Heller: win big, lose bigger?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Blackbeard:
Well, if it gets that extreme, someone should point out that AP ammo shoots differently than ball, so the citizenry needs access to it to practice. Steel's much cheaper than lead.

Kharn
 
What we need is caselaw determining that ammunition is an integral part of the "arm". As in, possession of a firearm is meaningless without the ammunition that allows it to work.

How we go about obtaining that is beyond me.

Mike

Somebody will have to challenge ammo restricting laws obviously. I'm confident it will happen, and we'll win.

If we have a right to keep and bear arms, and ammo is part of an arm without which your "arms" would be nothing but scrap metal, then naturally it would follow that you have a constitutionally protected right to ammo.

What they COULD do though, is try to further restrict the types of ammo, like no HPs. Unfortunately, I think that we would be hard pressed to come up with a constitutionally based objection to such a law.
 
My post on the "27 words" was meant to show that they mean exactly what they say. What part of "shall not be infringed" do the anti people not understand?
 
Divemedic wrote:
No matter how the words were chosen, there would still be an argument. That is what governments do, in fact that is the only thing ANY government can do- pass laws that infringe upon rights.


A voluntarily-funded government can do many legitimate things by legitimate means. A coercively-funded government? Not so much. Thomas Jefferson himself said that "the favorite purposes" of government were to strengthen itself and increase the public debt. A government can effectively accomplish these ends only if it acquires funding by violence or the threat of violence.


Divemedic wrote:
Governments infringe upon rights by passing laws.

True.


Divemedic wrote:
EVERY law infringes upon the rights of someone. It is up to the governed to decide if that infringement is appropriate.


Entirely false. No one has a right to murder anyone else, rape anyone else, steal from anyone else, or initiate any form of violence upon anyone else. A law against any such acts is not a violation of anyone's rights. A law prohibiting me from falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not a restriction upon any of my rights, because I have no right to fraudulently and recklessly subject others to unnecessary risk.

The "governed" are ostensibly (and laughably) they who "govern." They have no right or basis in reality to enact a law that says, "It is now a violation of other people's rights to perform this action that in and of itself is not a violation of other people's rights." The most they can do is recognize (not create) the actual rights of individual men. Nobody "created" or "granted" equal rights to blacks. Their rights always existed. People finally woke up to this fact, and finally recognized these rights. There is a gigantic difference between the two ideas. One says that we can, through a majority vote, create an objective reality, and the other says that we merely recognize a universal and pre-existent objective reality that is inherent in our human nature.

When people attempt to go beyond protecting the individual rights of individual men, they leave the realm of practicality, and start trying to directly protect ideals, beliefs, and morals. You cannot force anyone to believe anything with violence (violence being the tool and nature of a government) and you cannot directly force people to be moral with violence. You can only remove from society those who have proven themselves to be threats to the life, liberty and property of others, or at least force them to remunerate their victims.

I believe in God, and I am not a libertine or approve of any immoral actions, but no government has any place legislating morality outside of what immoral acts happen to also coincide with the violation of the rights of individual men. It may not attempt to protect God's rights, and force everyone to go to church on Sunday. It may not attempt to protect its own power, through forcing people to subsidize its actions. It may only protect the individual life, liberty and property of individuals!

-Sans Authoritas
 
June is half over......the decision is no more than two weeks away.....

what will you do after they uphold the d.c. ban on "certain types" of firearms as reasonable but not an outright ban?

wanna bet that thats what they do?
 
The issue is far more than individual vs. collective. It's clearly an individual right which both Miller of 1939 clearly and more importantly the oral arguments reflect.

IIRC the question which the justices were trying to determine was what arms are protected. If they refer to history and Miller, then it would undoubtedly be that all arms with a militia use are covered. However, I fear that rather than release a radical but correct ruling, they may simply go with society's current position and say that machine guns, "assault weapons", large calibers, sawed-off shotguns, maybe handguns, etc. aren't protected.

Compared to a ruling that says it's a collective right, this wouldn't create too much backlash, and would limit the militia's arms to severely substandard arms leaving it/us unable to resist tyrrany, etc.
 
My post on the "27 words" was meant to show that they mean exactly what they say. What part of "shall not be infringed" do the anti people not understand?

They mix it up with the whole "militia" thing and thus (errantly) conclude that since normal folks are not militia then restrictions are OK.

Like I said those 27 words are really poorly chosen with the whole militia concept muddying the present day waters for normal people's ownership of guns.

Yes, yes, some one is going to pipe up with "we are the militia", but that is not how Sara the Soccer Mom and Greg the golf dad think.

