Heller: win big, lose bigger?

[usmarine0352_2005]

Going with the premise that we "win" Heller and it is ruled that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right we have won big. (strict scrutiny vs. reasonable regulations notwithstanding).

This will make the Anti-gunners pour more effort into what they have recently been trying to do:

1.) Ammo Bans

2.) Ammo taxes or fees to make exorbinantly expensive.

3.) Ammo Serialization

4.) Specific Weapons Ban

5.) Limitations on purchase amounts

6.) Closing the "gun show loophole"

7.) Ban on specific ammo

We could in fact win the battle but lose the war.


What is the point of owning a gun if you can't afford the ammo? Or if you can only purchase guns that serialize the ammo that is fired? Ammo is not Constituationally protected.

By winning Heller we may force the Anti-2nd Amendment crowd to get more creative and in fact more effective.

How can we stop this? Is there anything we can do?

 

[damien]

I think that it depends on what the Supreme Court's decision is. If the 2nd Amendment confers a right, there is going to be an implicit protection for ammo. The courts are not filled with idiots. The courts would not say "Freedom of press is a right, but bans and high taxes on ink and paper that effectively eliminates this right are OK." If Heller is a broad win, then ammo bans are simply not going to be accepted by the courts.

Anyway, why does everyone think that anything less than a total win at the Supreme Court is a disaster? We have been consistently winning this battle in the legislatures anyway in recent memory.

 

[Coronach]

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

 

[arthurcw]

Ammo is not Constituationally protected

Sorry, that will be an argument but I do not think it will hold up. I believe we can make a good point that, “if ‘Arms’ are a right. Then those things that go into maintaining their effectiveness are also part of that right.”

It’s just another battle in an unending war against your rights. If you expect the war to end someday, you are mistaken and unwise. It will only end for you when you are room temp.

No enemy if going to take one defeat and say, “Oh well… sorry. You were right. We’ll go home now.” Not when so much of their plan revolves around making the masses emotionally, mentally, economically, and physically unable to oppose a central tyrannical will.

Gird your loins and get ready for more.

 

[Standing Wolf]

This will make the Anti-gunners pour more effort into what they have recently been trying to do...

Realistically speaking, leftist extremists hate armed commoners every day of the week, week in and week out, every week of the year. Think of it as a constant.

 

[10X]

The antis are doing all of the above anyway. This is a multi front confrontation.

With a Heller win our argument become becomes much, much stronger.

What will be sorted out in future years is was level of restriction, if any, is constitutional vs. unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that the government has the right to raise revenue. When do those taxes and fees as applied to guns and ammo become an infringement?

 

[Telperion]

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.

Penumbras and emanations, my friend.

Everyone read Minneapolis Star v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue to see what the Supreme Court thinks of taxes on ink and paper in relation to the freedom of the press.

 

[Cougfan2]

I think that it depends on what the Supreme Court's decision is. If the 2nd Amendment confers a right, there is going to be an implicit protection for ammo.

I don't know. I wouldn't bet money on it. California will likely be where the first shot across the bow is fired. If we don't win that fight then all bets are off. That's why I have 2K rounds of .223 stashed away and will be stocking up on other calibers.

 

[Cosmoline]

I think one way or the other we're going to see more "back door" bans and few if any "front door" bans. The political fallout is too huge from AWB's on the national level for the Dems to revive it, no matter how Heller comes down. It's more likely we'll see increased "safety" regulation at the pinch points. These include:

--PRIMERS.
--POWDER.
--CASES.

These are generally made by small operators many of whom are also working for the feds directly or indirectly. The feds can simply make them beg off the civilian market as part of their contract with the military. They can also impose additional safety restrictions and fees for domestic companies and import restrictions for foreign ones.

The thing is, if the government can pinch off any one of these elements it will have a huge impact on both handloaders and companies who make the cartridges. And it will be well below the radar screen of most folks until its too late.

 

[ArmedBear]

10X is right on.

They're doing ALL that anyway.

What we need to do is remember that, whatever happens, it's not all just going to be okay without any action on our part.

 

[H088]

They can't ban ammo any more then they can ban a gun, if they can't get another AWB passed I can guarantee they won't be able to ban a certain caliber of ammo.

Best they can do in that route is banning lead, the micro stamping will cause allot of court cases because I believe it directly attacks your right to privacy, so I doubt it will ever be nation wide.

