This is supposed to be the top Second Amendment attorney in the country????

[Tempest]

You've read it?

If you have read the entire transcript, which of Roy Lucas' comments do you find erroneous or false in any way? Care to enlighten us?

And why shouldn't we respond emotionally? Halbrook is sabotaging the Second Amendment - either out of incompetence or compromise - and we're supposed to sit idly by and smile? Nope. Sorry.

 

[KMKeller]

Folks, PLEASE beware of ANYONE who uses emotional arguments instead of facts to bolster their positions. We're all (rightly) outraged when Sarah Brady and their ilk produce the old, tired argument that "It's for the CHIIIIILLDREN!" Let's not make the same mistake when our own side uses similar emotional arguments... otherwise we'll be hoist with our own petard.

You're comparing KABA to the Brady Bunch?!?

 

[Preacherman]

No, I've made no such comparison. If you wish to draw such an inference from what I said, that's your privilege - but I think the words I used speak for themselves. No comparison was made between any organizations or individuals.

Again, I appeal to all our members... let's be rational, logical and analytical in our approach. Emotional responses do NOT serve us well, and never will. Emotions don't go over well in court, either, when we have to argue cases in the face of law, logic and Constitutional issues.

In Africa, we have a saying: "How do you eat an elephant? Mouthful by mouthful!" In the court case under discussion, the NRA is trying to use the "mouthful by mouthful" approach, as I understand it. DC has enforced a registry of firearms (which I agree is unconstitutional) for many, many years. The first step they're taking is to have the (currently closed) handgun register re-opened. After that is accomplished, the question of whether the register itself is Constitutional or not can be re-examined.

The latter question, by the way, is a VERY hotly debated issue. Constitutional challenges to other handgun/firearm registers (e.g. Chicago, New York, etc.) have FAILED in court - the judicial system has consistently ruled that registration does not constitute infringement of a right. We all know that registration can lead to confiscation - witness those who registered their AR15's, etc. in California (with a promise that these weapons would NOT be banned), only to find them banned a short while later! However, getting rid of registration is going to be very difficult, if not impossible, through the courts. It'll probably take nationally overriding legislation to do so.

 

[Tempest]

Preacherman, would you mind answering the question? Which parts of Mr. Lucas' analysis do you find false or "emotionalist" and can you counter them with your version of the truth please?

 

[madmike]

With all due respect to Bartholemew and Preacherman....


IF they win this (and I agree the judge is NOT hostile. He's saying, "Give me something to work with and I'll hear your case." Not friendly, perhaps, but not hostile), the end result will be, "Yes, you can have guns, as long as they are registered." THAT will be the new precedent. If they lose...the existing registration will be upheld as valid. And that ^$$hole Kopel has the nerve to argue about "bad cases" to take to court?

This is the same incremental approach the NRA used to defeat NFA 1934, GCA 1968, AWB 1994...oh, wait, did they LOSE those?

When someone starts mindlessly DEFENDING the NRA against gross incompetence, one has to wonder what THEIR true motive is? Need some more sand to cover your heads with?

I've loudly disagreed with Angel on dozens of occasions. But he, and Nicki, and Mr Lucas, and others are bang on the nail on this one.

For reference: do you know WHY Wade lost Roe v Wade? Wade wanted abortions to be prohibited after (IIRC) the 12th week.

Court's response: "Why twelve weeks? Why not eleven or thirteen?"

"We don't know, you're honor."

Bang. Gavel drops.

Halbrook is doing the same thing. "It's a right, but it can be restricted to several classes of people, regulated and licensed, and the government can legally do that."

"And the government has done that, by allowing them to register shotguns and rifles. Not pistols except in certain cases."

Bang. Gavel drops.

Halbrook has, in no uncertain terms, #$^&* the dog on this. He is CLEARLY unprepared, since he can't quote the relevant EXISTING law to support his position--which any "Second Amendment expert," or even most of the membership of THR can quote from memory.

I showed this to three lawyers last night, all very pro-gun, all used to trials. The concurrence is that Halbrook needs to stick to writing researched briefs. He's an unarmed man in a battle of wits.

