For the FreeRepublic "banglist", please click HERE .
Posted on 07/31/2008 4:13:11 AM PDT by marktwain
WASHINGTON — "Don't say my name out loud."
That's the first thing Dick Heller told me as we stood outside the Supreme Court building on the morning of June 26, waiting for the decision in a landmark Second Amendment case. Heller, who wore a Supreme Court tie and a blue baseball cap with a miniature silver pistol on it, looked like just another enthusiast as he handed out newsletters. But as he lectured me and my friends on the history of the case, we responded with rapt attention rather than casual interest. Heller, a security guard from Washington D.C., was the eponymous plaintiff in the case, District of Columbia v. Heller.
The case was a challenge to the city's gun ban, the strictest in the nation, on Second Amendment grounds. Citizens were not allowed to own handguns, even to keep and use only in their own homes. It was the first time the Supreme Court had addressed the Second Amendment in almost 70 years and the first time they had directly considered whether the amendment guarantees an individual right to own a firearm.
Heller, who lives in a dangerous neighborhood and wants to keep a handgun at home for self-defense, was contacted by Bob Levy, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, where I am working as an intern this summer. Levy, a self-made millionaire, was preparing to bankroll a lawsuit against the ban. Heller joined five other plaintiffs in the suit, then known as Parker v. District of Columbia.
While the attorneys were primarily responsible for brilliantly shepherding the case to the Supreme Court, a vital part of the case hinged on actions Heller took on his own. On the advice of his friend and attorney Dane Van Breichenruchardt, Heller had gone to a police station to attempt to register a handgun. When the clerk refused, saying it was against the law, Heller had him write down the name of the law it broke on the denied application.
The purpose of this bizarre encounter was to establish legal standing for Heller to sue by proving that he had been injured by the law. It worked: When the lawsuit, which had been dismissed by the District Court, went to the D.C. Court of Appeals, they.ruled that Heller—though not the other plaintiffs—had standing, and struck down the ban.
I ended up sitting right next to Heller in one of the back rows of the Supreme Court. Groups of law school students filed in front of us to sit in their reserved seats, while Heller grumbled amiably about the large guard who blocked his view of the justices during oral arguments back in March. His was the third decision read. As Justice Scalia handed down the court’s opinion—striking down the ban and affirming a strict individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment—Heller broke out into a wide grin. During Justice Stevens’ vigorous dissent, he chuckled audibly. As we left, I had him sign my copy of the opinion, and then we parted ways.
While the case sparked a flurry of lawsuits challenging other local gun laws, including one from the National Rifle Association against Chicago, perhaps the most interesting is a suit filed this Monday against the District of Columbia—again by Heller. After trying to register his handgun, Heller was told that because it can theoretically hold more than 12 rounds, his gun falls under the District’s machine gun ban. Heller is now hoping to repeat the success of his first lawsuit, forcing the District to comply with the words of the decision, which stated that “the District must permit [Heller] to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry in the home.”
Though the lawyers involved in the case have received well-deserved praise and attention in the media, Heller, who has given out few interviews (perhaps because of the book he jokes about writing) was somewhat marginalized by the media in the later stages of the case. He has come back under the spotlight thanks to his new lawsuit, which demonstrates his devotion to achieving not just a symbolic victory, but the safety and security he has sought since the beginning. Furthermore, his name is likely to achieve immortality, joining William Marbury, Joseph Lochner, and Oliver Brown in the annals of American legal history. (The plaintiff in Roe v. Wade dodged notoriety by using a pseudonym).
One of my favorite aspects of living in Washington and working at a think tank for the summer has been the ability to see and meet famous politicians, celebrated judges, and renowned scholars. But my most enjoyable experience so far has been meeting this ordinary person with an extraordinary story.
—Daniel P. Robinson ’10, a Crimson editorial editor, is a social studies concentrator in Kirkland House.
There is a fine crop of brilliant young conservatives waiting in the wings. We just need to keep the socialists at bay for a little while longer to give them a chance to lead the USA.
I think the ageing ‘60s Left knows this, and that is why they are betting the house on little Barry to save their bacon. If he gets in, the Left intends to stay in power for the next 50 years, and the “change” we get will be an openly Socialist America. The Right, once again, will have managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
For the FreeRepublic "banglist", please click HERE .
The writer is an intern at the Cato Institute ... it’s libertarian, not conservative. Most of the brilliant young conservatives in this generation lean more libertarian than traditional conservative.
Nice read. By the way, the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade is now staunchly pro-life...but that’s something that the MSM has never reported on.
The NRA is not involved in the Chicago case to my knowledge. The Second Amendment Foundation is.
L
There is a pretty good intersection of the two. I consider myself a libertarian leaning conservative.
on the BIG issues conservatism and libertarianism are more often than not in accord, i.e., extent/limitations of government power. They usually are inseparable on economics but part ways on social issues.
Libertarians believe govt just doesn’t belong in our lives practically anywhere. Libertarians don’t believe the govt should have a say one way or the other about abortion, gay marriage, etc., so have more liberal views, whereas most conservatives seem to believe regulations in those areas are within the government baliwick. Also, most libertarians opposed our involvement in Iraq, and tend to be more isolationist from what I’ve seen. Still, the perception remains that libertarians are conservatives. I would venture a guess that most who call themselves libertarian vote GOP when it gets down to it.
There needs to be a First Amendment Heller on every campus infested by the Speech Code crowd. Perhaps someday a Second Amendment one as well to challenge the Unarmed Target promoters. Who knows? Perhaps someday far in the future the Constitution may again be respected by university faculties.
OK, I'm kidding on the last one.
Well, I think abortion might be in a different category from gay rights, prostitution, and drugs for libertarians, because there is a clear victim, if you consider a fetus a Constitutional “person”, who’s having their right to life taken away.
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.