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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tennessee Gentleman, it is clearly a ban that will simply take longer to take effect. As I said before, imagine a "restriction" on book ownership where only books published before 1986 were allowed. Then throw in a tax to exercise that right... kind of like a poll tax.
 
Just a gentle nudge: Let's not get into an argument over whether or not 922(o) is a ban or to even it's merits.

The proper place would be a different thread.

What is proper, is to note that 922(o) is a concern of the parties and to an lessor extent, why.
 
Bryer's need to base a SCOTUS decision on crime statistics as opposed to the written law only reinforces my lack of faith in him and continued belief that he does not understand his job is as a justice on the SCOTUS and not as a legislator.
Click to expand...
Where did you find that in the oral argument?

WildcuriousAlaska TM
Click to expand...
Page 51 lines 4 - 25.
Breyer said:
Assume -- and this is favorable to you but not as favorable as you'd like -- assume that we are going to decide whether something is proportionate or apply an intermediate standard in light of the purpose. All right.
Now, focus on the handgun ban. As I read these 80 briefs -- and they were very good, I mean really good and informative on both sides -- and I'm trying to boil down the statistics where there is disagreement, and roughly what I get -- and don't quarrel with this too much; it's very rough -- that 80,000 to 100,000 people every year in the United States are either killed or wounded in gun-related homicides or crimes or accidents or suicides, but suicide is more questionable. That's why I say 80,000 to 100,000.
In the District, I guess the number is somewhere around 200 to 300 dead; and maybe, if it's similar, 1,500 to 2,000 people wounded. All right.
Now, in light of that, why isn't a ban on handguns, while allowing the use of rifles and muskets, a reasonable or a proportionate response on behalf of the District of Columbia?
Click to expand...

1 person or 1,000,000 it is completely outside the scope of what the court is supposed to consider.
 
and Gura blew the response on that one as well. The answer is that the deaths are already overwhelmingly with illegal weapons. That what is not being accounted for is the amount of lives saved by the lawful use of weapons and that the residents of DC are specifically banned from having that effective defense at hand.
 
Bryer's comment/question was aimed directly at handguns and had nothing to do with machine guns. When testing whether a statute is constitutional, the lowest test is whether it is rationally (or reasonably) related to a state interest. Courts generally defer to the legislative branch in making this determination. As much as we hate to admit it, one can make a rational argument that banning handguns would decrease crime. Now, I don't agree with that but the argument can and has been made. Using strict scrutiny, a complete ban is virtually out. However, using an in-between standard, as Bryer suggests, could spell trouble. It might lead to the conclusion, for example, that handguns could be banned since people could still own rifles and shotguns.
 
They have the opportunity to EASILY get rid of MA, NY, NJ, WI, and IL's refusal of carry rights by simply emphasizing that at home is the "keep" and carry is "bear." How anyone can dispute that the word bear is not synonymous with carry is totally beyond me.
 
How anyone can dispute that the word bear is not synonymous with carry is totally beyond me.

Darn right. Men used to bear arms almost where ever they went in the colonial times. They never knew when they'd need to defend themselves. They didn't just carry guns when they were hunting. They even carried sidearms, or pistols. But back in those days, the bearing of arms was so common, that only criminals and brigands would find a need to carry them concealed, so as to have the element of surprise when committing a crime. Most of the colonists, including the framers and the leaders of the several states at the time, found the carrying of a concealed weapon to be a direct indication of criminal intent, and they banned this.

I thought our justices were supposed to be so intelligent. If they don't know about all of these common things, as some of their questions seemed to indicate that they do not, what good are they? Some of them seem to be better politicians than fair and objective justices, in my opinion.

Now-a-days, we allow concealed carry, not because we want to promote criminal activity, but because we want to give the good people the same element of surprise that the criminals used to enjoy. We have not seen increases in gun crime in the states where they now allowed concealed carry. In some cases, we've actually seen it go down. The grim predictions of the anti gun groups have never once materialized. Why does anyone think that in the City of DC, letting law abiding citizens keep guns for self defense in their homes, we're not talking CC, would be any more risky with regard to public safety, than the 40 states who also let their citizens carry. That just doesn't wash and justice Breyer should be ashamed of himself, literally.
 
Last edited:
Musketerr you should read that again, I dont think you can extrapolate your conclusion from a assumption question

WildinbreyersdefenseAlaska ™
 
One of the points that most distressed me as I was reading the transcript was the heavy reliance that the justices made upon the English Bill of Rights, and the fact that they homed in on "sensible sounding" restrictions on arms therein.

I heard nobody take any exception to the fact the the English BoR precluded Scottsmen or Catholics from arms, whereas Protestant subjects of the Crown were permitted arms "appropriate to their station."

This is rampant discrimination in permitting who might be armed, and every bit as repugnant as the late 19th Century Jim Crow laws of the South.