Name ANY incremental win of civil rights? First Amendment was depictions of anal sex in the Kama Sutra. Black rights was using "prohibited" white only places and facilities in violation of the law. They didn't argue for water fountains now, while conceding bathrooms as segregated, then try bathrooms, conceding schools...

You win by DEMANDING, not whining and conceding.

HE HAS CONCEDED THE GOV'T HAS A RIGHT TO REGISTER WEAPONS. Please tell me how this is a good thing? They conceded it in 1934 (hell, didn't even fight it), conceded registration at the dealer's level in 1968, and are conceding it now. I assume their motives are good. I can also clearly see that they are unprepared for the case.

Once more: YOU WIN CIVIL RIGHTS CASES BY BEING AN EXTREMIST ^$$HOLE. YOU DO NOT WIN BY BEING REASONABLE.


Oh, and " I think this is
unfair as history seems to demonstrate that the incremental approach is the most
effective solution to implementing any political policy."


Bull. Name three examples.

CATO has a case pending on this, last I heard. The NRA filed theirs, roped in Ashcroft, who wasn't a party to the DC ban in '76, thus causing him to have to send an attorney to defend himself. I don't LIKE Ashcroft, but he has said it's an individual right. You want to talk about attacking the messenger? The fed's lawyer wouldn't be _IN_ this if the NRA hadn't flung dirt at them.

"In Seegars et. al. vs Ashcroft The Court found that the government could legally register weapons. Plaintiff didn't argue against it. Clearly, registration is Constitutional."

That is not a "win" in DC. It's a partial reprieve. It's a LOSS for the ENTIRE REST OF THE NATION that doesn't have registration.

Mister Halbrook, please don't help.

 

[KMKeller]

No, I've made no such comparison. If you wish to draw such an inference from what I said, that's your privilege - but I think the words I used speak for themselves. No comparison was made between any organizations or individuals.

Directly, no. But the inference is there given the topic of conversation and the content of your previous paragraph. Your intent is quite clear and rather distasteful.

 

[Brett Bellmore]

For all I know the NRA's got this uber-strategy that's as good as guaranteed to win in the end. But, you know, they've got to spend less time assuming that everyone has a moral obligation to go along with whatever the NRA choses to do, and more time explaining what they plan to do, and WHY they intend to do it that way. BEFORE they do it, and outrage people!

And maybe even listen when people raise objections...

With respect to Halbrook's showing, not everybody is good at extemporanious speech. Maybe he's hot stuff when he has a chance to sit down and write stuff out? Like the guy complaining about it did?

 

[Preacherman]

Preacherman, would you mind answering the question? Which parts of Mr. Lucas' analysis do you find false or "emotionalist" and can you counter them with your version of the truth please?

Nicki, I'm sure no-one here is interested in my (or your) "version of the truth". I will not be posting any of my own interpretations here - instead, as stated before, I invite all interested parties to read the original transcripts and filings, in their entirety, for themselves, and make up their own minds. I have no intention of getting into a "my interpretation is better than yours" contest with you, or anyone else. I trust THR members to be able to make up their own minds - not on the basis of my arguments, or yours, or Holbrook's, or Lucas's, or anyone else's, but on the basis of FACTS that they research FOR THEMSELVES.

 

[Tempest]

With respect to Halbrook's showing, not everybody is good at extemporanious speech. Maybe he's hot stuff when he has a chance to sit down and write stuff out? Like the guy complaining about it did?

Brett, with all due respect, a couple of things:

1 - A constitutional scholar and a self-professed expert on the Second Amendment should know the definition of "unorganized militia" without cue cards.

2 - The Seegars hearing took place last week on 8 October. Roy had this written up in less than a week. How long did Mr. Halbrook have to work up his substandard arguments in this case? And why in the world would he go into a motions hearing so woefully unprepared?

 

[Tempest]

Nicki, I'm sure no-one here is interested in my (or your) "version of the truth". I will not be posting any of my own interpretations here - instead, as stated before, I invite all interested parties to read the original transcripts and filings, in their entirety, for themselves, and make up their own minds. I have no intention of getting into a "my interpretation is better than yours" contest with you, or anyone else. I trust THR members to be able to make up their own minds - not on the basis of my arguments, or yours, or Holbrook's, or Lucas's, or anyone else's, but on the basis of FACTS that they research FOR THEMSELVES.