 

[leadcounsel]

A win Heller is the right first step and frankly a necessary first step. A loss or neutral ruling in Heller will cause the anti-s to unlease the dogs against the 2A.

Conversely, a win in Heller - particularly a strong win - will back down support and funding for the left and will be political suicide for anti-gun politicians and politics.

 

[geekWithA.45]

We could in fact win the battle but lose the war.

Well, considering that the alternative is "Lose Heller, AND the war, thoroughly, completely and immediately", my plan is that we win, or die trying.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

Well, considering that the alternative is "Lose Heller, AND the war, thoroughly, completely and immediately", my plan is that we win, or die trying.

I think until SCOTUS rules on Heller, this is already out of our hands.

 

[ArmedBear]

The best possible Heller victory won't stop the Brady Bunch and its ilk, any more than Roe v. Wade stopped activism around abortion, on either side.

 

[MAKster]

I don't understand all the negative attitude I keep reading about the Heller case. We are on the verge of the biggest Supreme Court victory imaginable yet some people want to turn it into a defeat. I guess some people enjoy feeling persecuted too much to give it up even when we're winning in Congress, the Supreme Court, and state legislatures.

 

[ilbob]

A win Heller is the right first step and frankly a necessary first step. A loss or neutral ruling in Heller will cause the anti-s to unlease the dogs against the 2A.

Conversely, a win in Heller - particularly a strong win - will back down support and funding for the left and will be political suicide for anti-gun politicians and politics.

Could well go the other way too. A "win" in heller might make our side complacent, and we might not do real well in the next 2 or 3 decades worth of court cases.

A "loss" might well get gun owners really serious about it.

 

[damien]

I don't understand all the negative attitude I keep reading about the Heller case. We are on the verge of the biggest Supreme Court victory imaginable yet some people want to turn it into a defeat. I guess some people enjoy feeling persecuted too much to give it up even when we're winning in Congress, the Supreme Court, and state legislatures.

Not me, I'd prefer a huge and unambiguous win. Then I and many others who have spent so much time on this one issue could concentrate on the other dozen issues that are important to the nation at this point in time.

 

[sacp81170a]

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

What about the existing statutes on transport? If the gun is in a locked container and the ammo is separate, then it's not treated as a "firearm" but as any other piece of metal and wood. That's at least a logical starting point.

 

[Superpsy]

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

I believe in Ohio since the passing of SB184 a loaded magazine is considered a firearm. Can someone confirm?

 

[ArmedBear]

I don't think we should have a negative attitude. I don't think we should have any attitude.

Heller is one battle in a big war, and I'm not just talking about gun rights either.

John Philpot Curran, 1790:

It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance.

 

[shdwfx]

(note: response to off topic Q)

I believe in Ohio since the passing of SB184 a loaded magazine is considered a firearm. Can someone confirm?

SB184 passed and will go into effect Sept 8. Yes, that law considers having cartridges in a magazine and the firearm in the same car as "loaded." Loose or boxed ammunition is OK though.

It's silly and I'm sure that there will be a bill to change that in the next year or so. However, pre-SB184, "loaded" was an ambiguous term in the Ohio Revised Code, so any clarification is an improvement.

This article summarizes the changes in SB184. On the whole, it's full of good stuff.

(end off topic)

I don't think anybody will be taking it easy. The constant assault on our rights and the real possibility of a pinko-commie neo-European gun-grabbing spineless lying mouth-breather in the Oval Office should keep us fighting.

 

[GlowinPontiac]

More than likely they will try to get ammunition severely restricted by getting laws passed banning the possesion of lead in homes with children or in apartment buildings and limiting you to a pound or so of lead max stored in your home.

or they will try laws similar to the flash powder regulations used in fireworks. in the us you are limited to something like 25mgs of flash in any explosive ground fireworks. they will probably try to pass similar laws restricting the amout of powder in a cartridge in attemps to limit us to .22 shorts max.

 

[gbran]

By winning Heller we may force the Anti-2nd Amendment crowd to get more creative and in fact more effective.

We already have too many laws that individually may meet "reasonable restrictions", that when considered together, are surely an infringement. I don't know how to fight this and you can be sure the anti's will add many more such laws. death by a thousand cuts.

 

[woof]

Question about Ohio Castle Doctrine: What does in the residence mean? In the house per se? On the property? How about on the deck? In a garage? You mean if my wife is in our horse barn and is attacked there her right to defend herself is less than if she were in the house?