Will we still have to "worry" ?

[Urbana John]

Everyone on here and many other 2A "sites" know that the US Supreme Court is "expected" to make a ruling/decision on our "Rights" BEFORE Nov. 2008.

So------IF-----the court rules in our favor------will our next President, who ever he/she might be--------be able to pass, or get passed, more "bans" on our RIGHTS???

Seems to me, ALOT more people are realizing how important "gun rights" and our 2A laws are.

The DC laws that started this, and today SF,Calif judges overturned their gun bans after a year and 1/2.

So IF the US Supreme Court makes a decision in our favor, can the POUS do anything ???? that would "ban" our weapons or our God given rights??

UJ

 

[Gator]

Even if SCOTUS rules in our favor, don't expect any big changes; it will be a very narrow ruling only affecting big cities with total bans on possession. And the gun banners will redouble their efforts, so yes, we will still have to worry.

 

[TexasRifleman]

You have to understand that the Supremes will only answer one question, and one question only in this case.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?

 

[Winchester 73]

Correct.But if they vote against DC ,it could open the door to striking down similar anti-gun regs in Chicago and its environs,NYC,NJ and other Socialist Dictatorships.
We can only hope this will start reversing the tide of 22,000 gun control laws, most put on the books since 1934.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Correct.But if they vote against DC ,it could open the door to striking down similar anti-gun regs in Chicago and its environs,NYC,NJ and other Socialist Dictatorships.

Can they really? I'm no lawyer, I'll say that for sure first off.

Some folks that are seem to think it won't matter much since DC is a "special case", not being a state. States can do whatever they want, and clearly do in the places you mentioned, but the Fed can't. Since DC isn't a state, the argument of some of the folks I've read goes, it should have MORE gun freedoms than anywhere else, since only States can restrict it "reasonably". And reasonable isn't being argued here.

Like I say, it's all way beyond my knowledge but that's the argument I've read some legal scholar types make.

So they go on to say that it might help with many of the Federal laws but the states can still do pretty much anything they want.

I guess I'm disappointed in the question that the Supremes will answer, it doesn't seem like much, but I'm probably not nearly smart enough in the legal arena to say.

 

[Standing Wolf]

We can quit worrying when the last leftist extremist chokes to death from gorging at the public trough: not in my lifetime, anyway.

 

[Winchester 73]

TR
I'm not a lawyer either(no sarcasm will be added!) but some are saying this case could lead to the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment under the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause.
Most of the Bill of Rights have gone this route since the 1940's.This would make for a whole new ball game for State's Right's vs the 2A.I don't know if this would end up being a plus or minus for most 2A advocates and our positions.
More knowledgeable minds might have an opinion.

 

[catfish101]

This is also a bigger issue then the fact of it being based on guns. As we all know a agree it is an issue with our rights in general.

Our country is slowly becoming more like a communist nation all the time. Taxes and more laws. Governments are taking more and more rights away from the people. The Smoking ban for example. I can see a government or public building but alot of places have a ban everywhere. A business should be able to allow smoking and if a person does not want to go in there they that is their decision.


Alot of the laws may not seem much but it is a fact that your daily life choices and decisions are being made for you.

 

[freddd]

Freedoms are Fading

This is a hot-button with me. I agree wholeheartedly about the smoking bans. It makes me crazy :banghead: . The other one that gets me is seatbelt laws. Do I wear my seatbelt? Abso-stinkin-lutely. Do they get to tell me I HAVE to? There's where it bothers me. Make sense?

That's why I'm prone to think we need to worry even if the SCOTUS votes the only logical way and agrees with us. Things are tightening not loosening, even with our guns. That's even though things in Washington are quiet about them right now....

 

[everallm]

TR,

One of the points that has tended to be glossed over with the POTENTIAL positive Supemes ruling is how it could overturn established precedent.

The law is a a slow moving avalanche of "established" law, precedent, legal opinion, SC rulings etc. Like an avalanche, that weight is usually almost impossible to divert and will roll over anything dissenting in it's path. The SC rulings on Constitutional matters are one of the few circumstances that have sufficient weight to start to affect this avalance

Now, the DC ruling is one question but with 3 distinct elements.

1. Second amendment relates to individuals and not militia
2. Handguns are eligible to be covered as any other firearm
3. Private use and storage without dissasembly/lock in the home shall not be infringed

Each of these, if ruled in a positive manner, has the potential to be used to overturn a huge swathe of established and settled law.

Number 1 strikes directly to the legality of private ownership and RKBA in the context of 2A, decoupling the militia element.

Number 2 is that handguns are legitimate and must be treated the same as any other legal weapon. This directly leads to action against the defacto bans in places such as NYC and Chicago.
This could be leveraged to the issue of what else is a legal weapon to be owned and could lead to challenge of 922 for example

Number 3 closes the loophole where someone can own a handgun but can't move it in an active configuration within their own home.

Each of these leads to the opportunity to challenge established law and is the next stage in a long process......

 

[GunTech]

Even if the court holds that the 2nd amendment applies to individuals, there is still the question of what is reasonable restriction on the right. There are restrictions on other constitutional rights.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Each of these, if ruled in a positive manner, has the potential to be used to overturn a huge swathe of established and settled law.

Makes sense, thanks for breaking it out for me, I'd have never come to that much detail on my own.

 

[USAFNoDAk]

Our country is slowly becoming more like a communist nation all the time. Taxes and more laws. Governments are taking more and more rights away from the people. The Smoking ban for example. I can see a government or public building but alot of places have a ban everywhere. A business should be able to allow smoking and if a person does not want to go in there they that is their decision.



