Does the Heller Verdict open the door toward lifting the import Bans

R

Redneck_Riot

New member
I have been watching the Heller case with much anthusiasm, as both a collector and avid shooter.

Memebers what is the argument we can present to lift the import ban on select fire based recievers

If Indeed the second amendment has been clarified as a individual right! how then do any of the current anti-gun legislation have any footing to stand on?

would it not be a sensible argument that infact all of the laws and regulations restricting our rights to possess firearms on the books today have now come into direct conflict with the supreme courts ruling and therefore should be immediately suspended?

IMHO the ATF now has lost it's right to govern what we can and cannot own I think that the NRA should focus on systematically dismantling this department at the roots!

Many of you have posted that now is not the time to get "greedy with our demands" but as a former Infantryman this tactic is flawed when the enemy is weak and retreating should we not offer our terms of unconditional surrender?
 
My guess would be that an import ban would not be seen as a violation of the 2d Amendment since there is a domestic firearms industry, making imports not our only source of firearms.

Tim
 
I would agree with Tim here. The only thing Hellier has done is stop a total ban on firearms but with the domestic market it is unlikely to lift the foreign ban on a a variety of firearms, especially since it has been strengthened over the past several years with no challenges.

Of course if they lifted the ban the domestic gun companies would throw an absolute fit and refuse to pay their campaign donations. The last time the stuff was importable in large amounts it counted for over half of the firearms market.
 
Heller affirms an individual right which is still subject to reasonable restrictions. Those reasonable restrictions must be determined in court in future cases. The ruling is limited to DC because the right has not been incorporated.

Heller therefore does not "open" the door to very much, it simply UNLOCKS the door to several things. The door has been opened for DC residents to register new handguns and use functional firearms for self defense at home. They still have to register them and they may not carry them outside of the home. DC may still institute handgun control laws such as no semi-autos or no repeating handguns in city limits.

Outside of DC unconstitutional handgun laws are still the law of the (local) land. The walls have been breached with regard to whose RKBA this really is but the enemy still occupies their positions for the most part. They are hardly on the run even though with time they probably will be as further cases are won against them. The doors will start opening up if we get an incorporation ruling from the SCOTUS. They will have to do so eventually, fairly soon I think.
 
By enshrining self defense as the basis of our 2nd amendment rights, I believe the Heller decision gives us an excellent basis on which to challenge the "sporting purpose" criteria for arms imports. Heller might not have said everything we wanted, but it DID say that the 2nd amendment wasn't about duck hunting.
 
TimRB is correct. As sad as it makes me, and as much as it pains me to say it, import bans/restrictions do not violate the 2A and is way beyond the scope the Heller decision.

By the way, the more I've been reading gun forums, the more I read that the import bans are the architect of the US gun industry and not so much an anti or Liberal agenda.

They were concerned that all these "cheap", popular, foreign guns were taking away their sales.
 
Import bans are more vulnerable under some of the free trade agreements.
Click to expand...
This is true, but this fact IMHO makes it even more unlikely that the restrictions will be lifted. IMHO the general opinion of the American electorate on both sides of political spectrum is swinging against free trade right now.

Furthermore, the 2 countries that are most affected by the import ban are China and Russia. China is unpopular for repressing religious and ethnic minorities, manipulating the value of their currency, and (allegedly) undercutting American business with cheap imports. Russia is in the midst of dismantling their democracy and selling fancy weapons systems to countries the U.S. government does not like. No intelligent American politician is going to promote more favorable trade rules for either country right now. :rolleyes:
 
^ We could rectify that situation by absorbing all the 7.62 and 5.45 ammo they're selling. I'd gladly volunteer to take several cases off their hands.
 
As sad as it makes me, and as much as it pains me to say it, import bans/restrictions do not violate the 2A and is way beyond the scope the Heller decision.
Click to expand...

Concur. We didn't win the war, we won a battle. Heller isn't the end of the "gun" issue. I expect the battles to continue with some new tactics by the antis. Bans and sensible gun laws will continue to be pushed.

