Emerson: Best case scenario
- Thread starter hkg3
- Start date
MP Freeman
New member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hkg3:
Best case scenario, how far can the Emerson case take us?
Overturn NFA?
More?
Less?
[/quote]
Overturn NFA. GCA 68. 86, Crime bill 94 and all of 'em.
Finally state that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.
Then apply this individual right to the states via #14.
Finally claim that the fed gubmit is duty bound to protect our freedoms. And no infringe them.
Oh, how I'm hoping. Could you imagine finally getting that nice MP5? I can.
Regards,
MP
Best case scenario, how far can the Emerson case take us?
Overturn NFA?
More?
Less?
[/quote]
Overturn NFA. GCA 68. 86, Crime bill 94 and all of 'em.
Finally state that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.
Then apply this individual right to the states via #14.
Finally claim that the fed gubmit is duty bound to protect our freedoms. And no infringe them.
Oh, how I'm hoping. Could you imagine finally getting that nice MP5? I can.
Regards,
MP
If all that good stuff happened, I would liken it to the collapse of the evil empire. What on earth would I do? One of my main reasons for being involved in the RKBA's is simply because it is a thorn in the side of the BureaucRATS (he-he!). Without them telling me what kind of guns I shouldn't own next, I would be at a loss in a gunstore, and probably would be content with what I own. I might even sell off a few of the ones I got just to P!$$ off the G-men. There would be millions like me, and then the market would flood, and prices drop. Our collections would be devalued, and gunstores would go out of business in favor of the old days where a hardware store could handle any of your needs such as machineguns or what-not (being that licensing FFL's is a violation of the 2nd too). Really, after all the failed but well intentioned laws trying to make it harder to purchase guns, all they have to do is repeal all the gun laws, and I bet that guns (like drugs, alcohol and anything else) will lose their forbidden-fruit image to most of us; thus the best way to stop the proliferation of "small arms" is to legalize them all. Just my opinion though. I would then have to become heavily involved against the war on drugs I guess, but since I have no personal interest in drugs, it wouldn't be as much fun to fight.
Ed Brunner
New member
kjm; Chances are we could find another itch to scratch.
------------------
You have to be there when it's all over. Otherwise you can't say "I told you so."
Better days to be,
Ed
------------------
You have to be there when it's all over. Otherwise you can't say "I told you so."
Better days to be,
Ed
oberkommando
New member
Best case it goes to SC...
Thomas and Scalia pull NFA weapons out from under their robes and take out the Gov..........Sorry was day dreaming a little.
What MP Freeman said. But I dont think they will rule that broad if it does get there, that would spook the herd too much.
Thomas and Scalia pull NFA weapons out from under their robes and take out the Gov..........Sorry was day dreaming a little.
What MP Freeman said. But I dont think they will rule that broad if it does get there, that would spook the herd too much.
Brett Bellmore
New member
The problem we've got is that what passes for "strict constructionists" on the court are judges who are conservative in the worst sense of the word; They're as opposed, maybe more so, to shaking things up, as they are to making things up as they go along. Read up on what Scalia, for instance, has to say about stare decisis.
The Court has been ducking this issue for so many decades that to uphold the 2nd amendment fully at this point would be almost revolutionary. Too many unconstitutional gun laws have already been enacted, and been in place for years and decades. The anti-constitutionalists on the Court have no problem at all with issuing rulings, like Roe v. Wade, that strike down hundreds of long established laws in one fell swoop, but the guys we'd be counting on to rule our way are SERIOUSLY leary of doing that.
So, despite what an honest ruling would logically imply, no, BECAUSE of what it would imply, we are not going to see an honest ruling. The best we can realisticly hope for would be for them to draw a line in the sand, saying, NO FURTHER! As they did in the Lopez case, for instance. Then would follow a long incremental process of fighting over one law after another, over a period of decades.
We didn't get into this mess in one day, we're not going to get out of it in one day, either. Probably not one decade, in fact.
------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
The Court has been ducking this issue for so many decades that to uphold the 2nd amendment fully at this point would be almost revolutionary. Too many unconstitutional gun laws have already been enacted, and been in place for years and decades. The anti-constitutionalists on the Court have no problem at all with issuing rulings, like Roe v. Wade, that strike down hundreds of long established laws in one fell swoop, but the guys we'd be counting on to rule our way are SERIOUSLY leary of doing that.
So, despite what an honest ruling would logically imply, no, BECAUSE of what it would imply, we are not going to see an honest ruling. The best we can realisticly hope for would be for them to draw a line in the sand, saying, NO FURTHER! As they did in the Lopez case, for instance. Then would follow a long incremental process of fighting over one law after another, over a period of decades.
We didn't get into this mess in one day, we're not going to get out of it in one day, either. Probably not one decade, in fact.
------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
Yep - No SCOTUS decision in our favor IMO. It would turn everything on its head. They would never do that. They will rule on non-2nd grounds and let the staus quo continue. Gore will win and we are going to be up sh!ts creek. Then the real work will begin. It will be a long row to hoe for sure. Damn!
