Heller: win big, lose bigger?

[lanternlad1]

A law was passed by Congress around the 1900s that put a 100% tax on firearms sold, the intent being on keeping them out of the hands of the poor. SCOTUS overturned it as unconstitutional within the year. Ammo bans would go the same route I imagine. I wouldn't worry about it myself.

 

[ArmedBear]

SCOTUS overturned it as unconstitutional within the year.

Really?

The Heller literature was so long, I didn't look at all the cases cited in the various amicus briefs, the arguments, etc.

If this case was decided thus by SCOTUS, wouldn't that shoot a Texas heart shot through the "collective rights" lie?

Or was it a decision related to the Commerce Clause instead of the 2nd Amendment, or something?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Pursuing a defeated enemy is always dangerous because they get to defend while you attack; but you can't win the war solely on defense.

RKBA has been playing defense for a very long time and personally I am glad to see it finally mount a major attack. It certainly won't be the end of the war any more than Trenton was the end of the Revolutionary War; but it is a place to start.

 

[Titan6]

The war on freedom will never end. The price of freedom is eternal vigil. So far as ammo bans go it would be along the lines of banning printing presses and saying that there is freedom of the press.

 

[Larry E]

I've got to wonder how the anti's will spin a pro-individual right decision since they've managed to spin other decisions they don't like into anti-gun and anti individual rights. Their arguments are as slippery as a freshly caught fish.

 

[SCKimberFan]

My take from this thread is that no matter which way the Heller decision goes, we must continue to be vigilant and pro-active in protecting our rights.

We must get and stay active in the many organizations that are helping us continue the fight.

 

[Phil Lee]

If the 2nd Amendment confers a right . . .

I hate seeing this kind of statement. It is sloppy writing and even sloppier thinking.

Our Constitution doesn't confer rights and doesn't give any part of the government the power to confer rights.

We have rights -- had them before the Constitution was even written. We have them today as much as we had them then. All people have rights by reason of their being -- or if you prefer -- by reason of your creation by God.

The USSC can do one of two things -- state the obvious that the government may not infringe our right to keep and bear arms, which we had before the Constitution was written and that we possess independently of the Constitution, because the Government was not granted the power to infringe these rights by the peoples' contract for government, the Constitution. Or, the USSC more likely will say that the Constitution contains a grant of power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms (and in that event, how the Government must justify doing so).

Most of this back and forth we see on the Constitution is insipid and thoughtless because people can't think through the basic issue: If the Constitution, a piece of paper, grants anything to anybody, by what derivative authority did it do so and from who and what did it derive that authority?

In our concept of government, power is derived from the people, and the people grant power through the Constitution. Power is derived from the people. And the people can't give anything they don't already possess -- such as rights.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

A law was passed by Congress around the 1900s that put a 100% tax on firearms sold, the intent being on keeping them out of the hands of the poor. SCOTUS overturned it as unconstitutional within the year. Ammo bans would go the same route I imagine. I wouldn't worry about it myself.

But this is firearms they ruled on. Not ammo.


I hope your right though. I also hope it doesn't get to a point where they pass laws and it has to go to court. I wish they just wouldn't try to pass it, because they know it's illegal. (Not that it's stopped them before.)

 

[jorb]

How can so much arguement be made over 27 words?

 

[woof]

Banning ammo would be a violation of 2A just like saying you can have free speech and free press, but you can't use the english language would be a violation of 1A. Most likely are a lot of laws about mag capacity and transportation and blah blah.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

Banning ammo would be a violation of 2A just like saying you can have free speech and free press, but you can't use the english language would be a violation of 1A. Most likely are a lot of laws about mag capacity and transportation and blah blah.

They don't have to ban ammo if they can just raise the prices so that normal people can't afford it.

 

[yokel]

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

Only when our adversaries are completely and utterly convinced they are wrong and are beaten.

If you intend to win against ruthless forces bent on your destruction, you will have to be ruthless, determined, and have no scruples about using force.

I don't know. I'm not optimistic about that ever coming to fruition no matter how rough things get. I never have been.

Economic and social stability and survival ultimately trump the Bill of Rights in this day and age.

 

[Elza]

damien: The courts are not filled with idiots.

Now there's a debatable statement!

 

[Tyris]

How can so much arguement be made over 27 words?

Because those 27 words are really poorly chosen.

-T

 

[Big45]

I like the words they chose. I get it.

 

[divemedic]

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.

Governments infringe upon rights by passing laws. EVERY law infringes upon the rights of someone. It is up to the governed to decide if that infringement is appropriate.

If the 2A simply said: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

We would be debating the meaning of the words keep, bear, and arms.

 

[publius]

What we need is caselaw determining that ammunition is an integral part of the "arm".

We already sort of have that, dicta quoted in Miller:

The possession of arms also implied the possession of ammunition, and the authorities paid quite as much attention to the latter as to the former.

and

Clauses intended to insure the possession of arms and ammunition by all who were subject to military service appear in all the important enactments concerning military affairs. Fines were the penalty for delinquency, whether of towns or individuals. According to the usage of the times, the infantry of Massachusetts consisted of pikemen and musketeers. The law, as enacted in 1649 and thereafter, provided that each of the former should be armed with a pike, corselet, head-piece, sword, and knapsack. The musketeer should carry a "good fixed musket," not under bastard musket bore, not less than three feet, nine inches, nor more than four feet three inches in length, a priming wire, scourer, and mould, a sword, rest, bandoleers, one pound of powder, twenty bullets, and two fathoms of match. The law also required that two-thirds of each company should be musketeers.

and

And every of the said officers, non-commissioned officers, and privates, shall constantly keep the aforesaid arms, accoutrements, and ammunition ready to be produced whenever called for by his commanding officer.