-T
 
Well they said militia to prevent the goverment from banning group training / militia practice. Its just been horrible twisted by people such as Brady
 
H088:
True, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and drill in military techniques and practices, shall not be infringed" is even more awkward than the current version.

Kharn
 
Here's my new version of the Second: new words that will be sure to keep people in government from infringing basic human rights.

"Each individual human being may, can, and will always be able to possess/own/keep under one's own control, and carry in a ready-to-function fashion/possess/portage/convey/transport upon, about, or near his/her/its person, any object(s) that is/are able to hurt, damage, maim, kill, mutilate, or otherwise stop a threat to one's personal life liberty and property, so long as the use of said weapon(s) are not capable of killing/maiming/wounding/injuring/eviscerating/defenestrating all or most of the occupants within an area greater than 5 miles in diameter. Such weapon(s) may include, but are not limited to sharp pokey sticks, blunt sticks, small rocks, large rocks, jarts, letter openers, rolls of coins, cat(s) o' ninetails, blackjacks, any dirk(s) or bowie knife, cannons, artillery, jet fighters, battleships, pistols, rifles, grenades, anti-armor weaponry, and supercharged phased plasma rifle(s) in the 5-watt range. All government officials must really, really not infringe these rights, because the words explicitly say they must not."

-Sans Authoritas
 
Militia Act of 1903

Beginnings of federalization


United States Senator Charles Dick, a Major General in the Ohio National Guard, sponsored the 1903 act, which gave Federal status to the militia. Under this legislation the organized militia of the States was required to conform to Regular Army organization within five years. The act also required National Guard units to attend 24 drills and five days annual training a year, and, for the first time, provided for pay for annual training. In return for the increased Federal funding which the act made available, militia units were subject to inspection by Regular Army officers, and had to meet certain standards.

The National Defense Act of 1916

The National Defense Act of 1916 is, with the exception of the United States Constitution, the most important piece of legislation in the history of the National Guard. It transformed the militia from individual state forces into a Reserve Component of the U.S. Army - and made the term "National Guard" mandatory


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903
 
Jerry said:
what will you do after they uphold the d.c. ban on "certain types" of firearms as reasonable but not an outright ban?

wanna bet that thats what they do?

Absolutely I will take that bet. How much you want to lay down?
 
i'll have to bet $10.00 because im a "working man" as they say....

my bet is that they will uphold a portion of the d.c. gun ban allowing restrictions on certain guns but not an outright ban on ownership of functioning guns.
 
There really is no middle ground on such a decision which is why the SCOTUS has been so reluctant to hear a case specificly regarding that issue in the past.

If the decision includes any wording that allows some restriction, antis will pass numerous future restrictions through that wording and lawyers will do thier best to stretch variations that 'comply' with those allowances.
If that is the case, even if we 'win' we have lost because the right just ceased to be backed by law, and most things will be restricted in time through that route.

If they say the constitution actualy means the 'Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed' then any restrictions whatsoever on the citizens is infringement. It protects the RKBA, and also does not allow bans on machine guns, and numerous other militia armaments.

So a lot is still in the air, because a victory worded wrong is still a defeat, a defeat that creates a precedent that says the 2nd really can be infringed. So far most cases they have heard regarding arms have not decided this issue, just the merits of some other aspect of the case.
This really is the most far reaching SCOTUS decision yet, and it is all going to be decided based on the wording of the decision.


Restrictions on ammunition are restrictions on arms and would not hold up if no infringement is the interpretation in the majority.
That would be like ruling printing presses were protected under the freedom of speech and people had a right to use them to make books or newspapers, but the ink they required could be restricted and needed prior approval.
It has no legal merit.
A ruling not allowing infringement of them would be a ruling not allowing infringement on the ink they need to operate.

So far few supreme court decisions have allowed restrictions on arms. The miller case made the legal case that firearms protected by the 2nd were those suitable for use by the militia (like machineguns) and the sawn off shotgun did not qualify as suitable for militia use.
Otherwise there is no legal basis that allows for the restrictions of combat suitable arms, just those not suitable for combat.
So technicaly all infringements on arms suitable for use in military infantry are not currently backed by the constitution or the SCOTUS. A ruling that allows any infringement even if labeled a victory would provide a precedent that does indeed create a legal basis for restricting the RKBA.

