Garand Illusion
New member
They are ravaging the poor little man. He has no good answers.
Now let's see how they treat the pro-Heller people. Wish I didn't have to work today ...
D.C. vs. Heller (Supreme Court and the 2A) - Mega Thread
- Thread starter Mike40-11
- Start date
- Status
They are ravaging the poor little man. He has no good answers.
Now let's see how they treat the pro-Heller people. Wish I didn't have to work today ...
Kennedy: "...a general right to bear arms...".
Associated Press Writer Mark Sherman is reporting at Yahoo News that Key SCOTUS Swing Vote Justice Anthony Kennedy announced in today's arguments in Heller v. DC that it is his view that the Second Amendment gives "...a general right to bear arms...".
It cannot be clearer that Justice Kennedy is the one to watch in this case. If these comments are any indication of his final intent on the Second Amendment as an individual right, we just may have seen the end of the beginning on a fight that has been going for many years.
Stay massively tuned....
Link at:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080318/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns;_ylt=Aib0IzMg5vgsmByqMPc7z1myFz4D
Associated Press Writer Mark Sherman is reporting at Yahoo News that Key SCOTUS Swing Vote Justice Anthony Kennedy announced in today's arguments in Heller v. DC that it is his view that the Second Amendment gives "...a general right to bear arms...".
It cannot be clearer that Justice Kennedy is the one to watch in this case. If these comments are any indication of his final intent on the Second Amendment as an individual right, we just may have seen the end of the beginning on a fight that has been going for many years.
Stay massively tuned....
Link at:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080318/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns;_ylt=Aib0IzMg5vgsmByqMPc7z1myFz4D
Wildalaska
Moderator
Did Scalia just say to him:
'I think you should pick up your reading glasses"
Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha
Dont get too excited, maybe there will be lots more dishing out...
WildiwishicouldwatchthewholethingAlaska ™
'I think you should pick up your reading glasses"
Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha
Dont get too excited, maybe there will be lots more dishing out...
WildiwishicouldwatchthewholethingAlaska ™
This is what I got:
1 All of the justices seemed to agree that there IS an individual right
2 The argument then seemed to move on to what the standard of review should be- reasonable versus strict scrutiny
3 They all seemed to be concerned with machine guns, which tells me they are worried about NFA
1 All of the justices seemed to agree that there IS an individual right
2 The argument then seemed to move on to what the standard of review should be- reasonable versus strict scrutiny
3 They all seemed to be concerned with machine guns, which tells me they are worried about NFA
"The DC ban has resulted in a lower violent crime rate." - Adrian Fenty 
Data from http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/
Crime seems poorly correlated with gun laws. It seems most of the crime rate can be attributed to population density, but since I'm not a statistician I don't know to what degree that is true.
I just wanted to called out a bold-faced lie, which I'm sure all of you were already aware of.
Data from http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/
Crime seems poorly correlated with gun laws. It seems most of the crime rate can be attributed to population density, but since I'm not a statistician I don't know to what degree that is true.
I just wanted to called out a bold-faced lie, which I'm sure all of you were already aware of.
Attachments
Stephanie B
New member
How the arguments seem to go and what questions the justices ask may be interesting for speculation, but the only things that matters are the number of justices voting for the prevailing side and what the language of the opinion is. to a lesser extent, the wording of the dissenting and the concurring opinions (if any) are important.
If the result is "ownership of firearms is an individual right" and yet if government regulation is subject to a "rational basis test", we still lose.
If the result is "ownership of firearms is an individual right" and yet if government regulation is subject to a "rational basis test", we still lose.
Your thoughts,
Based on what we just heard....
Gun-Rights Showdown
By RANDY E. BARNETT
March 18, 2008
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120579647855943453.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Heller v. District of Columbia, a suit brought by several D.C. citizens contending that the ban on the possession of operable firearms inside one's home violates the Second Amendment. The Circuit Court of Appeals for D.C. agreed and held the ban to be unconstitutional. However it is decided, Heller is already historic. For the first time in recent memory, the Supreme Court will consider the original meaning of a significant passage of the Constitution unencumbered by its own prior decisions. The majority and dissenting opinions in this case will be taught in law schools for years to come. Here's a layman's guide to the significance of the case:
- Heller will be decided on originalist grounds. Among law professors, enforcing the original meaning of the Constitution is highly controversial. Critics of originalism deny that we should be ruled by the "dead hand of the past." They prefer following Supreme Court precedents that may or may not be consistent with original meaning. Any justice who today professes a commitment to originalism is branded a radical; and all Supreme Court nominees are now grilled on their commitment to the doctrine of stare decisis. But what are old precedents if not the "dead hand" of dead justices?