Wrong, preacherman. I'm interested in your interpretation. You have made some claims in this thread, accusing Angel and KABA of fear mongering and emotionalizing the issue. I'd like to know your reasons - what comments of Mr. Lucas' do just that. Otherwise, I will take your claims for what they very transparently are.

 

[KMKeller]

I'll second that. You had no reservations about expressing your opinion of KABA and the article which presents us with a rough "defacto" opinion from you. Please do clarify.

 

[Preacherman]

Madmike, you said:

You win by DEMANDING, not whining and conceding.

HE HAS CONCEDED THE GOV'T HAS A RIGHT TO REGISTER WEAPONS. Please tell me how this is a good thing? They conceded it in 1934 (hell, didn't even fight it), conceded registration at the dealer's level in 1968, and are conceding it now. I assume their motives are good. I can also clearly see that they are unprepared for the case.

Once more: YOU WIN CIVIL RIGHTS CASES BY BEING AN EXTREMIST ^$$HOLE. YOU DO NOT WIN BY BEING REASONABLE.

Once again, I respectfully (and I do mean respectfully!) point out that judicial precedent overwhelmingly supports the view that firearm registration does NOT equate to infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. I fully agree that this is not the case: but we're not fighting about what you and I agree on - we're facing a situation of established jurisprudence. To override this will either mean a wholesale replacement of our judges with pro-RKBA types, or a nationally-enforced law (which survives the inevitable challenges in the courts - you can bet that Chicago, NYC, et.al. will challenge it) to change (i.e. override) this legal precedent.

Mike, Nicky and others: please understand that we ARE on the same side of the RKBA debate! I support the Second Amendment as fully as you do - in fact, since I was involved in a civil war situation for eighteen years, was repeatedly injured, and had to defend my own life by using lethal force on rather more than one occasion, I daresay I understand the importance of RKBA even more practically than you do! If we disagree on methods, this does not make us enemies.

I don't intend to continue this debate, but I'm not going to be the "bad, overweening moderator" and close this thread down. I merely repeat my invitation to all interested parties to ascertain the facts FOR THEMSELVES, on the basis of documented, original evidence (not the interpretations of any individual or organization), and then decide for themselves.

 

[madmike]

Oh, and just out of curiosity, do you recall who clobbered the gov't on Roe V. Wade? (Whether you agree with it or not, it was a landmark case against the government.)


A certain Roy Lucas.

Do you really think Halbrook is that good? In light of available evidence?

Hell, _I_ could have responded to the Court's questions better than he did. And I don't even have a law degree.

I just wonder how the NRA is going to spin this if they lose?

But I'm done. I haven't sent them any money in ten years because of crap like this, and, like Snitch and Wussy, they need to die. Not entirely, perhaps, but the loss of a 100,000, 500,000, a million members, until they get the idea we want them to fight. Our opponents aren't reasonable, therefore the letter of the law is our limit. Being "morally superior and reasonable" only works if the public can see it.

Ghandi did it against the Brits. It wouldn't have worked against the Nazis. Which do DC and Sarah Grabby more resemble?

And when cheerleaders will support every idiocy as a brilliant part of a master plan (which apparently will take at least 150 years--it's taken 100+ already), voting against an incumbent scumsucker who posts misleading $50K ads designed to look like official policy in the magazines (I speak of LaQueer) (Apologies to our gay members), which ads cause said cheerleaders to be "Advised" on how to vote by an interested party, there's no point in wasting more time.

AWB will be renewed, registration will become a fact of life, semis be banned, repeaters be limited to three rounds, scopes outlawed, and the NRA will continue to tell us how it's "fighting a good fight and needs your money" and how "we're winning the fight and need your money" and "at a crucial point and need your money" so they can pay laQueer's $450K a year salary.

Him AND the Halbrook he rode in on.

The NRA should stick to hunting bunnies and target shooting. Until they are prepared to post their prez holding a REAL rifle, not a sportsman's toy, they can get stuffed.

