On the Positive Side

[usmarine0352_2005]

Everyone is pleased about Heller, but some people are already having reservations and getting somewhat down.

Don't.


Look at three of the major positive outcomes that came out today:



1.) Individual Right (permant and final)



2.) "Well-Regulated" does not mean "Massively Regulated" (or "Well-Regulated means Reasonable Restrictons" as Helmke said the 2nd Amendment means)

This is what was in the opinion: -"Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."

Very, very big win for us.



3.) In the eyes of the general public, the 2nd Amendment means "Individual Rights" now. That is a huge, huge win. Because with that, it will be harder for Anti-Gunners to get laws passed and elected on an anti-gun platform.


The court of public opinion is very important. So many people know so little, yet they repeat it so loudly. They used to be able to say, "Collective, Collective, Collective." Now they can only say, "Individual, Individual, Individual." (Hard to get around that one.)

We look at the small pictures as we look at the big picture, the general masses usually only look at the big picture, thus they can't see the little pictures.




Yes, we may have some losses, but did anyone really think we were going to get the MG gun ban, Incorporation and others all at once, or at all?


Look at the positives, that this is a huge win for us and a starting point to fight more unreasonable gun laws.

 

[Big45]

3.) In the eyes of the general public, the 2nd Amendment means "Individual Rights" now. That is a huge, huge win.

Bingo. Excellent point. The majority doesn't care about all the intracacies like we do. All they see is "individual right". Huge gain for us.

 

[freakshow10mm]

1.) Individual Right (permant and final)

But the SCOTUS can still overturn that decision in the future. Not exactly written in stone, but gives us something solid to work with.

 

[Z-Michigan]

Yes, they could overturn or limit it. They usually don't (stare decisis) but they can. Stevens was claiming that this decision was such an overturn, though I think he's wrong on that claim. Unfortunately, and I hate to see the court so politicized, this is another reason we need to keep the right justices on the court.

 

[shdwfx]

And Helmke (a bane on his house) is out there spinning this for all he's worth on CNN that the ruling affirms "reasonable restrictions."

So, the campaign is already on: convince the sheeple that their "individual right" can be "reasonably restricted" by their government.

Unkind words come to mind.

 

[ArmedBear]

Consider this: some California gun laws went to the 9th Circus and were upheld based only on the "collective right" lie. That has been SHOT DOWN.

Perhaps these cases can be heard again. I don't know how that works, but I want to find out.

 

[borntwice]

"9th Circus" - LOL.

 

[ozwyn]

yeah, might be time for a big series of california re-matches on lawsuits.

in addition, I suspect the fact that one of the reasons why DC lost was for banning an entire "class" of weapons means a new AWB is automatically required to re-word their attempts to be consitutional.

That is a serious restriction on how bad a future AWB could be.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

From USATODAY:


http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-06-26-scotus-guns_N.htm

The NRA will file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several of its suburbs challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.

 

[freakshow10mm]

Good.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

The majority of the American citizens don't really know or care about the 2nd Amendment.

The one thing they will know, and people who are children now will know when their are adults is, the 2nd Amendment is an Individual Right, and that is the main thing.

No longer can the antis go, "But it's a Collective Right, its about the Militia (National Guard)." That was one of their biggest weapons on the uneducated public. And that's gone now.


Also on a positive note: Chicago and Incorporation hopefully next.



From the Chicago Tribune:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-supreme-court-gun-ban,0,3522044.story?page=2&track=rss

John McGinnis, a professor at Northwestern University School of Law who specializes in constitutional law and served in the office of legal counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice, called the decision "a complete victory" for those who advocate for the rights of individuals to own guns, though it does leave some ground open for a legal battle.

McGinnis said the court clearly stamped approval on the rights of citizens to own "ordinary guns that are in common use," including handguns.

What the decision ultimately means for Chicago is a different question, McGinnis said.

"It still leaves a wide swath open for substantial litigation in the future, in the context of local and state gun laws," he said.

Chicago would be "absolutely open" to make the argument that the 2nd Amendment should not be incorporated to apply to Illinois and the city, he said, though he said he believes with the current makeup of the court, that argument ultimately would fail.

McGinnis said he expects a local challenge to the Chicago ban to be filed in U.S. District Court here, with the question again heading up to higher courts. The professor estimated that it could take months for a local challenge to play out.

