Heller Decision AFFIRMED, INDIVIDUAL right (Scalia)

After paying $40 for a box of Winchester 115gr HP Silvertips today, my biggest fear is that since it is getting to be almost impossible to legally deny a law abiding citizen a firearm that ammunition will now come under even stronger attack.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't happen under the analysis used in this decision. Generally speaking with regards to rights, you can't go around the back and technically neutralize them. A law that while facially neutral (or in this case technically neutral) has the practical effect of destroying the right, isn't going to pass muster.

That should be the case here. Plus there is the very good argument that "arms" includes the ammunition as it would be nonsensical to allow arms for self defense and defense against the nation if they were unusable.
 
But how many rounds do you need to protect yourself and your home? If they made rounds cost $2 each would they still be able to argue that anyone that can afford to buy a gun can afford $20 to put bullets in it?
 
Need a lawyer for this question.

The decision in Heller concludes with "We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals." To the extent that the Supreme Court's decision in Heller does not specifically address some of the topics covered in the Court of Appeals' decision in Parker, do the conclusions of the Court of Appeals on those topics stand?
 
Shouldn't happen under the analysis used in this decision. Generally speaking with regards to rights, you can't go around the back and technically neutralize them. A law that while facially neutral (or in this case technically neutral) has the practical effect of destroying the right, isn't going to pass muster.
Click to expand...
I think that's a good observation. To specifically target ammo would be akin to saying, "You have a right to freedom of the press, but you no right to buy ink or paper."
But how many rounds do you need to protect yourself and your home? If they made rounds cost $2 each would they still be able to argue that anyone that can afford to buy a gun can afford $20 to put bullets in it?
Click to expand...
Again, I think Stage 2's response covers that concern as well. There are no special taxes that target ink or printing paper; freedom of the press wouldn't mean much if it meant only well-monied people could exercise that right.

However, I think you are thinking in the right direction, in that the anti-gun crowd will target ammo as their next battlefield. The Heller decision should make that task more difficult for them, but then again 4 out 9 SC justices basically said, "No problem-o" with that ambition.

Note added: I realize attacks on ammo have already begun; I'm referring to a nationwide, coordinated attack rather than the current separate attempts. Potentially, Heller could change those dynamics.
 
Last edited:
Just goth this email:
Action Alert: Washington DC Already Planning To Restrict Law-Abiding Citizens 2nd Amendment Rights

The following is a memo sent to Washington, DC residents by Cathy Lanier, Washington, DC Chief of Police:

From: Lanier, Cathy (MPD)
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 6:35 PM
Subject: Supreme Court Update

Residents,

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court today struck down part of the District of Columbia's handgun ban. I wanted to drop you a note to let you know the immediate impact of this decision.

The Supreme Court's ruling is limited and leaves intact various other laws that apply to private residents who would purchase handguns or other firearms for home possession. It is important that everyone know that:

a.. First, all firearms must be registered with the Metropolitan Police Department's Firearms Registration Section before they may be lawfully possessed.
a.. Second, automatic and semiautomatic handguns generally remain illegal and may not be registered.
a.. Third, the Supreme Court's ruling is limited to handguns in the home and does not entitle anyone to carry firearms outside his or her own home.

Lastly, although the Court struck the safe storage provision on the ground that it was too broadly written, in my opinion firearms in the home should be kept either unloaded and disassembled or locked.

I will comply with the Court's reading of the Second Amendment in its letter and spirit. At the same time, I will continue to vigorously enforce the District's other gun-related laws. I will also continue to find additional ways to protect the District's residents against the scourge of gun violence.

Residents who want additional information can visit the Metropolitan Police Website at www.mpdc.dc.gov/gunregistration. Residents with questions are encouraged to contact the Firearms Registration Section at 202-727-9490.

Sncerely,

Cathy Lanier
Chief of Police
Click to expand...



