H.R.1399 : To restore Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia.

[F4GIB]

The odd thing is there is a lot of excitement about Parker reaching the Supremes but no one envisions defeat.

If we lose, we are in the same place we are presently.

90% of Democrats believe in the collective "no" right interpretation. 40% of Republicans do too but stick with their party and PRETEND it means something (vague). 40% of Republicans believe its an individual right but subject to any regulation necessary to maintain "order" (everything passes that test). 10% of each party thinks it protects a real right and many laws are unconstitutional. 90% of academia thinks it's about the National Guard (and likes it that way).

10 out of 1000 federal judges believe it's a meaningful individual right. The remaining 90% will engage in whatever intellectual dishonesty is required to insure that there is never any right to keep and bear arms among the lower classes (people like us).

The BIG DIFFERENCE is that the 70,000,000 lazy gun owners in America would no longer have the "fig leaf" of the Second Amendment to hide behind.

Like gays in 1970, they would be bare of legal protection. So they'd have to get off their sorry a**es and GET POLITICAL. Gays are now a protected, advantaged class not because of any clause in the constitution but because they OWN THE POLITICIANS.

70,000,000 gun owning voters should control every election at every level in America. They should control merchant's policies - Wal-Mart sells guns at every store and the Gap sells holsters - as well.

Political power is real power.

 

[camacho]

If we lose, we are in the same place we are presently.

Well, I do not know about that. Sentiment wise you are right, the way the people feel about it won't change overnight and with one Court decision, but law wise the things can get very hairy and States that currently enjoy gun rights might turn into NJ and CA. A Supreme Court decision is legally binding for all the States, let's not forget that.

I strongly believe that the notion that "it can not get worse than what it is" is a very naive and dangerous one. The various States have many pro-gun laws (CCW, castle doctrines, etc) in the books that can evaporate in hot second. Are we all prepared for that? I am not!

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The odd thing is there is a lot of excitement about Parker reaching the Supremes but no one envisions defeat. Unless you guys know something the rest of do not know about SCOTUS, I would not be so sure of victory. It can go either way

The collective rights view is already precedent in a majority of circuits and with the exception of the D.C. Handgun ban, no federal gun law has ever been overturned on Second Amendment grounds, so I question what it is exactly that we would be losing?

If Parker goes the other way, then the two Circuit Court of Appeals that support an individual rights view will be forced to adopt the collective rights view. This will not really be a big change since only one of those circuits has ever overturned a federal gun law (D.C.) based on that right.

A collective rights win at the SCOTUS level puts us right back where we are now - fighting in Congress and anything that passes Congress we are stuck with.

There are only two reasons to delay this case:

1) You think the makeup of the Court will change to better favor the Second Amendment

2) You think other circuits will overturn existing precedent and declare the Second to be an individual right and you want to wait to build up more case law before going to SCOTUS (in which case killing Parker actually moves you a step backwards but gives you more time).

Even if you do think one or both of those scenarios are likely, you also have to balance that against the risk that the next Second Amendment case could have plaintiffs and facts that aren't so good for us. For example:

Miller - bootlegger running booze across state lines
Emerson - pointed a pistol at his wife and daughter
Herrera - travelling around with cocaine and guns (for those who aren't familiar with Herrera, this is from the Emerson line of cases in the 5th Circuit that was reversed en banc. If it had not been, this likely could have been the case going to the Supreme Court)

Another thing is that we need more than just this one case with good facts and plaintiffs. A decision from the Supreme Court in our favor is likely to be very narrow and it will require multiple cases to define the bounds of what is protected and what isn't. There are very few cases with good facts and good plaintiffs and each one of them represents years worth of work and planning. At the same time, everyday there are thousands of criminal defense lawyers looking for any straw they can grasp at to get their scumbag client out of some of the charges he faces and many of those are firearms charges.

So we need more than one good case standing by or those thousands of less helpful plaintiffs and facts are going to end up defining the boundaries for us. Even in a perfect scenario, we will be unable to avoid having some of that happen. So we really don't want to be mooting cases that are good on facts and plaintiffs.

 

[TexasRifleman]

some votes will have to come from the conservative Democrats.

Heh heh, is this one of the April Fools Day threads too?

 

[nico]

Well, I do not know about that. Sentiment wise you are right, the way the people feel about it won't change overnight and with one Court decision, but law wise the things can get very hairy and States that currently enjoy gun rights might turn into NJ and CA. A Supreme Court decision is legally binding for all the States, let's not forget that.

The states that are currently pro-gun got are that way because of the people and politicians in those states. It's not like they want to pass a gun grab, but don't because it's unconstitutional. If we lose the Parker case, Texas isn't going to turn into CA, because the population there is overwhelmingly pro-gun.

I agree with the sentiment that a bad ruling on Parker could get more gun owners involved in politics. Look what happened after the Kelo case: people got mad at hell and many legislatures enacted laws that made that type of seizure illegal. States that had been allowing the taking of private property for private use suddenly had a spotlight shown on them.

That being said, I don't think a good ruling in Parker would cause anti-gun laws to suddenly evaporate the way some people do. The circuit court ruling seems to allow most restrictions short of an all-out ban, and you can bet that gun grabbers would still argue that it only counts if all guns are banned (ie: only allowing rimfire bolt action rifles would be ok).

 

[Coronach]

NRA is terrified of a Supreme Court decision.

This is one of the many things they have done to doom the Parker case. If it is enacted, Parker is moot and any appeal will be dismissed.

See. here's the thing:

There is a very real chance that Parker could go to SCOTUS and result in a loss for us. If the NRA terrified of that? Of course they are. We all should be. Should this prevent us from pressing the attack?

It depends. How good are our chances of winning?

Pessimism about both sides desiring to maintain the status quo aside ( ), the NRA pays a lot of lawyers and advisors a lot of money to get a read on the stance of legislators and justices in various jurisdictions. You can darned well bet that they have done the same thing with the Supreme Court. Now, I know we have a lot of hot and bothered Random Guys on the Internet here who are quick to give us their off the cuff take on what we should be doing the the field of constitutional law, but I'm willing to bet money that if the NRA is trying to kill Parker, they are probably doing it because they think that the balance of collectivists vs individualists on this particular 2nd Amendment issue is not in solidly in our favor.

I love how people have decided that the NRA must be against Parker because they need to maintain their jobs...as if there would be nothing for them to do if Parker was decided in our favor (newsflash, people...Parker isn't going to roll back 70 years of gun control with one bang of the gavel). I have a much more logical suggestion: they're waiting for Stevens, an avowed collectivist, to vacate his spot on the bench before they put The Big One before the Supreme Court.

Mike

 

[F4GIB]

I have a much more logical suggestion: they're waiting for Stevens, an avowed collectivist, to vacate his spot on the bench before they put The Big One before the Supreme Court.

Given Stephen's age and health, the time to act is now. It takes 2 years to get a Court of Appeals case heard by the S. Ct.