And as far as parallels to modern machine guns in 18th Century America:
1. Cannon - privately held in many cases, in ships, townships, and even held by individuals. Modern equivalents might be grenades, mortars, RPG's or Bazookas. Cannon loaded with "grape" were often used to clear a swathe of opposing soldiers much like a heavy machine gun today might be employed.
2. Bayonet - Allowed an infantryman to participate in volley fire and then engage enemies without reloading his firearm. Modern parallels are the high capacity magazine or fully automatic fire from an infantry light machine gun.

Parallels to the English BoR should have demonstrated how, if possible for Congress (or the Crown) to disarm one group of people or one particular class of weaponry, then it is possible to disarm all people or all classes of weaponry. That bans of weaponry based upon subjective claims of political or religious affiliation are detrimental to the safety and security of the citizens of a free nation. That allowing weapons ownership based upon a person's "station" in society is a way of saying that if you are well "connected" (as in a DC elite) then you are allowed to protect yourself with the best weaponry available, but if not.... well, some pigs are MORE equal.:rolleyes:
 
It appears that more than a "gentle nudge" was required to get your attention.

34 posts have just been deleted. Take it to a new thread. Not here. No further response(s) are required, needed or will be tolerated. :mad:
 
USAFNoDak said:
Now-a-days, we allow concealed carry, not because we want to promote criminal activity, but because we want to give the good people the same element of surprise that the criminals used to enjoy.
Click to expand...

While concealed carry does accomplish that objective, it is more likely that it was a political compromise in the interest of public safety.

An openly carried private firearm:

A) generates high anxiety in public places,
B) can be the source of open hostility and confrontation, and
C) presents very real weapon retention issues.

Concealed carry allows the excercise of 2nd Amdt rights, while addressing these concerns.
 
Those who are made anxious by the presence of an openly carried sidearm need to be exposed to such as often as possible to educate away their fears. Validating them isn't constructive.
 
Yellowfin said:
Those who are made anxious by the presence of an openly carried sidearm need to be exposed to such as often as possible to educate away their fears. Validating them isn't constructive.
Click to expand...

I would love to agree with this, but I can't. The hostile confrontations that would arise would lead to the very news events that support the banners positions.

Ditto for the retention issue; how often do even police lose control of their openly carried weapons, to have them used against them or others?

edit: (Sorry, I was busy typing.)
 
Salvaging my on-topic point from the off-topic culling...

Guara torpedoed his own case by stating that a hypothetical full-automatic firearm ban would be constitutional according to his suggested criteria of "suitable for civillian use".
By admissing that a ban on an entire class of firearms can be constitutional, he undermined his contention that a ban on *his client's* class was inherently unconstitutional.
After all, DC could merely say that "handguns are unsuitable for civillian use" and he'd be left without a leg to stand on.
Furthermore, his proposed litmus test (civillian suitability) has no basis in the wording of the second amdt, or the framers' intent, or stare decisis.
He has nothing to point to to explain why how he thinks it should be has any grounding in how it is. Legally speaking.

"Suitable for civillian use" has no defined meaning. As such, you can't take it before the SC and hope to get it affirmed.

The proper response IMO is "suitable for use by the infantry". Not because I like it (although I do), but because it's *legally sustainable*. The 2nd clearly anticipates military application of the arms it protects by the inclusion of "militia" in the preamble. There are volumes of writings from the founders as well as the Federalist/ antifederalist papers supporting the conclusion that they envisioned a military application of these arms, and it's fully supported by US v. Miller.

By any rational interpretation of the 2nd, the right to keep and bear full-auto firearms is not only protected by the 2nd, but was specifically singled out for protection by enumeration.
This interpretation may arguably be unreasonable by today's standards. I have my own opinion on that matter, but it is the most logical interpretation of the law as it stands.

So he should've said that the 2nd protects full-auto firearms and if that's not good enough it needs amended.
 
The English Bill of Rights was relevant to the discussion because it helped explain what the drafters believed to be rights in English law. The most fundamental conclusion is that it was a right. The fact that it created exceptions, however, is used to explain that the framers believed the right to bear arms could be legislatively restricted. This could be used to rationalize current restrictions.

To some degree, this is an oxymoron because a right subject to abolition by legislation is no right. Of course, ALL of the rights in the English Bill of Rights were subject to repeal by the Parliament. That is a primary difference in our system of Constitutional government and theirs of Parliamentary government.
 
The suitability of select fire arms for civilian use can be easily established: before the '34 ban, there were plenty of ads for the Thompson which showed ranchers defending sheep and/or cattle from wolves and coyotes with a Thompson. That's about as clear as it gets for intent of purpose.
 
The English Bill of Rights was relevant to the discussion because it helped explain what the drafters believed to be rights in English law. The most fundamental conclusion is that it was a right. The fact that it created exceptions, however, is used to explain that the framers believed the right to bear arms could be legislatively restricted. This could be used to rationalize current restrictions.
Click to expand...
As at least 2 of the Justices seem all too willing to do. Fact is our government is constrained by our Constitution as amended, not the English Bill of Rights.
Not trying to start an argument; I think we're in agreement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top