Email: Cathy.Lanier@dc.gov
Phone: 202 727.4218
Fax: 202 727.9524
Mailing Address:
Chief of Police
Cathy Lanier
300 Indiana Ave., NW
Room 5080
Washington, DC 20001
 
Last edited:
The decision in Heller concludes with "We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals." To the extent that the Supreme Court's decision in Heller does not specifically address some of the topics covered in the Court of Appeals' decision in Parker, do the conclusions of the Court of Appeals on those topics stand?
Click to expand...

Good observation, I was thinking about this earlier today. The answer is yes. This should be the first place to look to see what standard of review and analysis that Court applied. I'll also have to go back and read Emerson again, its been a while, but I heard echoes of the Fifth Cir. from Scalia. Emerson, IIRC, called for, at least, heightened scrutiny. We now have good caselaw from several Circuits that should be persuasive on the other Circuits. I would love to get a case before Easterbrook or Posner in the Seventh to see how they would flesh it out. By the way, if D.C jacks around any more, I expect the D.C. Cir. to hold them by the short and curlies.
 
In his written comments, at least as quoted in 27 June Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Justice Stevens spoke of "a new right ....", which I found to be sort of interesting given the historical context, that being as follows.

The Second Amendment, which today's USSC majority found to have recognized a pre-existing individual right, correct me if I'm in error, that dates from the 18th century. We are currently in the 21st century.

Going back to the historical context of the thing, above referenced, how in blazes or where does Justice Stevens discover this "new right" of which he speaks?
 
Socrates:

Having read what you posted, presumably comment from D.C Police Chief Lanier, concerning citizens e-mailing the lady, I suspect that, other than such communications that might express agreement with the line she is peddling, which would be likely cherished, that such action would be a large waste of time and effort, critical e-mails likely being submitted to the tender mercies of the DELETE key.

Of course, this is simply my opinion, tempered by the fact that I have spent many an hour "pissing into the wind", or might I describe it as petitioning the government for redress, so to speak. Of course, nothing above said is intended to silence those who would speak. It's just that I believe "speaking" to this person would be a waste of time and effort.

I suspect that about all that the chief is interested in obtaining are such comments as might be characterized as "ata girl's", of which she might collect a few, who knows.
 
Alan, I think you maybe right.

On the otherhand, if she is an elected official, and, I think she is, this maybe a pulse of the people memo, to figure out what course of action to take to keep her job.

sometimes people will take the time to actually examine well thought out, properly stated arguments.

I've often had to tell a child the same thing, day after day, and, 8 months later, the child FINALLY sees the light, and, the behavior is changed, for the childs' better.
 
The term 'facist-liberal' an oxymoron if you take liberal to mean giving fair and equal evaluation to all ideas prior to reaching a logically sound conclusion. In my world, 'liberals'
are worse then any religious fanatic with their devotion to their beliefs, not reasoned or otherwise.
On the otherhand, some people want to keep their jobs more then their ideals...
 