So a pro gun decision could still create more legal precedent for future gun control that would then have a basis in law created by the highest court that does not currently exist.
Simply put most current gun control is not legal at the highest level. A decision that even acknowledges it is acceptable at some level even in extreme circumstances creates the basis that gun control is legal and subject to 'reasonable' restrictions.
Meaning gun control would then be legal and the antis could go to work creating new legislation that meets those requirements, even if only in the minds of thier lawyers.
 
my bet is that they will uphold a portion of the d.c. gun ban allowing restrictions on certain guns but not an outright ban on ownership of functioning guns.

All right, I'll take that bet. I think they will strike down both parts of the D.C. law (handgun ban and long gun storage) as unconstitutional. If I win, you can send it to the NRA-ILA or SAF.
 
if you win i will send a check to you, and you do with it as you please....
 
For some reason I think tomorrow, June 16th will be the ruling release date for D.C. vs. Heller.


.........but maybe that's just anticipation.
 
A decision that even acknowledges it is acceptable at some level even in extreme circumstances creates the basis that gun control is legal and subject to 'reasonable' restrictions.

Even the most stringently protected rights, subject to strict scrutiny, have some exceptions. We cannot expect a Constitutional right that has effectively lain dormant for over two hundred years to be miraculously accorded a new super-protected status.
 
Militia Act of 1903

Beginnings of federalization


Quote:
United States Senator Charles Dick, a Major General in the Ohio National Guard, sponsored the 1903 act, which gave Federal status to the militia. Under this legislation the organized militia of the States was required to conform to Regular Army organization within five years. The act also required National Guard units to attend 24 drills and five days annual training a year, and, for the first time, provided for pay for annual training. In return for the increased Federal funding which the act made available, militia units were subject to inspection by Regular Army officers, and had to meet certain standards.
The National Defense Act of 1916

Quote:
The National Defense Act of 1916 is, with the exception of the United States Constitution, the most important piece of legislation in the history of the National Guard. It transformed the militia from individual state forces into a Reserve Component of the U.S. Army - and made the term "National Guard" mandatory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

U.S. Code
Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and
, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States

and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard
or the
Naval Militia.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=10&sec=311

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

http://www.constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm
 
Speaking of Incorporation:


Going with the hopes opininon that we do win Heller and the 2nd Amendment is ruled an individual right:


How long until Incorpation?:


1.) People are talking about Chicago next. If that is so, will certain cases have to go through all of the courts before it gets to SCOTUS?

2.) Are there cases that are already through the courts and at the State Supreme Court waiting to go to SCOTUS?

3.) If we have cases waiting to go through all of the courts first, how long until it might reach SCOTUS, years?

4.) If we have case(s) that have already gone through all of the other courts and are waiting to go to SCOTUS, how long will we have to wait before it may be accepted by SCOTUS to hear?
 
4-8 years for a case from first served and files petitions. Dozens of cases could be fought with some wins and other losses at every level of lower courts. Equal protection cases over policy are in action and lawsuits are moving in California this year. Not one of them may ever get past the 9th circuit.
What chance does this team of lawyers making a case in Chicago that will be heard by SCOTUS. I would not bet on them.
 
I suspect the ruling will be as close to last minute as possible. It will be very strongly pro-gun-rights, and will mark a clear signal to every gun rights group that the courtroom is the best location to fight for gun rights.

We've tried lobbying, and we end up with medicore gun rights presidents at best when they are in office.

Congress efforts have managed very few small gains, the absolute minimum required to get our votes the next term.

The battle is in the courts because there we just may actually see worthwhile victories for the time/money/effort expended.

If heller goes bad, it could be a very dramatic last straw. Particularly given some of the other economic, policital and social heat in the national pressure cooker.
 
If Heller goes well it could signal the court actually believes the constitution means something. The Gitmo case decision recently, while not perfect, seems to signal that the protections outlined in the BOR means something and the courts are going to uphold them.

That could signal a shift from the long trend toward decreasing individual liberty.

Stare decisis (a Latin term meaning a previous court made bad law but we aren't going to change it) makes it much harder for the courts to deal with other long standing infringements of our rights.

Don't forget that the federal government has far exceeded its constitutional scope for a long time, and that needs to be fixed as well. but that will also be very hard.

OTOH, the RTKBA does not have much in the way of litigated law behind it so it is easier to make a clean decision that upholds the constitution.
 
4-8 years for a case from first served and files petitions. Dozens of cases could be fought with some wins and other losses at every level of lower courts. Equal protection cases over policy are in action and lawsuits are moving in California this year. Not one of them may ever get past the 9th circuit.
What chance does this team of lawyers making a case in Chicago that will be heard by SCOTUS. I would not bet on them.


So is this is? Were looking at a minimum 4-8 years for Incorporation?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top