Heller Decision AFFIRMED, INDIVIDUAL right (Scalia)

If and when the democrats in Congress raise taxes again, maybe us citizens should put out a public statement saying that we are evaluating the new tax laws to see if we have any options other than obeying them.

DC Government = :barf:
 
The next step in the process is for someone to bring a firearm restriction law to the Supreme Court. Since D.C. is so stupid as to think their limitations are going to stand up, they are the perfect turkey to get brought into the trap. Since it's already in Federal court, the issue could be brought to the Supreme Court very quickly, law wise speaking.

The next case that goes before the court will establish the level of scrutiny for evaluating laws that limit the 2nd amendment. Your choices are, and Scalia hinted the 2nd should be much as the first:

MERE RATIONALITY:
Means gov persuing a legit gov. objective: usually health, safety or general welfare

RATIONAL RELATION: minimally rational relation between gov and objective

STRICT SCRUTINY:
GOV ACT MUST:
1. Compelling objective: The objective first being persued by the government must be 'compelling' not just legititmate, and

2. Necessary means: the MEANS chosen by the gov must be 'necessary' to achieve that compelling end. The means and end must be a very tight fit.

and, in practice, this requirement mans that the necessary means that there must not be any less restrictive means that would accomplish the governments objective just as well.

Middle level review: between two above:

Important objective: important being mean between legit and compelling

and Substantially related: half way between rational related and necessary.

Result of the standard of review:

Burden of persuasion:

Mere rationality:
the person attacking the government action has burden to persuade the court

Strict scrutiny:
Gov body has the burden of persuading the court that it's act is constitutional.

The level of scrutiny pretty much determines who wins. If the Mere rationality standard, gov. almost always wins.

Strict scrutiny: people always win.

Mid level is half way in between...

So, D.C. may very well find themselves the test area for the rest of the nation, and, at least attack the Federal restrictive laws. If strict scrutiny is applied, how is the gov going to justify an auto weapons ban, when no crime has ever been committed with a legally purchased machine gun?

I'd like to hear the song and dance on the gov. trying to justify a 10 shot mag limitation, when police fire 200 bullets at a bad guy, and never hit him. Also, as has been explored in another thread, firearms for SD are rarely if ever used. Usually the presence of the firearm is enough to end the encounter.

Areas that are now pretty much under strict scrutiny fundamental rights, race, national origin, vote, acess to courts, and interstate travel. Also freedom of expression, free exercise of religion.
 
Re the last from Socrates, lets all hope and pray that anything that comes out of USSC re DC v. Heller in the way of additional litigation gets the benefit of STRICT SCRUTINY, as same is described in his post.

One thing that I find myself curious about is the following, which others might find curious or interesting too. Socrates, in mentioning things that currently are viewed in the courts under the doctrine of Strict Scrutiny includes matters concerning Freedom of Expression, if I read correctly, which I believe I have so done.

Re this, how would one explain the president's Free Speech Zones, as I believe they were, at the time, described, these Free Speech Zones being conveniently removed from the view of parades and other forms of public adulation offered to the president and members of his administration. Have the courts ever ruled this sort of stunt a No-No?
 
The Democrat National Convention planners are also setting up these 'zones'. I would guess that it is an attempt to allow those wishing to express themselves a place to do so without obstructing the ability of the event to take place. Decorum used to be exercised but the more and more often such people find the right to expression exceeds others' then a place to ALLOW that expression and STILL have an event became necessary. Prosecuting the behavior or prohibiting the behavior would be when the line got crossed.

200 people open carrying at an 'open carry picnic' would, for example be mass exercises of the right to bear arms, 200 people open carrying outside the entrance of a Brady Campaign event might not be seen so much as an expression of the right to bear arms as it would be as an attempt to obstruct the event. Fortunately gun owners posses more decorum then to do such a thing but if it were to become habitual there might become a separate area designated to do so.
 
They threw a woman out of the recent McCain event for holding a sign that read "McCain = Bush". Their reasoning for expelling her was that this venue is not designated as public property. They need to read PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER v. ROBINS, 447 U.S. 74 (1980). There are 26 cases which cite Pruneyard amd all have upheld the tenets of Pruneyard. She can sue their a$$ off for a civil rights violation.