To those of you who feel I disagree with the Heller decision, please read my posts again.
I attack Scalia because of his level of rancor. I attack Scalia because he is not the strict contructionist the right wishes he was.
He dissects language, looking to rationalize his decisions based on that tactic in some cases, and uses legislative intent, or originalism, in others.
He does so to reach the conclusions he wishes.
So does the liberal side of court.
Yes, Justice Thomas has been more than bitter in some of his decisions, as one poster noted. And who has been Thomas's mentor?
And I am sure Justice O'Connor did on more than one occasion, especially given the impossible position she sat in, in the center of an impossibly divided and rancorous court. That doesn't make the behavior right, but it does make it understandable.
And yes, the rancor is there from both sides, One has just made it more open, and engaged in it more frequently.
My criticisms are an expression of frustration, and a hope for a more civilized discourse in american politics. It does neither side any service to constantly question the sanity, moral fiber, intelligence or grip on reality of the other. The use of hate language, and denigration of others is just wrong. Remember, we may need each other, for other reasons, later on.
Alienating the other side may serve only to cause opposition at times when there shouldn't be.
Defending poor behavior on one side just because we don't like the behavior on the other isn't justifiable either.
We as a people deserve better, and we should demand better of each other.
What some are saying is obvious in this case obviously isn't. Its common to see what you think is right is obvious. It may be in your mind, but it took this long to bring this case to this point for a reason.
Many court watchers have noted that if this case were brought 15 years ago, before the Douglas court, there would not have been a single vote for an individual right to bear arms. These people aren't stupid, they just value different things differently, see some things as more important than others, use different lines of thought or logic.
My mentioning of Militias seems to have hit a raw nerve.
I was not stating that the clause was there only to arm militias, but only to put in in the context of militias. Why else is it there? I think it was a backhanded way of granting the individual right to bear arms only to those who would be eligible to be in militias. Actual membership not a requirement.
Militias at the time consisted of white males, 18 - 45.
Some said I have read too much into that. Perhaps I have.
Someone mentioned the Dred Scott decision, and that it would be absurd to think that anyone would be concerned that non-whites could be armed, or claim the right to be armed.
Dred Scott came down how many years later? (1857) And it was noted then that it was hardly obvious that non-whites could not be citizens, as 10 of the 13 original colonies granted blacks the right to vote, although 5 of the 10 had restrictions.
Fear of slave uprisings existed long before the revolution.
Debate over slavery and rights existed long before the revolution.
I am only trying to grasp for a reason for why the militia preface is here at all.
Looking at the citations in the decisions, I just feel that this is a plausible reason.
 
Last edited:
I'm a gun owner, and, a constructionist. The group that refuses to accept the 2nd amendment as an individual right makes my blood boil. I'm glad we have a Scalia now, that uses all of those tricks to combat others that use those same tricks.

I thank Scalia for attacking poorly constructed arguments that are made to justify a position that violates the oath and Constitution that those people swore to uphold. At the core of this is that law is taught, and, many lawyers make it through law schools that act as liberal indoctrination centers.

They manage to get through 3-4 years of law school without any historical concept of what the founders intended. Then they go out, and, like the dissenters, destroy the concepts, and the document they swore to uphold. :mad::barf: While I am grateful that we have the current majority, that we have fallen so low is truly obscene, upsetting, and pornographic.

While I have not often scene such ire, it has existed in the court before, and, it will again.

As long as patriots deeply believe in the concepts of freedom, and, as long as people say they believe in those same freedoms, yet give them up, in treason, then you will have anger, fire, and energy.

My hope is that now that the right has been clearly stated and defined, that the American people will embrace their right not to be sheep, and, to protect themselves. It will lead to a safer, more polite society.
 
To those of you who feel I disagree with the Heller decision, please read my posts again.
I attack Scalia because of his level of rancor
Click to expand...
I will stand up and completely agree with your evaluation of Scalia. Everything I have ever seen of him suggests he deserves his reputation of being a class A butthole.

This is the man that went on national television and said physical torture is not forbidden by laws that disallow unjustly severe or harsh punishment. His reasoning was that torture is not punishment because the people being tortured may not have done anything wrong and were therefore not technically being punished.

I just happen to agree with his legal reasoning on this particular topic.
 
I attack Scalia because of his level of rancor. I attack Scalia because he is not the strict contructionist the right wishes he was. He dissects language, looking to rationalize his decisions based on that tactic in some cases, and uses legislative intent, or originalism, in others. He does so to reach the conclusions he wishes.
Click to expand...

Not that I'm buying this for a minute, but I'd sure like to see some support for this. Not a case here or a case there, but something substantial.


My criticisms are an expression of frustration, and a hope for a more civilized discourse in american politics.
Click to expand...

Then I suggest you don't have a very good understanding of american political history if you think that 'civilized discourse' was ever the rule of the day. What you see on the news today pales in comparison to politics in the time of the framers and shortly thereafter. Hell, the reason why the supreme court can do what it does was because of a petty political squabble.