 

[Waitone]

Because those 27 words are really poorly chosen.

No, actually the words are surgically precise to those who wrote them. We are the one's who come along 200+ years after they were written and after our language has changed and complain. We have the problem, not the authors of the words.

Back on topic. we'd be well advise to avoid counting our cartridges before the box is opened. SCOTUS has a history of taking our constitution in directions never intended by the founding fathers. At one point political speech was considered untouchable yet McCain-Lieberman fix it. At another point the right to private property was considered the foundation of our civilization yet once again SCOTUS fix it with the Kelo decision. So here we are breathlessly anticipating SCOTUS finally clearing up questions about what we consider to be an obvious and fundamental right; the same SCOTUS populated by the same cast of characters who bestowed upon us McCain-Lieberman and Kelo. Don't know about you but I'll wait until I see the decision.

Last topic is counterattacks by anti-second amendment types assuming a favorable ruling. Look out for the use of international agreements as wedges to force the US into restricting guns. There are a number sitting on the table just waiting for a Democrat controlled congress and a compliant chief executive to appear.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

At another point the right to private property was considered the foundation of our civilization yet once again SCOTUS fix it with the Kelo decision.

Actually, the Kelo decision predictably followed two earlier Supreme Court decisions on eminent domain going back to 1968. Kelo may have woken people up to the issue; but it was a long way from a surprise to anyone who had been looking or listening.

Last topic is counterattacks by anti-second amendment types assuming a favorable ruling. Look out for the use of international agreements as wedges to force the US into restricting guns. There are a number sitting on the table just waiting for a Democrat controlled congress and a compliant chief executive to appear.

That is no joke either. I think this is the most likely source of attack on RKBA we will see in the next four years. It isn't any accident that all of a sudden "arms smuggling to Mexico" is getting a lot of play in the press.

 

[arthurcw]

How can so much arguement be made over 27 words?

Because those 27 words are the essence of what it is to be a Citizen and not a Subject. A Subject has no say in his government and must simply do what he is told. A Citizen IS the government and merely hires others to run it for him.

It’s all fine and dandy to have freedom of this and freedom of that written about on a nifty piece of old parchment that people can feel warm and fuzzy about. But it’s a completely different thing to actually MEAN it.

Those 27 words were The Framers’ way of saying, “AND WE MEAN THIS!” It was their intention that the other freedoms be backed up with the possibility of blood. Namely the blood of anyone trying to diminish those freedoms. They intended the citizens to be the final check on government run amok.

Since power calls the greedy like moths to a flame; all governments attract power hungry crooks. They HAVE to convert all of us from Citizens to Subjects to fully realize that power w/o ending up at the end of rope. Long term, it prevents them from being challenged if they ever simply refuse to stand for re-election. But even short term; when you make people believe that they are governed and must always look to the government for protection, they become more likely to simple say, “Ok, you can have this one more right if you keep me safe.”

Those 27 words were doomed to be the whipping boy of The Constitution from its inception.

 

[Brett Bellmore]

A law was passed by Congress around the 1900s that put a 100% tax on firearms sold, the intent being on keeping them out of the hands of the poor. SCOTUS overturned it as unconstitutional within the year. Ammo bans would go the same route I imagine. I wouldn't worry about it myself.

Yes, and in 1934. a law was passed by Congress that put a 1000% tax on certain firearms, with the intent of keeping them out of the hands of everybody but the wealthy, and within a few years SCOTUS upheld it as constitutional. I wouldn't put much reliance on a precedent that's been overturned that way.

 

[Harley Quinn]

This is the latest I have read, seems like all should read it

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20080615/D91AISC80.html

This is going to be big and why there are so many posts about it

 

[TwitchALot]

I've got to wonder how the anti's will spin a pro-individual right decision since they've managed to spin other decisions they don't like into anti-gun and anti individual rights. Their arguments are as slippery as a freshly caught fish.

Here's one for you. "As argued before the Supreme Court, registration is a reasonable regulation..."

That's the scary part. Gura stayed on topic, but he didn't make particularly good arguments for RKBA (a handgun ban is unreasonable because of "military preparedness"? :banghead: I'm an ardent 2nd supporter and even I don't buy that BS).

 

[H088]

Last topic is counterattacks by anti-second amendment types assuming a favorable ruling. Look out for the use of international agreements as wedges to force the US into restricting guns. There are a number sitting on the table just waiting for a Democrat controlled congress and a compliant chief executive to appear.

Maybe that would stop imports, but I have a hard time believing the American people or congress for that matter will sign any UN laws that take away citizens rights or regulate what US companies do on US soil.

 

[Blackbeard]

There is nothing they can't effectively ban with "environmental" regulations. Watch for lead ammo bans, carbon credits for gunpowder, etc.