Soon after appellees had begun soliciting in appellant privately owned shopping center's central courtyard for signatures from passersby for petitions in opposition to a United Nations resolution, a security guard informed appellees that they would have to leave because their activity violated shopping center regulations prohibiting any visitor or tenant from engaging in any publicly expressive activity that is not directly related to the center's commercial purposes. Appellees immediately left the premises and later filed suit in a California state court to enjoin the shopping center and its owner (also an appellant) from denying appellees access to the center for the purpose of circulating their petitions. The trial court held that appellees were not entitled under either the Federal or California Constitution to exercise their asserted rights on the shopping center property, and the California Court of Appeal affirmed. The California Supreme Court reversed, holding that the California Constitution protects speech and petitioning, reasonably exercised, in shopping centers even when the center is privately owned, and that such result does not infringe appellants' property rights protected by the Federal Constitution.

...

We conclude that neither appellants' federally recognized property rights nor their First Amendment rights have been infringed by the California Supreme Court's decision recognizing a right of appellees to exercise state-protected rights of expression and petition on appellants' property. The judgment of the Supreme Court of California is therefore


Affirmed.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The Democrat National Convention planners are also setting up these 'zones'. I would guess that it is an attempt to allow those wishing to express themselves a place to do so without obstructing the ability of the event to take place. Decorum used to be exercised but the more and more often such people find the right to expression exceeds others' then a place to ALLOW that expression and STILL have an event became necessary
Click to expand...
Ah yes, separate but equal, a familiar Donkey party stance which tells you exactly what they think about our rights.
 
Not necessarily the "separate but equal" theory, but it can work out that way.

In recent years, tactics of certain activists has been to exercise their free speech rights by blocking access to some event or location with "supporters" (bussed in after promises they'll get the latest Oprah show on DVD).

One example was the protest against the USMC recruiting station in Berkeley California. While claiming their right to a "free speech protest" they also blocked access to the center. Police in politically-correct Bezerkely did nothing but watch to make sure no fights broke out (especially when former Marines showed up to counter protest).

These so called "free speech zones" are supposed to be located in an area that is close enough to the venue that protest messages can be heard or seen, but without obstructing free access. Unfortunately, in a few cities in the past, authorities have designated areas well away from the venue or corodoned it off to prevent people from joining in on the protest.
 
It is not a bad thing if cities throw up ridiculous regulations and they are knocked down.

There is something called the innoculation effect. If someone makes a stupid argument on subject X, then subsequent arguments for X are discounted (even if they made sense).

If DC tries to ban semis or the like and it is discounted as being silly, in general, that will discourage even better made arguments. They will be seen as a waste of time.

Note, I'm not saying the DC argument makes sense or one could make a better argument. Just saying that having ridiculous or hysterical ones put forward now is not a bad thing.
 
I really think the reason this case was picked in D.C. was because the cases can be so quickly taken up by the SC.

Let's see if D.C. falls into the trap...
 
Socrates said:
Let's see if D.C. falls into the trap...
Click to expand...
I have contended from the start (shortly after the DC Circuit opinion came out) that should DC petition for certiorari, it would be a trap. I would say, on the face of things, they haven't learned from their past mistakes.
 
I found this in the original Parker v. DC complaint:

Mr. Heller lawfully owns various firearms located outside the District of Columbia, including handguns and long guns
Click to expand...

I only hope one of Mr. Heller's handguns is a high-cap semi-auto that would run afoul of DC's law and quickly put them back in court.
 
Socrates writes:

It would certainly be interesting if Mr. Heller decides he'd like to register a Browning High Power.

Yes, I expect that it would be "interesting".

Antipitas writes:
I have contended from the start (shortly after the DC Circuit opinion came out) that should DC petition for certiorari, it would be a trap. I would say, on the face of things, they haven't learned from their past mistakes.

Seems as if they haven't, but then neither has that other governing body located in D.C. learned from it's mistakes, or so it seems.
 
Don't know enough about filing injunctions in Federal court.
If Heller is denied registration for a Browning Hi-Power, rather then being arrested to get standing, perhaps he could file an injunction against the District, that instructs the district to register his BHP?

Anyone know the steps in filing an injunction in Federal court, against a governmental body?
 