It does neither side any service to constantly question the sanity, moral fiber, intelligence or grip on reality of the other. The use of hate language, and denigration of others is just wrong. Remember, we may need each other, for other reasons, later on.
Alienating the other side may serve only to cause opposition at times when there shouldn't be.
Click to expand...

Well I'm going to have to disagree with you there. I have no use for someone who can't understand one of the basic principles of our republic especially when its spelled out in plain english. Whats more I certianly have no use for someone who DOES understand these principles and with the utmost of intellectual dishonesty pretends they are not there because of theri political ideology.

Defending poor behavior on one side just because we don't like the behavior on the other isn't justifiable either.
Click to expand...

I'm not defending any poor behavior. Calling a spade a spade is perfectly acceptable. In this case a spade just so happens to 4 shysters that wear long black robes and pretend to be impartial arbiters of the constitution.


What some are saying is obvious in this case obviously isn't. Its common to see what you think is right is obvious. It may be in your mind, but it took this long to bring this case to this point for a reason.
Click to expand...

Because of political ideology, not because of the constitution or the rights its expresses.


Many court watchers have noted that if this case were brought 15 years ago, before the Douglas court, there would not have been a single vote for an individual right to bear arms.
Click to expand...

Exactly the point I made above. The 2nd amendment hasn't changed any in the last 15 years or the last 50. So unless you are going to make the argument that these rights mysteriously come and go even though the words on the page stay the same, then your answer is simply that certian people place their political ideology above what the constitutution actually says.


These people aren't stupid
Click to expand...

No, just dishonest.


they just value different things differently, see some things as more important than others, use different lines of thought or logic.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. In this case they value their own agendas or personal feelings on firearms above whats in the constitution.
 
I just got done reading pages 54, 55, and 56 again. Scalia pretty much takes Miller apart, and leaves the door wide open for a challenge to the machine gun ban.

He also points out that Miller was a case that was uncontested by the defense, and, that if a proper defense was mounted, the outcome might have been different, but, he says it by saying the reverse, and, I believe in rather dripping sarcasm.
 
Some said I have read too much into that. Perhaps I have.
Someone mentioned the Dred Scott decision, and that it would be absurd to think that anyone would be concerned that non-whites could be armed, or claim the right to be armed.
Dred Scott came down how many years later? (1857) And it was noted then that it was hardly obvious that non-whites could not be citizens, as 10 of the 13 original colonies granted blacks the right to vote, although 5 of the 10 had restrictions.
Fear of slave uprisings existed long before the revolution.
Debate over slavery and rights existed long before the revolution.
I am only trying to grasp for a reason for why the militia preface is here at all.
Looking at the citations in the decisions, I just feel that this is a plausible reason.
Click to expand...

Why would a state that held people in bondage and denied them every other right imaginable be worried if they had a right to keep and bear arms? It's so an extreme proposition as to fail the laugh test. The idea is from the Michael Bellesiles school of American history. We've been here before.

The militia clause was there as a primary purpose for the right. This was widely discussed in 17th and 18th century republican thought. Andrew Fletcher, in 1698, published A Discourse of Government relating to Militias in which he wrote of what constituted a "well-regulated militia."
A militia that is "well-regulated" he wrote would be drawn from the people, not beholden to a prince's payment, and possessing its own arms so that it could not be either made irrelevant disarming or allowed to fall into an ill-regulated state (in which the people were untrained in arms) allowing a prince to raise a standing army on the ruins and use it to harass and oppress the people. These are not difficult concepts, they were well known to the founders and the history of these foundational political concepts are know to us. That some still try to obscure and misrepresent the original understanding and of the 2nd Amendment is a travesty of history.
 
After struggling through the majority opinion twice I see suits to overturn "may issue" for possession and laws against open carry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top