This is good. Better get onto it quick, before we get judges on SCOTUS who would rule against us.

Months is better then years.

 

[Deanimator]

You can't please some people. When the US Army was driving out of Normandy on the way to Germany, they'd have said, "But I still have shingles!"

 

[Deanimator]

And Helmke (a bane on his house) is out there spinning this for all he's worth on CNN that the ruling affirms "reasonable restrictions."

But it DOES... too bad for them that that's not really what they wanted. What they WANT is UNreasonable and capricious restrictions. Today they were slapped silly and told in no uncertain terms that they couldn't have them.

They got what they SAID they wanted, and listen to them WHINE.

They've been shown up for the pathological liars that they are.

 

[RX-178]

In the future, we may have to worry about this ruling being overturned. But considering the nature of it, that's a LONG time in the future, even under an Obama presidency.

As has been publicized to a very high level, this is the first EVER Supreme Court ruling on the 2nd Amendment.

There is no way that the very next ruling on the 2nd Amendment will overturn the first. Laws require credibility in order to function in any society, after all.

There will have to be much more cases and rulings to build up before the Heller ruling can be challenged by a new case.

Until then, I predict lawsuits against anti-gun legislation will be very successful.

 

[Soybomb]

I think some gun owners wanted a short decision that essentially wiped out all gun control and that just wasn't realistic. As a whole the country has been coming out of some very heavy gun control for the last 15 years or so, the stuff thats still there has been in place for many decades. Its not going to change overnight, but we do now have an affirmative supreme court ruling that says the 2nd amendment is an individual right. We wren't going anywhere without that.

 

[jrfoxx]

The NRA will file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several of its suburbs challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.

Wait. That cant be true. I read on here all the time how the NRA doesn't do anything but spread baseless fear, beg for money (which they then waste on doing nothing, sending mail, and getting board members rich), and harrass poor members with horribly burdensome mail. Must be a typo.....

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

"It's a great day," LaPierre said. "We're going to make sure this freedom is carried out.

LaPierre said that the first round of lawsuits will be in the suburbs of Chicago and San Francisco, where bans are in place. The NRA is going to see to it that "every American has equal access to guns," he said.

"The fact that it's an individual right, individuals all over the country have to get access to it. It cannot be walled off by the elite. So this is the opening salvo of a step-by-step process providing relief," he said.

This is what's so important. That it's a step-by-step process, not getting everything we want, Incorporation, MG's and others in one fell swoop.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said that her experience as a former mayor of San Francisco leads her to believe the court's decision will open the door to more, not less street violence. She also criticized the conservative members of the court, who she said did not follow the legal principle of "stare decisis," the Latin term for using earlier court decisions to strongly guide new opinions.

"I remember both (Chief) Justice (John) Roberts and Justice (Samuel) Alito sitting in front of us and indicating how they would respect 'stare decisis' and precedent — and this decision takes down 70 years of precedent," Feinstein said, referring to the two justices appointed by President Bush. "I think it opens this nation to a dramatic lack of safety."

She added: "I happen to believe that this is now going to open the door to litigation against every gun safety law that states have passed — assault weapons bans, trigger locks and all the rest of it."

It's good they didn't use Stare decisis, otherwise they'd be following 70 years of wrong precedent.


Looks like we have them on the run. We'll have to chase them down in every city and state.

 

[Schleprok62]

What has me stumped/befuddled/confused/ is Obamas statement about todays ruling:

Democratic nominee Barack Obama said "today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country."

This is so wishy-washt to me that it says nothing of any real substance...

 

[Soybomb]

Wait. That cant be true. I read on here all the time how the NRA doesn't do anything but spread baseless fear, beg for money (which they then waste on doing nothing, sending mail, and getting board members rich), and harrass poor members with horribly burdensome mail. Must be a typo.....

While I think we need all the pro gun friends we can get, I don't think they get away entirely without criticism. Lets not forget that the NRA didn't want the supreme court to get this case and fought the efforts of the Parker/Heller team for some time. The first supreme court case about the nature of the second amendment can not only be not credited to the NRA, but they fought against it. Perhaps I'm alone, but I don't feel like that is a credit to them.

 

[jrfoxx]

I don't think they get away entirely without criticism. Lets not forget that the NRA didn't want the supreme court to get this case and fought the efforts of the Parker/Heller team for some time.

I agree 100% that they are not without fault. No 2A group is, nor are any of us.I dont agree with everything they do, or ow they do it. I'll bet no one does 100%, including the people on the NRA's board.

I also am well aware of them not wanting this to go to SCOTUS due to their fear of a bad ruling with the current make up of the court.They turned out to have been wrong on that one, but just barely. Most people here, and elsewhere were predicting 6-3 all the way to 9-0 in our favor, and yet it was 5-4, with a fairly weak opinion from the majority (and I dont mean it being narrow, that was expected).We were 1 justice away from may have been a fairly nasty loss.

But, they were wrong this time, and are stepping up and building on it, so kudos to them. My comment was directed at those who just trash the NRA saying they do nothing, or that they "give away our rights with comprimise", or they help the anti's, or arent "all or nothing" on everything. Also those who claim the NRA is just in it to make money, and for the board to get rich, and that thier warnings are lies, and a scam, etc. And my favorite, those that complain about getting letters from the NRA, which apparently is a huge burden for them to throw away if they, and that the NRA apparently forces them to read at gun point.

 

[lawson4]

Democratic nominee Barack Obama said "today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country."

This is so wishy-washt to me that it says nothing of any real substance...

He couldn't very well said he agreed, now could he? It lacks substance so it sounds like he agrees.

lawson4

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

While I think we need all the pro gun friends we can get, I don't think they get away entirely without criticism. Lets not forget that the NRA didn't want the supreme court to get this case and fought the efforts of the Parker/Heller team for some time. The first supreme court case about the nature of the second amendment can not only be not credited to the NRA, but they fought against it. Perhaps I'm alone, but I don't feel like that is a credit to them.

Can you imagine what would have happened if the NRA had pushed it and it had went 5-4 for the Collective theory? Everyone would have blamed the NRA.

And sadly, it could have easily went that way.

What has me stumped/befuddled/confused/ is Obamas statement about todays ruling:

Democratic nominee Barack Obama said "today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country."

This is so wishy-washt to me that it says nothing of any real substance...

A politician being wish-washy and having no substance?


Nooooooooooo.


What's next? A large part of the US Supreme Court thinking that the 2nd Amendment is the only amendment in the BOR that is for a collective, not individual????



.

 

[bumm]

The NRA was very leery of bringing a gun case before the Supreme Court for many years, and this case shows that they were right. With earlier courts, we probably would have lost. It SHOULD have been a 9-0 decision, whether individual justices are in favor of guns or not.
The meaning of the 2nd Amendment is perfectly clear, especially to anyone familiar with the history of the Constitution and BOR and the Federalist Papers. All the justices took an oath of uphold the law of the land, NOT rule on their own desires.
Marty

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

While I think we need all the pro gun friends we can get, I don't think they get away entirely without criticism. Lets not forget that the NRA didn't want the supreme court to get this case and fought the efforts of the Parker/Heller team for some time. The first supreme court case about the nature of the second amendment can not only be not credited to the NRA, but they fought against it. Perhaps I'm alone, but I don't feel like that is a credit to them.

I agree that NRA doesn't deserve the credit for the win; but it looks like they had a more realistic picture of the Court voting than most of us did.

Remember that this complaint was brought in 2003; before Rehnquist had died or O'Connor had retired. I really don't like to think about how O'Connor might have voted on this case with an already narrow 5-4 decision.

The NRAs intervention in the case came close to derailing a historic win; but it also served to tie up the case until Alito had replaced O'Connor. I don't know that you can credit the NRA for a dumb-luck intervention; but I'm glad it happened now (hindsight being 20/20 and all).

 

[Seminole]

Can you imagine what would have happened if the NRA had pushed it and it had went 5-4 for the Collective theory? Everyone would have blamed the NRA.

And sadly, it could have easily went that way.

But it didn't go that way, which means that the NRA was wrong to oppose the lawsuit.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an NRA-basher. I've even occasionally been a member from time to time (though it's easy to let one's membership lapse, what with ignoring all of the usually-way-too-early membership renewal pleas!). But I've seen several folks make the argument that the 5-4 decision on Heller shows how right the NRA was. That argument is 180 degrees off. Heller was decided (mostly) our way by a clear majority without the need for even a concurring opinion.