Significantly, then, both sides in Heller are making only originalist arguments. The challengers of the law contend that the original meaning of the Second Amendment protects an individual "right to keep and bear arms" that "shall not be infringed." In response, the District does not contend that this right is outmoded and that the Second Amendment should now be reinterpreted in light of changing social conditions. Not at all. It contends instead that, because the original intention of the Framers of the Second Amendment was to protect the continued existence of "a well regulated militia," the right it protects was limited to the militia context.
So one thing is certain. Whoever prevails, Heller will be an originalist decision. This shows that originalism remains the proper method of identifying the meaning of the Constitution.
- The Second Amendment protects an individual right. In the 1960s, gun control advocates dismissed the Second Amendment as protecting the so-called "collective right" of states to preserve their militias -- notwithstanding that, everywhere else in the Constitution, a "right" of "the people" refers to an individual right of persons, and the 10th Amendment expressly distinguishes between "the people" and "the states." Now even the District asserts the new theory that, while this right is individual, it is "conditioned" on a citizen being an active participant in an organized militia. Therefore, whoever wins, Heller won't be based on a "collective" right of the states.
Still, a ruling upholding an unconditioned individual right to arms and invalidating the ban is unlikely to have much effect on current gun laws. Here's why:
- Heller is a federal case. Because the District of Columbia is a federal entity, Heller provides a clean application of the Second Amendment which, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, originally applied only to the federal government. Before a state or municipal gun law can be challenged, the Supreme Court will have to decide that the right to keep and bear arms is also protected by the 14th Amendment, which limits state powers.
Nowadays, the Court asks whether a particular right is "incorporated" into the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, an unpopular doctrine among some conservatives. Of course, after recognizing an unconditioned individual right in Heller, affording it less protection from states than other enumerated rights now receive would be awkward -- especially given the overwhelming evidence that the right to keep and bear arms was among the "privileges or immunities of citizens" to which the 14th Amendment refers. Those who wrote the amendment were concerned about enabling black freeman and white Republicans in the South to protect themselves from violence, including terrorism by local militias.
Finally, Heller involves a complete ban on operable firearms in the home. No state has a comparable law. And under current Supreme Court doctrine, even the First Amendment rights of speech and assembly are subject to reasonable time, place, and manner regulations. So too would be gun rights.
But although the implications of striking down the D.C. gun ban are limited, a decision upholding an unqualified individual right in Heller would still be a significant victory for individual rights and constitutionalism. To shrink from enforcing a clear mandate of the Constitution -- as, sadly, the Supreme Court has often done in the past -- would create a new precedent that would be far more dangerous to liberty than any weapon in the hands of a citizen.
Mr. Barnett is a professor of constitutional law at the Georgetown Law Center and a counsel on an amicus brief in Heller filed by the Academics for the Second Amendment
Based on what we just heard....
Gun-Rights Showdown
By RANDY E. BARNETT
March 18, 2008
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120579647855943453.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Heller v. District of Columbia, a suit brought by several D.C. citizens contending that the ban on the possession of operable firearms inside one's home violates the Second Amendment. The Circuit Court of Appeals for D.C. agreed and held the ban to be unconstitutional. However it is decided, Heller is already historic. For the first time in recent memory, the Supreme Court will consider the original meaning of a significant passage of the Constitution unencumbered by its own prior decisions. The majority and dissenting opinions in this case will be taught in law schools for years to come. Here's a layman's guide to the significance of the case:
- Heller will be decided on originalist grounds. Among law professors, enforcing the original meaning of the Constitution is highly controversial. Critics of originalism deny that we should be ruled by the "dead hand of the past." They prefer following Supreme Court precedents that may or may not be consistent with original meaning. Any justice who today professes a commitment to originalism is branded a radical; and all Supreme Court nominees are now grilled on their commitment to the doctrine of stare decisis. But what are old precedents if not the "dead hand" of dead justices?
Significantly, then, both sides in Heller are making only originalist arguments. The challengers of the law contend that the original meaning of the Second Amendment protects an individual "right to keep and bear arms" that "shall not be infringed." In response, the District does not contend that this right is outmoded and that the Second Amendment should now be reinterpreted in light of changing social conditions. Not at all. It contends instead that, because the original intention of the Framers of the Second Amendment was to protect the continued existence of "a well regulated militia," the right it protects was limited to the militia context.
So one thing is certain. Whoever prevails, Heller will be an originalist decision. This shows that originalism remains the proper method of identifying the meaning of the Constitution.
- The Second Amendment protects an individual right. In the 1960s, gun control advocates dismissed the Second Amendment as protecting the so-called "collective right" of states to preserve their militias -- notwithstanding that, everywhere else in the Constitution, a "right" of "the people" refers to an individual right of persons, and the 10th Amendment expressly distinguishes between "the people" and "the states." Now even the District asserts the new theory that, while this right is individual, it is "conditioned" on a citizen being an active participant in an organized militia. Therefore, whoever wins, Heller won't be based on a "collective" right of the states.
