Skip to comments.DC v Heller - A Personal Perspective
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.
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...
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.
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.
Which of course is the linear decendant of Hellars argument...
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.
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!
"It is not about the right to shoot, it is about the right to shoot back."
Richard Quigley 1941-2007
Thanks for the reality check, 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.
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)
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.
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?
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!
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.
Is that clear enough?
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.
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.
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.