------------------
Thane (NRA GOA JPFO SAF CAN)
MD C.A.N.OP
tbellomo@home.com
http://homes.acmecity.com/thematrix/digital/237/cansite/can.html
www.members.home.net/tbellomo/tbellomo/index.htm
"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression.
In both instances there is a twilight when everything remains
seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all
must be most aware of change in the air - however slight -
lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."
--Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
------------------
Thane (NRA GOA JPFO SAF CAN)
MD C.A.N.OP
tbellomo@home.com
http://homes.acmecity.com/thematrix/digital/237/cansite/can.html
www.members.home.net/tbellomo/tbellomo/index.htm
"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression.
In both instances there is a twilight when everything remains
seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all
must be most aware of change in the air - however slight -
lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."
--Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
If NFA got over turned, so would all other gun laws, federal, state, and local. Committing a crime with a gun (or any other 'weapon') was illegal before NFA '34. There was no reason to make a totally legal act / or mere posession of an item(s) illegal.
Well we can dream cant we? Everything starts with a dream
------------------
Dead [Black Ops]
Well we can dream cant we? Everything starts with a dream
------------------
Dead [Black Ops]
OK, someone's got to be the optimist here. They very well could find that the 2nd means what it says and overturn all conflicting law. The Supremes have done it before - several times in the 60s and 70s. How about civil rights legislation? How about Roe v. Wade, completely inventing a new fundamental constitutional right and throwing out laws in almost every state? How about the New Deal before that? Before FDR threatened to pack the court, they uniformly struck down his New Deal laws as unconstitutional, then suddenly the Constitution allowed for them.
There's no reason they couldn't do it. The only question is do they have the balls to do it.
Now, in all likelihood, they would find that it doesn't quite mean what it says, just the way they've worked a hundred thousand exceptions to the protections guaranteed by the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments. We're so used to infringements of the 1st, for example, that we forget that "Congress shall make NO law..." infringing it.
There's no reason they couldn't do it. The only question is do they have the balls to do it.
Now, in all likelihood, they would find that it doesn't quite mean what it says, just the way they've worked a hundred thousand exceptions to the protections guaranteed by the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments. We're so used to infringements of the 1st, for example, that we forget that "Congress shall make NO law..." infringing it.
Brett Bellmore
New member
Bruegger: Yes, they've done it before, but that was done by the people who would be least likely to rule in favor of us. Like I said, the members who are most likely to favor upholding the 2nd are the Justices who are the least inclined to upset the applecart, no matter how unjust it's present orientation.
------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
If it gets to the SC, they will look at it as a due process case, and rule accordingly.
The question will not be if it was legal to deny Dr. Emerson the right to possess a firearm. The question will be if they denied Dr. Emerson the right to possess a firearm legally.
A difference without distinction, but it might result in an overhaul of the system that defines what actions could prohibit a person to possess firearms. Not if “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” means what it says.
Sorry.
Marty
The question will not be if it was legal to deny Dr. Emerson the right to possess a firearm. The question will be if they denied Dr. Emerson the right to possess a firearm legally.
A difference without distinction, but it might result in an overhaul of the system that defines what actions could prohibit a person to possess firearms. Not if “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” means what it says.
Sorry.
Marty
First bit of good news: the 5th Circuit is, in my personal opinion, likely to rule on 2A grounds, at least in part. Go read Judge Cummings's original decision...it's GOOD stuff, I don't think the 5th will overturn it.
Next: with the 5th and 9th in total 180degree opposition, the Supremes are very likely to hear it.
As of this moment, we think we can win the "individual right" argument on a 5 to 4 split vote.
Where does that leave us?
If the 2A is considered a "basic personal right", only Federal gun control laws that can be *proven* to be effective at reducing crime could stand. And such are VERY few and far between.
It STILL doesn't affect all state laws, because it'll take another case entirely to "incorporate" the 2A against the states via the 14A.
But it could help in states that have a state constitutional RKBA clause patterned after the 2A. If the Fed 2A is labeled an "individual right", it follows that state RKBA clauses are too. Ohio's ban on concealed carry would be in trouble, so would Michigan's discretionary carry fiasco - both states have strong RKBA clauses.
California would still be screwed. No state RKBA clause.
Back to the good news side of the ledger:
Two different scholarly constitutional sources are saying that the 14A was originally crafted with a goal of preventing black disarmament by racist southern state agents. If so, the 2A is *already* "incorporated".
The first source is Stephen Hallbrook, in his latest book "That Every Man Be Armed". He's respected, but he can be considered biased.
The other is Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar, in his recent book "The Bill Of Rights". Like Lawrence Tribe, he's another liberal that believes in the 2A *but* thinks at least some gun control could be permitted due to necessity for public safety. At some point we're gonna have to get these guys to read Lott and otherwise study the "street reality" of gun control and what a disaster it is.