And I don't want to see another article about all the wonderful, hi-tech toys the US Gov't has in the War on (some) Terror and (some) Drugs and (some) Guns...hi-tech toys that you and I are not allowed to own. It's insulting. I burned that issue. "Hey, look at all these neat guns you can't have!"

Gee, thanks, NRA.

 

[madmike]

Preacherman, you're not my enemy. But I do think you're too forgiving and honest.

This IS going to be used against us, just like Miller. A case the NRA insists is good law.

The judiciary thinks it's good law, too. Every time they quote it against us.


Win the battle, lose the war.

 

[KMKeller]

What bothers me the most Preacherman, is not the opinions that are at play regarding the piece that was written, but that you come in slinging dung at KABA and now seem unwilling to speak to that. You voiced your opinion quite clearly then. Do you retract your statements?

What happened to taking The High Road?

 

[madmike]

Brett, you're probably right. There's just one problem.

If you intend to step into that arena, you'd BETTER be good at extemporaneous argument in front of a hostile crowd. Or you lose.

And preparation is the key to it.

And please check out Mr. Lucas' credentials before you make snide comments about "having a week to prepare."

Halbrook's had over a year. He's just shown us his best, against a CITY FLUNKY.

 

[Tempest]

Once again, I respectfully (and I do mean respectfully!) point out that judicial precedent overwhelmingly supports the view that firearm registration does NOT equate to infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. I fully agree that this is not the case: but we're not fighting about what you and I agree on - we're facing a situation of established jurisprudence. To override this will either mean a wholesale replacement of our judges with pro-RKBA types, or a nationally-enforced law (which survives the inevitable challenges in the courts - you can bet that Chicago, NYC, et.al. will challenge it) to change (i.e. override) this legal precedent.

Judicial precedent overwhelmingly relies on the Miller decision for this particular view. Now, what do you think would be a sounder strategy: Getting Miller overturned (Something Silveira addresses very well), or arguing that just a little infringement is OK, setting a definitive negative precedent?

Mike, Nicky and others: please understand that we ARE on the same side of the RKBA debate! I support the Second Amendment as fully as you do - in fact, since I was involved in a civil war situation for eighteen years, was repeatedly injured, and had to defend my own life by using lethal force on rather more than one occasion, I daresay I understand the importance of RKBA even more practically than you do! If we disagree on methods, this does not make us enemies.

Then I respectfully suggest you stop acting like one. I daresay I understand the importance of RKBA quite well, having been born and raised in the former Soviet Union. I also dare say that attacking KABA and Angel for pointing out obvious errors, flaws and compromises in this particular case does not help anyone in the situation. In order to be effective fighters for our cause, we must be able to criticize our own and call them on it when they are wrong. Roy Lucas did just that. Respectfully, without emotionalism, relying on his VAST knowledge of jurisprudence. You, preacherman, went on the offensive, claimed that KABA and Angel somehow were fostering emotionalism and divisiveness in our movement and then refused to point out which portions of the annotated transcripts did so.

I don't intend to continue this debate, but I'm not going to be the "bad, overweening moderator" and close this thread down.

I appreciate that. This thread is crucial.

I merely repeat my invitation to all interested parties to ascertain the facts FOR THEMSELVES, on the basis of documented, original evidence (not the interpretations of any individual or organization), and then decide for themselves.

What is stopping the intelligent, interested parties on THR from reading and judging for themselves AND getting an answer to the question I posed to you? If you are going to attack a fellow RKBA activist, at least please state objective reasons for doing so.

 

[boyd425]

If you believe that nothing short of pure and absolute Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms yesterday is the minimum acceptable legal standard then what are you doing here? You do not have that in the United States (arguably Texas is close, but the LEO arresting you as you saunter thru Downtown austin with your M16 might differ).
AFAIK that is the llegal reality of the US today. It seems to me like a lot of peoples typing doesn't reflect that, a lot of folks are saying that any incremental improvement that doesn't immediately move the existing legal system to absolute unrestricted IRKBA is an unacceptable support of the destruction of our rights. And that's just fine, if you believe that incremental change is unacceptable you should certainly express that. But I rather object to people painting verbal picture of folks who do support incremental change as unprincipled. The rhetoric going around is that Halbrook is, essentially, -evil-. And it's done in such an -emotional- way as to drown out any talk of people who are actually do act evily from the perspective of our issue (Schumer, Feinstein, Brady et al). If you guys believe the reason of your arguments then you don't -need- all of the emotional decoration your loading it with.
If you assembled a group of residents in the District of Columbia (that's what we're talking about here folks; DC) and asked them if they would like to be able to own handguns that had been registered what do you think they're gonna say? We didn't get into the mess in one giant step, it doesn't seem likely to me that we'll climb out of it in only one step. All of this is my personal opinion. Boyd Kneeland