Still, a ruling upholding an unconditioned individual right to arms and invalidating the ban is unlikely to have much effect on current gun laws. Here's why:
- Heller is a federal case. Because the District of Columbia is a federal entity, Heller provides a clean application of the Second Amendment which, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, originally applied only to the federal government. Before a state or municipal gun law can be challenged, the Supreme Court will have to decide that the right to keep and bear arms is also protected by the 14th Amendment, which limits state powers.
Nowadays, the Court asks whether a particular right is "incorporated" into the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, an unpopular doctrine among some conservatives. Of course, after recognizing an unconditioned individual right in Heller, affording it less protection from states than other enumerated rights now receive would be awkward -- especially given the overwhelming evidence that the right to keep and bear arms was among the "privileges or immunities of citizens" to which the 14th Amendment refers. Those who wrote the amendment were concerned about enabling black freeman and white Republicans in the South to protect themselves from violence, including terrorism by local militias.
Finally, Heller involves a complete ban on operable firearms in the home. No state has a comparable law. And under current Supreme Court doctrine, even the First Amendment rights of speech and assembly are subject to reasonable time, place, and manner regulations. So too would be gun rights.
But although the implications of striking down the D.C. gun ban are limited, a decision upholding an unqualified individual right in Heller would still be a significant victory for individual rights and constitutionalism. To shrink from enforcing a clear mandate of the Constitution -- as, sadly, the Supreme Court has often done in the past -- would create a new precedent that would be far more dangerous to liberty than any weapon in the hands of a citizen.
Mr. Barnett is a professor of constitutional law at the Georgetown Law Center and a counsel on an amicus brief in Heller filed by the Academics for the Second Amendment
Robert Levy (Heller lawyer), just lost all my respect...talking to reporters on the court house steps, asked what is "reasonable". He suggested registration was "reasonable". He was also asked what types of handguns should be banned, HE raised the issue of "plastic handguns intended to survive metal detectors"; saying these could be banned. :barf:
These are the astute legal minds arguing our side of the case?
These are the astute legal minds arguing our side of the case?
Well, you'd like to think that since they may be responsible for vindication of long-abridged individual rights, they're smart enough to realize that "reasonable restrictions" and "shall not be infringed" are incompatible, and that smart tactics means not going all in on the opening bet.
BlueDragon
New member
I hate it when people say "plastic guns that can bypass metal detectors.:barf:
Did they forget about the metal slide and barrel? or the hammer? or trigger? or the pins that are metal???
its about as annoying as hearing dem's use the word "clips" for magazines. :barf::barf::barf::barf:
Did they forget about the metal slide and barrel? or the hammer? or trigger? or the pins that are metal???
its about as annoying as hearing dem's use the word "clips" for magazines. :barf::barf::barf::barf:Marty Hayes
New member
No, I don't see it that way. I also believe it reasonable to ban plastic handguns that will bypass metal detectors. Of course, that only applies to fully loaded squirtguns, but what the heck. If they want to ban the, let's give them their little piece of the pie.
BlueDragon
New member
Even a glock could and would go off, the slide and barrel are metal. or what about if you had it loaded? im sure the bullets themselves could make the detector go off.
Garand Illusion
New member
A "plastic gun that can avoid metal detectors" is a theoretical device. It would also have to have plastic bullets and plastic cases. And the person carrying it would have to hope they're not going through a "sniffer" type explosives detector.
It doesn't currently exist that I know of, though some of the more ignorant (going way back to when it was produced) believe that the glock meets that standard. Admittedly, I haven't been to the CIA armory recently -- no telling what they may have.
But beyond that ... "shall not be infringed," as has been talked about ad nauseum on other threads, will still allow some types of rules. Personally if we could just put the gun banners to rest, get a nationwide RTKBA, change it so that having a gun and travelling doesn't mean you're spinning the roullette wheel to go to jail because some local authority may have a vendetta against gun owners ... I could live with quite a few other annoying but not overly limiting rules.
It doesn't currently exist that I know of, though some of the more ignorant (going way back to when it was produced) believe that the glock meets that standard. Admittedly, I haven't been to the CIA armory recently -- no telling what they may have.
But beyond that ... "shall not be infringed," as has been talked about ad nauseum on other threads, will still allow some types of rules. Personally if we could just put the gun banners to rest, get a nationwide RTKBA, change it so that having a gun and travelling doesn't mean you're spinning the roullette wheel to go to jail because some local authority may have a vendetta against gun owners ... I could live with quite a few other annoying but not overly limiting rules.
- Status