In my opinion, if DC bans semi-autos, I expect that to be a push in other cities effected by Heller.
 
As sad as it makes me, and as much as it pains me to say it, import bans/restrictions do not violate the 2A and is way beyond the scope the Heller decision.
Click to expand...

I don't. I think that there is a good argument to be made that the import bans are meant to deprive the people of affordable and capable self defense. However, I don't think this should be the first fight. There has to be a lot more good caselaw developed before we get to that point.
 
If anything, lifting the subjective and arbitrary "sporting purposes" clause from the '68 GCA would do more to get rid of the import ban than any arguement you could make based on the Heller decision.

"Sporting purposes" is what gives the jack-booted, sturmtruppen, thug bastards of the waffen BATFEces their artistic license to creatively ban importation of certain foreign made firearms. :mad::barf:
 
Heller gave us a "reasonable" arguement against "sporting purposes" which we can use at some point in the future. Scalia defined the Second Amendment as not only protecting our right to keep and bear arms, but also stating clearly that self defense was one major reason to protect that right. "Sporting purpose" is not related to self defense. Ironically, "sporting purposes" has nothing to do with the preservation and efficiency of the militia, which Scalia also said is one reason that the Second Amendment was written, though not the only reason. The anti's have had it both ways, saying we could only have guns which are for sporting purposes but we had no right to any guns unless we were part of the militia, which they view as the national guard only.

We can't get there immediately, however. We must take a focused and stepped approach. Otherwise, Kennedy jumps ship and we lose, 4-5.

We have been swimming upstream with respect to gun control and loss of freedom since 1934. Now, the Supreme Court has given us a canoe and a couple of paddles. But that doesn't mean we are back where we started from. We'll still be paddling up stream, and it will be hard work. We'll make much better progress with our Heller canoe and paddles, however. There are a few politicians who deserve to be paddled for selling us down the river in the first place. :mad:
 
The question is how quickly we can get Stevens, Souter, and Ginsberg off the court either by their retirement or having them disbarred and removed. Anyone know how to go about that?
 
Most of the import bans are the result of administrative actions taken by the Bush I and Clinton administrations. Bush II refuses to lift these restrictions.
 
that may be the case but thankfully Bush 2 is on his way out!!

The 2nd Amendment prevailed from the 5-4 Supreme Court Justices Interpretation from a solely literal standpoint, with this new ruling why is the ATF and the BATFE not under scrutiny and litigation by the NRA?

Understanding that Scalia did infact leave room for reasonable regulation of firearms, where is the definition of reasonable from our supreme courts opinion?

Based on this new Ruling, how is it legal to define weapons as "Sporting or non Sporting"? since when has self defense been a sporting purpose?


I am worried that the Anti- gun folks will use this ruling to fulfill there future agenda's. And without a expressed written definition of "Reasonable Regulation" its anybody's guess how far they will push there regulations at all the federal, state and local levels of government

IMHO now more than ever is the time stand up for our rights and to challenge as much anti-gun legislation both past and present as possible
we must take the offensive on this issue not dig in and prepare for a counter attack.
 
The foreign ban is not going to be banned. The US citizens greatest ally in the fight to protect the second amendment in general is our worst ally in lifting a foreign ban. There is no way the manufacturers will allow the ban to be lifted without a hellacious fight. Who is going to buy a colt when you can get cheap foreign guns of similar or better quality so much cheaper?
 
The question is how quickly we can get Stevens, Souter, and Ginsberg off the court either by their retirement or having them disbarred and removed.
Click to expand...

Only one problem with that at this juncture. We're in the middle of a contentious presidential election. If any of the enemy justices leave the bench now, the next POTUS will be the one making the nominations for replacement and it don't look good for us. Odds are Obama will be the one making those nominations and with the Senate likely to be in democratic hands, we're screwed.

It's best we pray or wish for the health and well-being of the devils we know already on the court than to give that POS the opportunity to appoint most leftist, activist judges that ever put on a black robe. :barf::mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top