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

Status
Not open for further replies.
consider a scenario where the Court decides for an individual right, but applies a rational basis test or otherwise weasels out of actually protecting an individual right (as it did in Kelo for example). In that case, what have we really won?
Click to expand...

The major victory in that event will be that we no longer have to listen to that stupid collectivist/militia argument from gungrabbers. But we won't have lost much. The 2A hasn't been used to overturn gun laws, and would continue to be useless for that purpose.
 
Some folks really are pessimistic around here.

To lighten things up, I started this thread anticipating bumperstickers we could display when SCOTUS upholds the individual right interpretation and kills the D.C. handgun ban.

This is for those of you looking for a little lighter reading. :D
 
publius42 said:
you're right, mvpel. Are there other (less disastrous) examples?
Click to expand...

Not that I'm aware of offhand, though I submit that the same level of disastrousness applies in this case as did did in Dred Scott. This case will determine whether the Federal government established so many years ago is our servant, or we are its slaves. If they abrogate the Second Amendment, then we are in no better condition than the slaves and African-American freedmen - who didn't even rate the term "second-class citizens" - whoTaney was petrified would be able to keep and carry arms wherever they went.

But I'm not pessimistic in the slightest. There's much less wiggle room in "shall not be infringed" than there is in "public use," so I don't think Kelo is an apt comparison.

One of the Kelo opinion authors was a concurring opinion on Verdugo-Urquidez which matter-of-factly described the Second Amendment in terms of an individual right.

And claiming that "shall not be infringed" is subject to a "reasonable relation" standard of review is too patently absurd on its face for me to give the august institution of the US Supreme Court so little credit to think that they'd go down that path. They may prove me wrong, but I doubt they will.
 
This case will determine whether the Federal government established so many years ago is our servant, or we are its slaves.
Click to expand...
One way to tell is to check who has the machine guns. ;)

How far we've come...

if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.
Click to expand...

And Hamilton was the biggest of mainstream big government guys back then!
 
Reading through the amici supporting respondent (in favor of overturning the ban) it looks like a pretty broad coalition. Retired Military, Senators, Women legislators, Disabled people, Gay rights, African American interests, the court has a lot to consider from the respondent side.

On the petitioner side, from what I have read so far (7 briefs) it looks pretty similar - there ain't no second amendment rights for ordinary people and them guns is just too gosh darn dangerous.

So our side says its National Defense, Womens Lib, African American Civil rights, Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgendered rights, disabled American rights, and plain old constitutional rights, Human rights predating the Constitution, and public safety issue.

Their side says ain't no ordinary people in the people because keep and bear are military terms and the word arms is exclusively military AND guns are just bad... mmmmmmkay??? Oh, and one more - if you strike down this bad law we can't use other bad laws to put people in jail.

Lord knows we need more incarcerated people.

Can't wait to see what oral arguments come forth.
 
See? See why I'm optimistic??

Oral arguments should be a delight - the floor of the chamber will have a mirror-like gleam once Heller's attorneys and the Justices themselves finish mopping the floor with DC's attorneys.
 
I am so unhip on these things, so far from what I can understand is that there are four conservatives, four liberals, and Kennedy who goes both ways. Liberal and Conservative, that is.

With some of the amici filings using the most strained liberal group think, saying things like YOU CAN'T RULE ON THE TRUE MEANING OF THE SECOND IT WILL UPSET THE APPLE CART (or legalese to that effect). Seriously, check out the ABA amicae curiae brief. I be good and concerned.

When the Bar association writes drivel like that it occurs to me that these people are professional litigators who know a little bit about what they are doing. Me, if I were a judge, such would offend me greatly. They must think there is a sympathetic ear for that kind of crap, or they would not write it.

The strained definitions of the Second as pertaining only to the National Guard and Military, the assertions that "keep", "bear", and "arms" were strictly military terms... Remember that the head duck for D.C. (though now fired) had argued 20 cases before SCOTUS.

Everything the anti-gun side says in petitioner's and amici briefs is well rebutted in the pro-liberty respondent's and amici briefs. The respondent side makes many points not addressed by petitioner. Presumably the justices will do what they have sworn to do.

Apparently there are a bunch of folks betting on legislation from the bench. I hope those folks are wrong. The case has huge implications for all of us and our generations.

Has anybody else read all the briefs and found cause to worry? My worry is not that the anti side makes any good arguments, they don't. My worry is that they would even try to sell that stuff. Somehow they must think they have some buyers. That is what worries me.
 
Re the ABA, know that it is very much a political organisation, as much as any labor union, and that membership is a prerequisite to practicing before the US Supreme Court. I never would have joined if there were any way around it, and I know that I am not alone in this.
 
I don't need to read any of the briefs because I can read the Second Amendment which states everything needed to rule on the matter.

