 posted on 03/21/2008 12:04:59 PM PDT by Ancesthntr (An ex-citizen of the Frederation trying to stop Monica's Ex-Boyfriend's Wife from becoming President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hunble
From my swords to rifles, there is no way that they could not be classified as militia related arms, since each and every one of them were used by the militia in actual combat.

Given what special forces worldwide have used since 1939, anything from a sharp stick to a nuke would seem to be protected as useful to the militia. OK, maybe a nuke is going too far - but I cannot buy into any restriction any weapon that can be carried by a single average soldier.

49 posted on 03/21/2008 12:08:35 PM PDT by Ancesthntr (An ex-citizen of the Frederation trying to stop Monica's Ex-Boyfriend's Wife from becoming President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr
The simple fact is, as others here and elsewhere have posted, that the Supreme Court is highly unlikely to issue a broad ruling.

I know that!

SCOTUS is trying to define the term ARMS in a way that could prohibit handguns.

Today, I have been trying to explain that the term ARMS can and will include anything from bacteria to atomic weapons, if the citizens of the United States decide to fight.

When the French citizens used a chemical introduced into the fuel tanks of German vehicles during WWII, was that chemical not being used as an arm?

When a briefcase using acid as a trigger was placed under Hitler's table, was that not being used as an arm?

People today seem like they are ASKING PERMISSION FROM THE SCOTUS to protect their own lives.

What is wrong with that statement?

50 posted on 03/21/2008 12:15:35 PM PDT by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-129 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson