Police Officer Saves The Day For The Second Amendment

Status
Not open for further replies.
Officer Heller

Now here's a man who could tour the U.S. hitting the towns where THR members live, and never pay for his own beer.

I got yer cold one over here in Nevada, Mr. Heller.

I'm not a drinking man, but I'll make an exception in your case.
 
Whoever he works for, Bartholemew, he did this work for all of us. He faced the possibility of never having a good job again.

Thank You, Mr. Heller.
 
Kudos to Mr. Heller for sure. Thank you!
Now if we can get some politicians with half the backbone of Mr. Heller to stand up for 2A.:what:
 
Mr. Heller, you have my gratitude...Yours may be an act with such far-reaching consequences as to become a decisive point in the restoration of 2nd Ammendment rights for literally thousands, indeed perhaps millions of oppressed Americans!
 
BR,

If you have contact information for Mr. Heller, please PM me.

Mr. Heller: Words cannot express my appreciation.


BB62
 
bouis said:
As a resident of the individual-right-acknowledging 5th Circuit, and a somewhat legally-literate person, I was wondering what's keeping me from challenging the MG ban, specifically the ban on new registrations.

Any thoughts on how I could get standing? Without going to a federal prison first?
Click to expand...

After reading the majority opinion written by Justice Silberman (and a more masterful usage of the English language I've not seen in a great while) I began to contemplate this very notion. The Justice makes much reference to the Second Militia Act (of 1789, I believe) and how the Second amendment applies to providing that members of the militia should be armed in a manner consistent with the infantry armaments of the day.

Which, to me, pretty clearly says M4.

Since the thing that gave this case its standing was the application and denial for a permit, it seems to me that one might be able to progress by applying to the ATF for an NFA tax stamp for the transfer of a brand new in box M4, so that you can fulfill your duties as a member of the unorganized militia.

They will, of course, reject you.

This seems to create the sort of "injury" that Justice Silberman spoke of in granting certiorari to the Parker case. From there on out, it's just a matter of money... and lots of it. 'Cause while the antis aren't happy about D.C. peons getting handguns back, they'll go utterly berzerk over the idea that real assault rifles might become affordable to the common man again.

Now, I AM NOT A LAWYER. I'm a software engineer. Please do not take anything I have said as anything ever vaguely resembling legitimate legal advice. It's just the ramblings of someone who enjoyed taking the ideas presented as I understood them to a logical extension. Please consult an actual lawyer before attempting this.
 
Since the thing that gave this case its standing was the application and denial for a permit, it seems to me that one might be able to progress by applying to the ATF for an NFA tax stamp for the transfer of a brand new in box M4, so that you can fulfill your duties as a member of the unorganized militia.

They will, of course, reject you.
Click to expand...
Isn't this something that the NRA should be doing? Funding one person throught the whole application/denial/court case. It would cost alot of money but all would benifit fromm this.
 
The NRA does do this type of thing. Check out the NRA Civil Defense Fund for example. Having said that, the NRA mostly focuses on helping individuals and has a poor record in success by a coordinated litigation strategy. I would donate my money to SAF if I wanted to promote these types of suits.
 
Turnabout...

Whenever a thread concerns LE misconduct, someone always makes the statistical observation: "99.99% of the profession is fine, upstanding, honest, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent. This thread uses the rare exception to tar the occupation, and is, therefor, bashing.":eek:

Here, much is made of the selfless sacrifice of (security guard?) Heller. He's a hero for signing on to a 2A lawsuit that might (or might not) advance gun ownership. His employment arguably saves the suit from dismissal.

Two questions:

1. Mr. Heller is but one of thousands of LE in the District. Why, as Achilles asked of the Thessalonians: "Is there no one else?"

2. The perceived risk that Mr. Heller is praised for bucking; is the political retribution of the LE establishment (aka blue wall). Whoa, we're told this doesn't exist, and anyone suggesting so is a basher...what gives?

Please return to your previously scheduled adulation.
 
Heller sounds like a man who wasn't bought off by HR218. Integrity counts for a lot.

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood
 
As a resident of the individual-right-acknowledging 5th Circuit, and a somewhat legally-literate person, I was wondering what's keeping me from challenging the MG ban, specifically the ban on new registrations.

Any thoughts on how I could get standing? Without going to a federal prison first?
Click to expand...

1) File BATF Form 1 for a new M16 (which you have to do anyway).
2) Wait for BATF to reject the application.
3) File lawsuit.

If Parker is upheld and the USSC rules that the Second Amendment protects an individual right then this would be the way to have standing w/o getting arrested.
 
Given Ofcr. Heller's value to the case, why is it called "Parker"?
Click to expand...

A common legal convention when citing a case is just to refer to the first plaintiff in the case when there are multiple plaintiffs. In this case, Parker was the first plaintiff.
 
But federal guard Heller had more legal standing than Parker.
The lawyer who picked this group of citizens to file this suit
had his ducks in a row. What better way to show the injustice
of the DC ban than to deny home self defense to a qualified
law enforcement officer.
 
Officer or Mr. Heller, whichever is appropriate might have placed his job at risk respecting his joining this suit. Re that, how many at this or other sites would or ever have placed their jobs at risk over a matter of principle.

I did once, years ago. I lost that job, however like fish in the sea, there were lots of other jobs. I had a bunch of them too. Funniest thing is that in later years, I worked on a contract basis, for the above mentioned outfit 3 times. Perhaps I was easily amused, perhaps they were, perhaps all concerned were the above mentioned, or simply slow to learn.

In any case Officer Heller deserves our praise, and thanks.
 
ilcylic:

I'm not a lawyer either, rather simply a retired Piping Designer, sometime field engineer/construction supervisor. Having said that, and coming to this business of "standing" re the bringing of legal actions, the more I think of it, the more I come to the following conclusion re that arcane concept.

Courts that for one reason or another would rather duck a question than hear arguments on the merits and rule thereon, rulings are subject to appeal and overturning, utilize this "standing" business as something behind which they hide.

As another poster asked, absent having been jailed, or perhaps bankrupted, if that would suffice, how does one show "injury", a showing of "injury" being necessary to establish standing.
 
Here's a tip'o'the cup to Mr. Heller near St. Patty's Day! :D Seriously, though, I agree that there are many wonderful LEOs out there. It is unfortunate that only the bad ones get air time in the MSM, which is what influences many people's opinions of them. It's just like anything else--guns, doctors, lawyers, etc. Only the bad ones get air time. We should keep that in mind when we criticize the bad LEOs--that they are likely in the minority, just as criminals using firearms illegally are in the minority among firearm owners.
 
alan said:
As another poster asked, absent having been jailed, or perhaps bankrupted, if that would suffice, how does one show "injury", a showing of "injury" being necessary to establish standing.
Click to expand...

You don't need to show injury even. You just need to show credible threat of injury. In most of the other circuits, the potential for being prosecuted for violating the law would be considered enough of a credible threat to grant standing. Only in the D.C. circuit is this not enough. There you have to show that you specifically have been threatened with prosecution.

Very Simplified Example:
"Anyone with a short-barrelled rifle will be thrown in jail" You possess a short-barrelled rifle in violation of the law. You have standing in other circuits but not in D.C. In order to have standing in D.C. you would need to show where the government said "Alan, we know you have a short-barreled rifle and are going to throw you in jail" in order to establish a credible threat of injury.

Also you are correct, standing is certainly used to dodge controversial issues that the court doesn't want to address, even at the Supreme Court level. However, there is a quite a body of law and precedent around this issue so there are some rules to it.
 
Bartholomew Roberts:

I'm not a lawyer either. That aside, or possibly because of that, I wonder as to the differences between D.C. circuit and other circuits, though it certainly might be that each circuit makes it's own rules re such matters. Seems as if that could create hellish problems as it seems to me that such a situation would blow the idea of case law all to hell.

Re the example you gave: "Anyone with a short-barrelled rifle will be thrown in jail" You possess a short-barrelled rifle in violation of the law. You have standing in other circuits but not in D.C. In order to have standing in D.C. you would need to show where the government said "Alan, we know you have a short-barreled rifle and are going to throw you in jail" in order to establish a credible threat of injury.

-----------------

On it's face, this makes no sense at all, however respecting the D.C. circuit being "different" from other circuits, I guess that it does.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

2
  • Locked
Judge Denies NRA Motion to Consolidate Pro-Gun Lawsuits
Replies
15
Views
770
Shooter 2.5
S
A
  • Locked
interesting reading, the following mentioned articles, possibly posters comments too
Replies
0
Views
261
alan
A
A
  • Locked
thoughts on another aspect of Heller
Replies
1
Views
389
Hypnogator
Hypnogator
A
  • Locked
18 May Cato Daily Dispatch (www.cato.org), what will Mayor Fenty do?
Replies
0
Views
274
alan
A
M
  • Locked
Parker Update: Levy Calls Out DC Mayor Fenty
Replies
6
Views
724
mons meg
M
Back
Top