It is my understanding that the primary argument in Heller is that the 2A is an individual right, not specifically the type of firearm.
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.
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.
-—good post—
Ping please?
Thanks, good summarization for us non legal types.
It is my understanding that the primary argument in Heller is that the 2A is an individual right, not specifically the type of firearm.
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.
If there aren’t handguns in vending machines by Thursday, we’ve lost it all.
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.
I’d be happy if Heller just confirms the individual right.
From there, we can start defining what is “infringement.”
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.
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.
Thanks. I appreciate the comments from bang-list.
ROFL.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.