I'm fairly confident we can convince Amar, at the very least. Maybe Tribe too, although he's the epitome of "Ivory Tower disconnected from reality".
Anyways. Backed by Amar, it's barely possible a Supremes decision in Emerson could support 2A incorporation onto the states. Fairly low odds though.
Let me make a comparison: back in the 40's, the Jehovah's Witnesses had to take eight separate cases to the US Supremes to win full rights as a non-banned organization. They gained individual bits of the rights they needed, one at a time. Don Kates mentioned this exact example in a speech on the subject last year.
One Supremes case by itself prolly ain't gonna do it. But it could be a damned good start.
VOTE BUSH!!!
Jim
Next: with the 5th and 9th in total 180degree opposition, the Supremes are very likely to hear it.
As of this moment, we think we can win the "individual right" argument on a 5 to 4 split vote.
Where does that leave us?
If the 2A is considered a "basic personal right", only Federal gun control laws that can be *proven* to be effective at reducing crime could stand. And such are VERY few and far between.
It STILL doesn't affect all state laws, because it'll take another case entirely to "incorporate" the 2A against the states via the 14A.
But it could help in states that have a state constitutional RKBA clause patterned after the 2A. If the Fed 2A is labeled an "individual right", it follows that state RKBA clauses are too. Ohio's ban on concealed carry would be in trouble, so would Michigan's discretionary carry fiasco - both states have strong RKBA clauses.
California would still be screwed. No state RKBA clause.
Back to the good news side of the ledger:
Two different scholarly constitutional sources are saying that the 14A was originally crafted with a goal of preventing black disarmament by racist southern state agents. If so, the 2A is *already* "incorporated".
The first source is Stephen Hallbrook, in his latest book "That Every Man Be Armed". He's respected, but he can be considered biased.
The other is Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar, in his recent book "The Bill Of Rights". Like Lawrence Tribe, he's another liberal that believes in the 2A *but* thinks at least some gun control could be permitted due to necessity for public safety. At some point we're gonna have to get these guys to read Lott and otherwise study the "street reality" of gun control and what a disaster it is.
I'm fairly confident we can convince Amar, at the very least. Maybe Tribe too, although he's the epitome of "Ivory Tower disconnected from reality".
Anyways. Backed by Amar, it's barely possible a Supremes decision in Emerson could support 2A incorporation onto the states. Fairly low odds though.
Let me make a comparison: back in the 40's, the Jehovah's Witnesses had to take eight separate cases to the US Supremes to win full rights as a non-banned organization. They gained individual bits of the rights they needed, one at a time. Don Kates mentioned this exact example in a speech on the subject last year.
One Supremes case by itself prolly ain't gonna do it. But it could be a damned good start.
VOTE BUSH!!!
Jim
I'm reaching back to my business law classes here. Since the 2nd is a basic human right wouldn't a ruling in favor of that require the strict scrutiny test for consitutionality of any gun control laws? This test would require an overwhelming need for restrictive laws and also require that those laws be as narrowly tailored as possible. THAT would certainly eliminate a lot of current laws as they were challenged.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CassidyGT:
Yep - No SCOTUS decision in our favor IMO. It would turn everything on its head. They would never do that. They will rule on non-2nd grounds and let the staus quo continue. Gore will win and we are going to be up sh!ts creek. Then the real work will begin. It will be a long row to hoe for sure. Damn!
[/quote]
Cassidy, you'll recall that the question was "best case scenario", not worst case or realistic case. We've got plenty of realism and pessimism ordinarily. If someone wants the best case, let's think positive at least for a moment, why don't we - it has been outlined above.
Yep - No SCOTUS decision in our favor IMO. It would turn everything on its head. They would never do that. They will rule on non-2nd grounds and let the staus quo continue. Gore will win and we are going to be up sh!ts creek. Then the real work will begin. It will be a long row to hoe for sure. Damn!
[/quote]
Cassidy, you'll recall that the question was "best case scenario", not worst case or realistic case. We've got plenty of realism and pessimism ordinarily. If someone wants the best case, let's think positive at least for a moment, why don't we - it has been outlined above.
OK Futo - Sorry bout that.
------------------
Thane (NRA GOA JPFO SAF CAN)
MD C.A.N.OP
tbellomo@home.com
http://homes.acmecity.com/thematrix/digital/237/cansite/can.html
www.members.home.net/tbellomo/tbellomo/index.htm
"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression.
In both instances there is a twilight when everything remains
seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all
must be most aware of change in the air - however slight -
lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."
--Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
------------------
Thane (NRA GOA JPFO SAF CAN)
MD C.A.N.OP
tbellomo@home.com
http://homes.acmecity.com/thematrix/digital/237/cansite/can.html
www.members.home.net/tbellomo/tbellomo/index.htm
"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression.
In both instances there is a twilight when everything remains
seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all
must be most aware of change in the air - however slight -
lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."
--Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas