D.C. vs. Heller (Supreme Court and the 2A) - Mega Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
The argument that I have always heard about such cases is that the lefties fear the ultimate shake-out of other laws.

For example, most people tabulate that there are 22,000 gun related statutes in various states. The buggaboo in this situation is the word "nor."

For example, The Tenth reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Clearly, bearing arms is enumerated in The Second. However, some could read the following phrase as a combined condition of circumstances.

But what if a Supreme Court simply trumps the idea of States' Rights?

This would mean that all state statutes and regulations concerning the carrying of firearms in unconstitutional.

Over 22,000 statutes negated by the stroke of a pen.

To my way of thinking, it would be the cold slap of reality to leftists that the Constitution means what it says.
 
The officials in D.C. are trying so hard to keep their precious ban. Why don't they realize it does not stop violent crime- it just invites it. No wonder D.C. is in the top ten of cities in which you are most likely to be murdered!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Don't waste brain cells on wondering why gun control advocates don't seem to understand the simple logic of gun laws not affecting criminal behavior. They fear violent crime, but they also fear guns in and of themselves. The very object itself is seen as fearsome and detestable. If they can't stop crime, gun control at least reduces the number of guns in the population and thus is worthwhile to them. Until you meet a fear filled liberal who has never owned a gun, never fired a gun, and cannot even imagine a legitimate use of a gun, you will not understand that logic and facts have little or nothing to do with their passion for gun control. It is a pure emotional response. And while I do not condone using guns or any violent means to settle normal disagreements and minor disputes, the youth of today being raised to believe that violence is NEVER the answer seem to be easy recruits for the gun control movement. I am 64, a gun owner all my life, a military veteran with 24 years of active military service, and I have been trying to change people's minds on this issue for most of my life. Only the rare success makes the effort worthwhile and keeps me from being really depressed about the state of affairs in this country.
 
RDak,
Remember that the petition for cert was based on two questions:
Is the 2nd Amdt a collective right?
Does the Bill of Rights apply in DC?

When they issued the order granting cert, they spelled out exactly what question they would be answering, and it's not what was asked.
They assume from the outset that there is a second amendment individual right, that handguns are part of the collective term "firearms", and set aside the "militia" question.
When posed as they have posed it, the wiggle-room for opinion is removed. Strict scrutiny applies. Since this is an individual right according to their phrasing, DC must demonstrate that the DC code addresses a critical need, that the code does no more and no less than achieving this need, and that there is no other possible way to achieve the need.
Lawyers, please correct me if I'm wrong.
If strict scrutiny applies, the DC ban will undoubtedly be overturned and open the way to many more challenges across the country. I'm not even a lawyer and I could destroy a case claiming a city-wide ban meets strict scrutiny.

The critical part is that the court order describes the second amendment as an individual right.
violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals
Click to expand...
Which, of course, implies that individuals have second amendment rights.
 
IMO, there's 2 main types of leftists. The ones who are out and out scared of guns (like vito said), those are very common. That's the "guns are icky" crowd. To them, meat is just something you buy at a store, somehow there's no blood on their hands. These are also the kind of people who easily confuse Hollywood movies with things that actually happened.

Then there's the other type, the ones who feel that private firearms ownership is too much of a risk to their utopian vision (forced redistribution of wealth, Jumbo Size government & all the trimmings). They see all pieces of restrictive gun control as helping them reach their goal. Once the people can't shoot back, these hard leftists envision laying the real planks of marxism. The European Union is just a taste of what these people want. Truth is, when they get done you won't even have a vote.

Incidentally this 2nd type of leftist knows all about the failure of gun control to stop street crime. They don't care about street crime. Criminals are too busy cappin' each other and bustin' into your home to care about politics.

The second type of leftist cultivates the first type in some very subtle ways. Cop shows where a character points to a pistol with a 14-round magazine & says "this is practically an assault rifle... I could arrest you for this, you know!" :barf: Or TV movies where every single time a privately-owned handgun is shown, it's either stolen and used against its owner, or the owner is just a twit who shoots the wrong person.:rolleyes:

Heck, useful idiots do most of the leg work for the hard left.

Past couple decades, these lefties have toned down their rhetoric a bunch, they don't want the average voter to know how ugly their schemes really are. People who minimize the Soviet crimes against humanity, or even say they never happened-- ever wonder why?

Anyway, tryin to stay on topic, sounds like Fred is somebody I'd vote for.
 
great posts steelcore

"The Second Amendment isn't about hunting deer, it's about hunting politicians."
----Congressman "B1" Bob Dornan

As long as politicains continue to limit us all.....and we fail to limit them.....we are losing.

revolutions are the reset button!
 
Last edited:
mvpel:

Re the gentleman from Buckeye Firearms Accosiatiion and his analysis, and your comment threreon, I would say so.

Now, all we have to hope for is that The Court acts as predicted. Of course, I would like to see the broadest possibly ruling in favor of Heller, including "incorporation" of The Second Amendment, so that it applies to the states, in so many words. I doubt that we will see that in and with this case, however one can hope.

June 2008, the time mentioned when the courts ruling in Heller will likely come to public notice isn't all that far into the future, especially considering the fact that this D.C. baloney has been the law for 31 years.
 
Amicus Brief

Read Below and donate to http://academicssecondamendment.blogspot.com/

A2A was formed in 1992 by a number of present and former law school teachers, joined by historians, political scientists, and philosophers of government, who believe it is time to stand and be counted in support of a complete Bill of Rights which includes an individual right under the Second Amendment. The organization seeks to foster intellectually honest discourse on the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and, of course, the environment in which academics, judges, politicians, and the public place the rights preserved by the Second Amendment.

Academics for the Second Amendment ("A2A") will be filing an amicus brief in the US Supreme Court in support of Mr. Heller (and urging the Supreme Court to affirm the Court of Appeals decision that the DC gun laws are unconstitutional). Our brief will be written by attorneys David Hardy and Joseph Olson with historical assistance from Clayton Cramer. As one of the several pro-gun amici, we'll be taking an approach that focuses on the ratification process in 1791 and the meaning and usage of terms found in the Second Amendment. We will show that no one in America, at that time, could have understood the amendment to preserve a state or government organization's "right" and that everyone who did speak out did so in the context of a meaningful individual right to keep and bear arms.
 
Good point GoSlash. What I'm saying though is, when the question is posed by SCOTUS, they ask if the DC ban violates the 2nd Amendment rights of individuals who aren't militia members.

SCOTUS question to answer: 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?

One answer could be that non-militia members don't have individual 2nd Amendment rights. That's why I'm not so sure of the wording being a concession that non-militia members are considered to have 2nd Amendment rights "right off the bat". And that's why I feel they might have to discuss militia rights and how they differ or coincide with non-militia rights? (That could be very easy and short. ALL SCOTUS would have to say is non-militia individuals have the right to own firearms for self-defense and to guard against tyranny.)

I hope I'm explaining this well enough and not appearing to be out in leftfield? I just see their sentence indicating that SCOTUS (and probably all parties to the suit) concede there is an individual right for militia members.

Maybe I'm being over analytical and too pessimistic(sp?) but I just don't see that concession being made in the main. I hope you're right!!:D

I know you're saying SCOTUS is starting from the premise that non-militia members have individual 2nd Amendment rights and the only question to answer is if the DC ban goes too far. Like I said, I hope you're right!!!:D

You know GoSlash, I'm not so sure I want you to be correct. I WANT SCOTUS to finally say that non-militia members have individual 2nd Amendment rights for self-defense and guarding against despotism purposes. I want them to DIRECTLY make that statement. Then, once and for all, the Brady type anti-gunners can see they are wrong. I want it PLAINLY STATED by SCOTUS.

It's about TIME da** it!:mad:

The Michigan constitution says: "Every person has the right to keep and bear arms for defense of himself and the state". That's what I want SCOTUS to say in PLAIN language. And say "to prevent tryanny" also, which is a modern term for "protecting the state" IMHO.
 
Last edited:
XD and Steelcore: I understand what you are saying but don't give up yet.

MILLIONS of Americans and myself have been fightinig this battle for over 40 years now.

Things are changing. Look at all the concealed carry States now. Look at all the new gun owners who believe in the individual right to own firearms. Christ, we have MILLIONS of women supporting us now. That's beautiful, you have to admit that.

It has been a long, hard battle. Some of us did it privately by contacting legislators, contributions and by voting. Others did it publicly. But we all did it within the confines of the law. Nothing wrong with that IMHO.

And it FINALLY looks like we will win and win BIG.:D

Don't give up hope yet. Hang in there. I've been "hanging in there" for 40 God Da** years now!:eek:
 
RDak,
I know what you mean, and I'm normally pretty pessimistic myself so I can spend more time being pleasantly surprised.

But the way I read this, the question of whether non-militia members have individual rights under the 2nd Amdt has been deliberately removed from play. The order granting cert states pretty baldly that they do.

the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia
Click to expand...

If they wanted to debate the question they would have granted cert in the terms the petition requested.
(Is) The Right Protected by the Second
Amendment (Is) Limited to Weapons
Possession and Use in Connection With
Service in State-Regulated Militias (?) (edit to rephrase mine)
Click to expand...
Statement #1 from the DC petition.

The other points DC had been hanging it's hat on are also neatly removed from play:
Laws Limited to the District of
Columbia Do Not Violate the Second
Amendment
Click to expand...
Not mentioned at all in the order granting cert, hence not up for discussion.
Under Any View of the Second Amendment,
the District’s Law, Which Permits Ownership
of Rifles and Shotguns But Bans Handguns,
Does Not Infringe the Right to Keep
and Bear Arms
Click to expand...
Again removed from play by the order which explicitly refers to "handguns *and* other firearms".
 
Last edited:
Supreme Court Will Decide Meaning of Second Amendment

Supreme Court Will Decide Meaning of Second Amendment
By Sandy Froman
Wednesday, November 21, 2007


On November 20, the Supreme Court announced that it would hear the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. Finally, the Court will decide whether the Second Amendment secures to individual citizens the right to keep and bear their private firearms or whether it merely recongizes that an individual may use firearms for the collective purpose of participating in a state-sponsored militia.

This day has been a long time coming. The last time the Supreme Court directly addressed the meaning of the Second Amendment was almost 70 years ago in the case of U.S. v. Miller, which resulted in a controversial opinion that raised more questions than it answered. The case hinged on whether a short-barreled shotgun was the type of weapon used for military purposes and thus protected by the Second Amendment. The Court never heard evidence on this issue and before it could, Mr. Miller was killed and the case died with him.

As a board member and officer of NRA, I’ve been a vocal critic of gun bans and the D.C. gun ban in particular. It’s not just because such laws violate our Constitution but also because 25 years ago, before I became a gun owner, I was almost the victim of a home invasion. I learned first hand that the right of self-defense means nothing unless you also have the means of self-defense.

When this case challenging the D.C. gun ban was filed in 2003, it was called Parker v. District of Columbia. Shelly Parker lived in a high crime area of D.C. She and five other plaintiffs sued to overturn the D.C. law because it deprived them of their right to keep operable firearms in their homes for self-protection.

The D.C. law has been on the books since 1976 and makes it a serious crime to possess any handgun or a loaded, readily-usable shotgun or rifle even in your own home. A law that prevents a peaceable law-abiding person from possessing the one tool that she can use to defend herself at home against a criminal attack is just plain wrong.

Most people had never heard of the Parker case until last March when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the 30-year old gun ban saying it violated the Second Amendment. That made the news.

The Parker case has since been renamed Heller – Shelly Parker was not allowed to proceed with her case but plaintiff Dick Heller was. Now, the Supreme Court will decide what right is meant by the “right to keep and bear arms”. Is it an individual right that each of us has to own and possess our private firearms, without regard to any military service? Or is it a collective right that exists only to allow us to serve in the National Guard or a state-sponsored militia?

Specifically, the Court will decide whether the District’s ban on handguns not registered before 1976, its ban on the carrying of unlicensed handguns, and provisions requiring long guns (rifles & shotguns) to be made inoperable violate the Second Amendment right of “the people” (that’s you and me) to keep and bear our private arms.

Although the briefs filed by the District and by Heller contained statements of what each party wanted the Supreme Court to decide, the Supreme Court rewrote the question presented and it now reads: “Whether the [D.C. Code provisions] 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?”

The language of the question – the reference to “private use in their homes” – suggests that the case will be narrowly decided and limited to possession and carrying of firearms within the home. The Supreme Court frequently chooses to decide issues as narrowly as possible, thus leaving room for future interpretations. Either way the case will be important in that a citywide gun ban will either be upheld or struck down.

And as to what the outcome might be, I will not presume to know how nine of the greatest legal minds in America will answer this question. The Court is closely-divided, with four conservatives, four liberals, and one moderate (Justice Anthony Kennedy) generally as the swing vote. Although the subject of firearms and the Second Amendment is controversial, the narrow concept that people ought to be able to defend themselves in their own homes against criminal attack and that a gun is an effective way to do it is not.

How long do we have to wait? The District of Columbia’s brief is due shortly after the first of the year. The Heller brief is due 30 days after that. There will undoubtedly be numerous amicus (friend of the court) briefs filed by groups on both sides of the issue. Barring any unusual delays, the Court should hear oral argument in March and issue its decision in June.

And the timing of the case is significant for other reasons. With the briefing schedule and argument taking place right in the middle of a hotly contested presidential campaign season, it will be impossible for any candidate to ignore the Second Amendment.

American history is full of cases that have changed the course of that history. Some of those names are known mostly to lawyers. Others are cases that have had such a clear impact that non-lawyers are familiar with them as well, such as Roe v. Wade, Marbury v. Madison, Dred Scott v. Sanford, Brown v. Board of Education, Miranda v. Arizona and Bush v. Gore.

D.C. v. Heller is destined to become such an historic case. And we have a front row seat to watch history in the making.

Sandy Froman is the immediate past president of the National Rifle Association of America, only the second woman and the first Jewish American to hold that office in the 136-year history of the NRA.
 
I think it's worthy to note that of all the authors and scholars who have researched the 2nd Amendment, those who have switched sides have all switched from believing in the "collective model" to the "individual rights model". None have switched from individual rights to collective rights.

Case in point: Lawrence Tribe, Harvard's constitutional scholar. He was one of the biggest proponents of the collective-rights theory. He now believes it is an individual right...though still subject to more regulation than most of us would like.

I've also noted several justices on the Ninth Circuit (aka Ninth Circus) court have, in dissenting opinions, supported the individual rights model.

The Supreme Court has a long history of recognizing the 2nd Amendment as an individual right within opinions on other cases involving individual rights -- such as defining "the People" as a term of art with the same meaning in the first, second and fourth amendments.

Personally, I'd think the case could be made - and won - that the District has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the ban has done nothing to protect citizens, but plenty to protect criminals.
Click to expand...

I'll disagree. The question of the social utility of a law (or right) to do good or ill has little to do with its constitutionality. We could certainly have more public order if we did not permit protests or widely divergent views on the same subject. But our rights to free speech, free press and to peaceably assemble are more important that the social utility of an orderly society.

We must remember that prior to about 1903, "free speech" was often limited by the local political bosses and their ability to control the police. People were routinely jailed for speaking out against the rich and powerful elite or in simply calling on others to support some reform.

Likewise, the court will define, to some extent, what the 2nd means in terms of individual rights.
 
So as not to have seperate threads scattered through out L&P, I'm gonna start merging every thread that deals with either Heller or the Supreme Court and its interpretation of the second amendment to this thread.

If too many appear, they will simply be locked, with or without a reference to this thread. This is also going to be (re)stickied for the duration, that way no one can miss this thread.
 
Email From our Nemisis Sarah Brady

I recieve Email from the Brady Campaign to keep up with what they are spewing. This one is strangly signed by Sarah Brady all the others have not.
U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Second Amendment Case
We need your help to defend America's gun laws
Dear Kevin,

Just minutes ago, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to take what could be the most significant Second Amendment case in our country's history.

Thanks to your support, your Brady legal team had already begun preparing for this announcement, but now our lawyers have swung into high gear to prepare our "friend of the court" brief.

We have a tidal wave of work to do in the weeks ahead and we need your help now.

This fight is so critical that we need to raise $50,000 by November 30. And since your gift will be going to our Brady Gun Law Defense Fund, it will be fully tax deductible!

We need your help today to build a strong Brady Gun Law Defense Fund to protect America’s gun laws. Please give today.

Earlier this year, a U.S. Court of Appeals struck down a gun law as violating the Second Amendment for the first time in American history. We believe this decision was judicial activism at its worst and was clearly wrong.

This legal case at its very core is the most important battle we have ever waged. The U.S. Supreme Court has the chance to reverse a terribly erroneous decision and make it clear that the American people can adopt restrictions on firearms in their communities.

If the Supreme Court does not reverse the federal appeals court decision, gun laws everywhere could be at risk…

…from the long-standing machine gun ban…to the 1968 Gun Control Act…to the Brady background check law.

…to your local and state laws…like the ones in California and New Jersey banning military-style Assault Weapons… and many more.

If that happens, then your Brady Center will defend these laws in the courts as we have done so many times in the past against the attacks of the gun lobby. But now we must focus on the immediate challenge at hand as we prepare for the fight in the U.S. Supreme Court. Please give generously.

Sincerely,

Sarah Brady, Chair

P.S. I cannot stress how important your gift is to our Brady Gun Law Defense Fund. Please give a tax-deductible gift today.


You can also mail a check to:
Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence
1225 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
Click to expand...

Interesting that EVERY fight of thiers is "the most important":barf:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top