My problem is I do not expect rulings based on logic or simply the ability to read the COTUS. I expect rulings to be handed down which attempt to increase the power of the government and the Judiciary in particular.
 
What? It's not. I don't know where you got that from.
Click to expand...

I got that from the process of my admission to practice before the SCOTUS. You are correct that it isn't listed on your linked page, but the application contains more than that page.

To clarify and correct,

....membership is a prerequisite to [gaining admission to practice] before the US Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

After the first year was up, I was able to to withdraw from the ABA, but am still admitted to practice.
 
Last edited:
Sorry to argue this here, but it's not a requirement. Here's the full application, no mention of ABA.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/bar/barapplication.pdf
Click to expand...

Feel free to argue it all you like. When were you admitted?

When I was admitted, my oath was given at a lunch with the Clerk, William Suter. I didn't have to travel to DC. For that process at that time, ABA membership was necessary.


The original point is that the ABA has quite a few members whose politics they do not accurately represent.
 
I'm not arguing with anybody ... but it's hard for me to believe that any of the 3 major branches of US government requires membership in a private organization to come before it.

Kind of like the President refusing to see anyone not a member in good standard of the Brotherhood of Electricians, Local 705 (or whatever).

No point in getting your undies in a wad over the fact that people are questioning you. You're just a voice on the internet none of us know.
 
No point in getting your undies in a wad over the fact that people are questioning you.
Click to expand...

They remain unwadded. I checked.

On reflection, I would even further limit my statement and offer that it may have been my admission process described above that required the ABA membership.

I'm not arguing with anybody ... but it's hard for me to believe that any of the 3 major branches of US government requires membership in a private organization to come before it.

Kind of like the President refusing to see anyone not a member in good standard of the Brotherhood of Electricians, Local 705 (or whatever).
Click to expand...

That was my reaction as well, except that I didn't have a longstanding antagonism with Local 705, whereas the ABA is a nursery for all sorts of bad ideas. They have an organisational postion in favor of "gender inclusive language", i.e. feminist misuse of language, though I don't see how that really pertains to their mission. You might think of them as the AARP for attorneys. AARP "represents" millions of members who don't really share AARP's political positions.


ABA aren't stupid people, but they are a left of center interest group, and it is no surprise that they would file in favor of the DC law.
 
Here is a letter from the Montana Secretary of State, it is the third letter to the editor on the linked page:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080219/EDITORIAL/646772049&template=nextpage

The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide D.C. v. Heller, the first case in more than 60 years in which the court will confront the meaning of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Although Heller is about the constitutionality of the D.C. handgun ban, the court's decision will have an impact far beyond the District ("Promises breached," Op-Ed, Thursday).

The court must decide in Heller whether the Second Amendment secures a right for individuals to keep and bear arms or merely grants states the power to arm their militias, the National Guard. This latter view is called the "collective rights" theory.

A collective rights decision by the court would violate the contract by which Montana entered into statehood, called the Compact With the United States and archived at Article I of the Montana Constitution. When Montana and the United States entered into this bilateral contract in 1889, the U.S. approved the right to bear arms in the Montana Constitution, guaranteeing the right of "any person" to bear arms, clearly an individual right.

There was no assertion in 1889 that the Second Amendment was susceptible to a collective rights interpretation, and the parties to the contract understood the Second Amendment to be consistent with the declared Montana constitutional right of "any person" to bear arms.

As a bedrock principle of law, a contract must be honored so as to give effect to the intent of the contracting parties. A collective rights decision by the court in Heller would invoke an era of unilaterally revisable contracts by violating the statehood contract between the United States and Montana, and many other states.

Numerous Montana lawmakers have concurred in a resolution raising this contract-violation issue. It's posted at progunleaders.org. The United States would do well to keep its contractual promise to the states that the Second Amendment secures an individual right now as it did upon execution of the statehood contract.

BRAD JOHNSON

Montana secretary of state
Click to expand...

Colorado also joined the United States with a clearly worded individual right in their constitution in Article II, Bill of Rights, Section 13:

The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.
Click to expand...
 
WA, I'd be interested in hearing your take on it. It shows a willingness in the Court to accept risk if substantial benefit can be shown; but the amount of regulation allowed to the government, even to the point of overriding state law, in this is... substantial.
:rolleyes:
 
To elaborate on my "Fed's Rule" comment. If the court decides the 2A is an individual right the latest ruling seems to indicate they would be very heavy handed with regards to any state attempting to step on what they perceive as Federal territory. That puts an awful lot of state firearms laws at risk.

Then there is the danger, knowing such a decision in Heller using the Fed supremacy of the Medtronic case would demolish existing gun laws, that the court will wimp out and choose what they may see as the "socially responsible" decision in stating the 2A is a collective right. They may be equally worried about limiting the Fed Gov't's ability to legislate on the issue with anything short of an amendment.

The only thing which has changed since yesterday is... nothing. I am just as worried as before.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top