The governments, including local, state, and federal, have become so powerful that they are able to enact any law by tweaking the verbage to make sure the government is within its "powers" to do the controlling. Take the smoking bans for instance. Did they pass these without considering private property rights? Not really. The recognized that this would be a violation if all they did was pass the smoking bans. How did they do it? They made it a health issue under OSHA type regulations. The smoking bans for the most part are to "protect" the workers in the bars and restaurants which are private enities but which open their doors to the public, giving the government the foot in the door (no pun intended) to regulate them to some extent. Government has virtually unlimited resources in high powered lawyers, money, a monoply on force, etc. Once they decide they want a certain power, they tend to get it. The constitution and the Bill of Rights have become nothing more than speed bumps for the most part.

That can be changed, but we have to vote the right people into offices to make those changes happen. I can't see myself holding my breath waiting for the governments to be put back in their legal frameworks anytime soon. I'll continue to do what I can to fight, however.

 

[goalie]

Of course we have to worry. We have to win every time. They only have to win once.

 

[romma]

I am personally not at the point of worrying... Concerned? Yes...

 

[rdhood]

Sure, we will still have to be concerned. Next, there will dozens of cases to decide which regulations are/aren't "restrictions".

Further, this case only decides the "keep" portion of the 2nd in your home. There is still the "keep" portion of the 2nd when not in your home, as well as the full array of "bear" portions of the 2nd. Miller has made the "which arms" question a little less muddy, but not much.

There is still lots to do. No sense getting worried about it.

 

[ozwyn]

To some extent we will always have to worry.

However, I think things may be changing in our favor. Local TV news was talking about the viriginia gun show loophole law nonsense, and they described those who oppose the law as "gun rights groups".

That use of language, from a normally very left tv station, sent a clear signal as far as gun rights being seen as, well, gun rights. (not Pro-gun, not NRA-lobbyists, not gun store owners, not local militia groups, not one of a dozen innacurate, biased labels. gun RIGHTS.)

 

[shield20]

A positive ruling will set the stage for future reviews of questionable laws; if it clarifies correctly the narrow-minded view from Miller, and agrees with other "individual right" rulings like Dred Scott, I think it will go far to protect us against current and future bans. Every new case concerning gun rights can/will get to quote the new & correct Supreme Court decision.

Other things to keep in mind...
Seems even DC argues the importance of the Militia, and even state how national bans on what arms people keep privately are basically unconstitutional (conflict with states), and agree, AT THE LEAST, “that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty” - i.e. the people have a right to the possession of militia-related weapons. Even though this isn't the question, the USSC may need to address (and agree) to this in their decision.

DC argues (quite unsuccessfully) over what "keep and bear arms" means - which should give the easy to prove true meaning an important place in the decision.


I think this stuff is critical, because if the ruling confirms AND ARTICULATES the individual right, the correct scope of RKBA, AND still recognizes the importance of the people's militia (& applicable weapons), this could severly limit the "reasonable" test - for instance, how reasonable is a ban on certain weapons types if that weapon is critical to an effective militia? How reasonable is a "gun free zone" if it disarms the people AND the members of the militia(us)? OUR freedom depends on an effective militia - no restriction is reasonable if it makes that militia ineffective.

 

[scout26]

Yes, the Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance.

The anti's won't quit.

 

[Deavis]

will our next President, who ever he/she might be--------be able to pass, or get passed, more "bans" on our RIGHTS???

First the POUS doesn't pass laws, Congress does. The president is merely a cheerleader, it is the Congressman you send that are of 1st order importance.

The question being answered in Heller is narrow, there will be plenty of work left to bring gun laws into line with the 2A.

 

[Master Blaster]

The president doesn't write laws, but he can unilateraly pass an executive order (EO) that has the force of a law unless it is challenged in court. The Import ban 922r is an example, as is the closing of the machine gunregistry in 1986.

The folks who dont like it will have to go to court to get it overturned or congress can pass a law nullifying the EO

 

[bruss01]

They can pass and sign whatever laws they please. Those laws remain on the books and are enforced, even if they are blatantly unconstitutional. First, you have to have a court case where the law was plainly broken (a guilty plea or verdict) and then an appeal on constitutional grounds. Meanwhile the defendant rots in prison. Eventually it comes up to a higher court which rules the law invalid on constitutional grounds. At that moment, that law ceases to be enforced and anyone convicted under it may start proceedings to secure their release, since the law they broke was no law at all (invalid from the date of it's adoption). At that point, the lawmakers may reword the law only slightly and pass it again. This law also remains on the books and is enforced until struck down.... and so on. This has happened with the "1000 feet from a school" law. I don't know about you but I don't have any ambition to be that "test case" and sacrifice 10 years of my life behind bars hoping for a CHANCE that I might win something.

What Heller may buy us is the right to attack these laws with the legal precedent to back us up. Some may be suits, many will likely be prosecutions. Many times a suit is denied cert because "standing" is not found, in other words you can't claim a law did anything to harm you unless you broke it, therefore you have no case. Of course if you DO have a case then you're sitting in jail with huge legal fees and no job... boy, what a racket. It is a miracle we got Heller to the Supremes without a criminal case. That's why this case has been so long in coming. Almost all the criminal cases were "tainted" because the defendant really was guilty of wrongdoing, not just breaking the law, in fact I believe that was the case in Miller and that was a very muddy and ambiguous decision, complicated by the fact that no one argued the defendant's case due to his demise.

 

[Kharn]

Master Blaster:
922(o) (Closed MG registry) was voted upon by Congress and signed into law, it wasnt an executive order.

Kharn

 

[Sistema1927]

Semper Vigilans

 

[TexasRifleman]

it wasnt an executive order.

Yep, that one was slipped into FOPA at the last minute, ruining what was otherwise a decent step forward for 2A.

Google "Hughes Amendment" if you want the whole sickening story.