John Longnecker-Heeler is not about Guns

I have to agree with much of this:

D.C. v. Heller: It's not about Guns, It's About Self-Governance, Safer Streets.
By John Longenecker (07/10/08)

There is no such thing as a sensible gun law, and gun bans are a fake-out fraud and abuse of power. Unwind Gun Bans and you begin to unwind other abuses so adverse to Family and Liberty.

The Second Amendment to our Constitution was made absolute for several reasons. In fact, the Second Amendment wasn't even written for citizens.

I get a predictable reaction when I say this, but follow-up clears it all up. Gun control is a European concept totally inappropriate for the Founders who escaped that kind of thinking at the nation's inception.

Let's call it for what it is: Gun Bans are a fraud of window dressing and control. Gun bans are a fake-out and abuse of power backed by official Force, and the Supreme Court just struck down a fake-out and abuse of power.

Maybe the time for faking out the People is coming to an end on various levels. Where the peccadillo of abusing powers might have been countered by further citizen political involvement and personal critical thinking eventually, it was immensely facilitated by the D.C. v. Heller win which can now begin to reveal just how gun control is related to a host of other policies which frustrate and vex the American family.

This is why I oppose gun control so. It Is Not About Guns: It is a model for the further interference with all aspects of our society - all aspects - and goes now beyond the Nanny State into a condition of a deeper dependency on officials. This is what is meant by liberty nuts when they say that it's not about controlling guns, it's about control, period.

A dangerous movement is afoot: We were passing the Nanny State and moving into a coerced dependency on officials who are no longer satisfied with looking after us cradle to grave - no matter what their intentions - now looking to forcing it on us so that we have no choice but to depend on them for food, fuel and more - all of it allegedly for fighting crime. But is this where crime is fought? No, it is not.

By banning the gun bans, D.C. v. Heller just might reverse the direction of this kind of nightmare of removing you from head of household, only to replace you with official drones as they do now in parenting, electronic surveillance, etc.

I like safer streets, and many of the Safe Streets Programs set out in the right direction, but do not travel far. Some strive for specific minor goals. Others were never funded. People dropped out as their websites dropped off the radar. Safe streets needs a lift, in my opinion, because it is an attainable objective. It can be done. It can be done because freedom can protect itself – if bureaucrats will get the Hell out of the way. And where freedom can protect itself, there is little need for Nanny. Hence, gun control in a need to be needed.

Let's get back to for whom the Constitution was written, that part about not being written for citizens, but being written for officials: Like most of the Constitution, it was written on the belief that human rights, personal dignity and Independence predate any document (including our own), that governments do not grant those rights, but that officials as servants are charged with the duty to recognize and protect them, and that severe limits are imposed on officials as part of their job. Nearly all of the Document is guidelines and Limits on Officials.

The D.C. ruling affirms this by slapping down the gun ban for the D.C.'s third time now, and applying to perhaps the major cities, too, who have followed the D.C. model.

The significance of the D.C. v. Heller ruling isn't that it will ban bans, but furnishes the authority for challenging them, and brother, they're going to be challenged by the liberty foundations. We wish them the very best. For us all.

[Not only will gun bans not touch thugs who use guns, but bans have been a proven formula for cloning into other areas of messing with our society. Unwind gun bans, and you can begin to reverse all sorts of adverse programs that have been hurting families, workplace and personal judgment and freedom.]

Not only can we look forward to safer streets in meeting community violence with authority, but we may even look forward to a return to our freedoms once Americans begin to see the connection between gun control and all other interferences with our free self-rule society.

Congratulations to the Team in good lawyering in this win. Congratulations. Well done.

And for all who challenge gun bans nationwide in the public interest, I have two words for you: Good Hunting.

It would be good for the country.

Longenecker is author of Safe Streets In The Nationwide Concealed Carry Of Handguns [June, 2008] AVAILABLE WORLDWIDE
 
I think if you look at the article Jim March posted for editing on the 2nd amendment, and the Incorporationist Doctrine, you'll find your position STRONGLY supported by historical court rulings.
 
I found the post by Harry Schell most interesting, worth reading. Others, having read the same, might agree.

Socrates:

Would you please provide a link or indicate where Jim March's comments, on Incorporation that you reference might be found. Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top