 

[Tempest]

If you believe that nothing short of pure and absolute Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms yesterday is the minimum acceptable legal standard then what are you doing here?

Fighting for the right thing.

AFAIK that is the llegal reality of the US today.

Is it a reality incapable of being changed?

a lot of folks are saying that any incremental improvement that doesn't immediately move the existing legal system to absolute unrestricted IRKBA is an unacceptable support of the destruction of our rights. And that's just fine, if you believe that incremental change is unacceptable you should certainly express that. But I rather object to people painting verbal picture of folks who do support incremental change as unprincipled.

Wrong. What we are saying is that this isn't an improvement - incremental or otherwise. The NRA has spoken out against registration numerous times. And yet, here is their lead attorney saying registration is an acceptable restriction on RKBA. This sets a destructive precedent for our cause. Period. And yes, it is unprincipled.

If you assembled a group of residents in the District of Columbia (that's what we're talking about here folks; DC) and asked them if they would like to be able to own handguns that had been registered what do you think they're gonna say? We didn't get into the mess in one giant step, it doesn't seem likely to me that we'll climb out of it in only one step. All of this is my personal opinion. Boyd Kneeland

A bizarrely unconstitutional step for DC, and a major screwing for the RKBA. The ends DO NOT justify the means here.

 

[Wildalaska]

Well now that I got my milk and cookies, let me note to Preach, as always, I agree with you....

In the big battle, the extemeists on both sides are gonna lose. Both sides.

And as a result, we are gonna have a US where the 2nd am is an idividual right, subject to reasonable regulation that passes contitutional muster. And cry and whine as Sarah Brady and Angel Shamaya might, you are gonna see essetnially the same system we have today with the de facto bans such as NYC and DC and Calif have (ie registration prior to posession or outright prohibtion) being declared constituional. Felona and prohibted persons still wont be able to own, Instant Checks will continue and any place that wants to ban concealed wreapons can.

That being said, anyone who thinks that oral argument makes a whit of difference to a Court hasnt argued many cases before a Court.

WildandnoIveneverbeenhigherthanthe2ndcirAlaska

 

[Tempest]

And as a result, we are gonna have a US where the 2nd am is an idividual right, subject to reasonable regulation that passes contitutional muster. And cry and whine as Sarah Brady and Angel Shamaya might, you are gonna see essetnially the same system we have today with the de facto bans such as NYC and DC and Calif have (ie registration prior to posession or outright prohibtion) being declared constituional. Felona and prohibted persons still wont be able to own, Instant Checks will continue and any place that wants to ban concealed wreapons can.

I guess it's a good thing that some of us are willing to fight for what's right.

 

[Wildalaska]

I guess it's a good thing that some of us are willing to fight for what's right.

Right is relative, Sarah Brady fights for whats right too.

 

[KMKeller]

Wildalaska says:

"...anyone who thinks that oral argument makes a whit of difference
to a Court hasnt argued many cases before a Court."

Perhaps you haven't looked at the credentials of the man
who annotated Mr. Halbrook's oral arguments. His name is Roy Lucas.
http://KeepAndBearArms.com/lucas/roy.asp
He's won in the Supreme Court, eleven of twelve Circuit courts and
nine (9) State Supreme Courts.

The oral argument -- and lack thereof -- does indeed matter.

That you think using the Second Amendment to demand handgun
registration is a step in the right direction surprises me.

 

[boyd425]

"Wrong. What we are saying is that this isn't an improvement - incremental or otherwise. "

Nicki, citizens in Washington DC are not currently allowed to own handguns.

 

[Tempest]

Right is relative, Sarah Brady fights for whats right too.

Right is objective and absolute.