GigaBuist
Member
I've been seeing comments about "Heller" winning "his" case lately and that bothers me. I tried clearing it up in one thread, but that buried itself pretty early. I another thread I made a rather snarky comment to another member and annotated it admitting I was at fault there and shouldn't be doing that.
You see, the "Heller" case wasn't always "Heller." When the 2nd District Court heard it it was "Parker" and before that there were four other plaintiffs.
The whole case was the brain child of Robert Levy. Mr. Heller did not stand up one day and challenge DC's handgun ban. Levy dreamt up the case and he "shopped" for people that would have standing.
He eventually decided on 6 people without any "baggage" -- ie: criminal record, and people that represented different walks of life. Also, obviously, they had to have an interest in striking down the law.
I'm not sure of the particulars or the who's-who of the original plaintiffs but Levy wanted a mix of people from different races and economic means. That means a black guy, a black woman, a white guy with money, a white guy without much money, etc. Levy was covering every angle. Mr. Heller simply filled a slot and he happened to be the one granted standing in the Supreme Court case because his permit to keep a pistol was actually denied.
I have no idea if the other plaintiffs even applied for one, if they were denied, or if their applications were simply never answered.
Again: Heller did not win his case.
A lawyer, Robert Levy, God bless him, won his case by carefully constructing it and executing it well.
Mr Heller helped out, and I appreciate that, but, for lack of a better word, he was simply a pawn.
I do not mean to denigrate Mr. Heller at all. Far from it. I just wish to call to attention WHY and HOW this case succeeded along with WHO really made it happen.
These are importing things to understand when trying to bring further court cases to extend the right to keep and bear arms.
You see, the "Heller" case wasn't always "Heller." When the 2nd District Court heard it it was "Parker" and before that there were four other plaintiffs.
The whole case was the brain child of Robert Levy. Mr. Heller did not stand up one day and challenge DC's handgun ban. Levy dreamt up the case and he "shopped" for people that would have standing.
He eventually decided on 6 people without any "baggage" -- ie: criminal record, and people that represented different walks of life. Also, obviously, they had to have an interest in striking down the law.
I'm not sure of the particulars or the who's-who of the original plaintiffs but Levy wanted a mix of people from different races and economic means. That means a black guy, a black woman, a white guy with money, a white guy without much money, etc. Levy was covering every angle. Mr. Heller simply filled a slot and he happened to be the one granted standing in the Supreme Court case because his permit to keep a pistol was actually denied.
I have no idea if the other plaintiffs even applied for one, if they were denied, or if their applications were simply never answered.
Again: Heller did not win his case.
A lawyer, Robert Levy, God bless him, won his case by carefully constructing it and executing it well.
Mr Heller helped out, and I appreciate that, but, for lack of a better word, he was simply a pawn.
I do not mean to denigrate Mr. Heller at all. Far from it. I just wish to call to attention WHY and HOW this case succeeded along with WHO really made it happen.
These are importing things to understand when trying to bring further court cases to extend the right to keep and bear arms.
