Heller Desicion not all it's cracked up to be???

M

mellow_c

New member
This is an email I received form NAGR (National Association for Gun Rights) It asks for a donation, but thats not why I'm starting this thread, I'd just like to make sure you all know what is REALLY going on. Sure The D.C. Gun ban is gone, but it appears the door has been clearly left open for ALL sorts of additional gun control. Take a minute to read this. And feel free to post your opinions! :)

July 2, 2008

Dear Friend of Gun Rights,

I wish I could rejoice in the recent Supreme Court ruling. I can't.

The fact is, in many ways, it is bad news for gun owners and gun rights.

The Supreme Court's Heller decision wasn't even an hour old before anti-gun activists began revealing exactly what they had been plotting for months.

As Nancy Pelosi said regarding the Supreme Court's decision, "they left a lot of room to run . . ."

Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, a member of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's anti-gun coalition, said the Supreme Court's decision "is an explicit statement of support" for their gun control efforts.

My friend, we are about to see a tsunami of anti-gun activism.

That's why it's vital you act TODAY! Support us at http://www.nationalgunrights.org/heller.htm

You see, while the U.S. Supreme Court did strike down Washington, D.C.'s gun ban (and maybe Chicago's) they gave the GREEN LIGHT to virtually every other anti-gun regulation, licensing scheme and restriction on the books.

Justice Scalia writing for the 5-4 majority said, "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on [restricted persons] ... or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in [restricted places] ... or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

And it gets worse. And that's only five of nine judges.

Don't be misled. That's what anti-gunners count on.

Even as I write you, Nancy Pelosi, Michael Bloomberg and their anti-gun pals at the federal, state and local levels are preparing a torrent of new and sweeping gun control legislation.

So those who have been running around claiming the Supreme Court's decision will ultimately lead to Second Amendment utopia are DEAD WRONG.

Among other things, all the following anti-gun laws are A-OK according to the Supreme Court:

*** Mandatory licensing to purchase firearms;

*** Bans on the open and concealed-carry of firearms;

*** Bans on private sales of firearms;

*** Bans of so-called assault weapons and other "unusual" weapons (that's the actual language Scalia uses);

*** Bans on firearms on government property;

*** Bans on certain calibers of ammunition;

*** Bans on high-powered hunting scopes;

*** One-month waiting periods;

*** One-gun-a-month schemes;

*** Mandatory ammunition fingerprinting.

That's why your help today is so vital.

You see, the gun-grabbers have been raising millions of dollars for months, hoping for a Court decision they could "work with." And they got it.

While so many folks on our side are being distracted by a national press claiming "PRO-GUN FORCES WIN," anti-gun forces are ready to use the Court's decision to take even MORE Second Amendment freedoms away from you and me.

And with millionaire Hollywood honchos and billionaires like New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg on their side, I'm afraid they have all the money they need to do it, too.

And don't think Bloomberg and his gun control pals will stop short of TOTAL gun bans!

By the time any newly-passed gun control scheme makes its way back to the Supreme Court, every current Justice could be retired or DEAD!

That's why your help is needed IMMEDIATELY.

By turning up the heat on politicians now -- especially in this critical election year -- you and I will send the clear message to the politicians that they MUST oppose any new gun control scheme or pay the price at the polls.

That's the only real way to get politicians to listen.
 
It's important to recognize what the Heller decision is and is not.

[A] The “executive summary” is effectively the syllabus at the beginning of the majority opinion. The high points are the following:

“Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home….

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons….

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this
….prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense
of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional
muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument
that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily
and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy
his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.
Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
must issue him a license to carry it in the home …..

The first point is probably the most important and significant. It is a clear statement that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, that such right is unconnected with service in a militia, and that such right is use the firearm for any traditionally lawful purpose. This puts to rest the arguments that the Second Amendment is somehow related to a state’s maintenance of a militia. This threshold interpretation will need to be applied in future litigation involving the Second Amendment.

[C] Much of the language focuses on possession of a gun for self defense in the home. I believe that’s because what the case was about. The plaintiffs wanted to keep guns at home for self defense.

It is fundamental that courts (including the Supreme Court) decide cases. They do not make policy or propound philosophical propositions. It will be for future litigation to address issues associated with possession of guns for self defense, in various places and under various circumstances, outside the home. But all such future cases must start with the proposition that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun for traditionally lawful purposes.

[D] But it is a well settled principle of Constitutional law, as reflected in decisions of federal courts, including the Supreme Court, that government may regulate Constitutionally protected rights, subject to certain constraints.

Thus government may regulate a Constitutionally protected right as necessary to further a compelling state interest as long as such regulation is as narrow it may possibly be and still serve that interest. Any such regulation must not totally obviate the Constitutional right. Furthermore, any such regulation must be evenly applied and not subject to the discretion of governmental authority. Application of these principles may be understood, I think, in relation to the First Amendment.

While the First Amendment protects freedom of speech and, we know there has been a history of certain regulation of speech and assembly. A few examples are:

[1] Laws prohibiting such things as false advertising, fraud or misrepresentation, as well as laws requiring certain disclosures in connection with various transactions, would absolutely survive a challenge to their validity on Constitutional grounds even though such laws do impinge on the freedom of speech. Among other things, such laws serve compelling state interests related to promoting honest business and helping to preserve the integrity of commercial transactions. They tend to be only as broad as necessary to serve that function.

[2] Laws respecting the time, place and manner of speech or assembly have also survived Constitutional challenges. Thus a municipality may require that organizers obtain a permit in order to hold an assembly or a parade and may prohibit such activities during, for example, the very early morning hours. Such regulations would be permitted only to the extent necessary to serve the compelling state interest of protecting public health and safety. Any such regulations, to be Constitutionally permissible, could not consider the content of the speech or assembly; and they would need to be applied in an even handed manner based on set guidelines and not subject to the discretion of a public official.

[E] So it’s likely that future litigation with focus on whether a particular regulation of possession or use of firearms will actually serve a compelling state interest, or whether such regulation is broader than necessary to serve that interest. Much current regulation will most probably be found to pass Constitutional muster, but others will may well not. There will be many years of jolly litigation necessary to sort things out.

[F] The dissents are troubling. They are not precedent, but the reasoning set out in them can help provide a road map for limiting application of the majority decision. And on rare occasions the Supreme Court has overturned a past decision. So 5 to 4 is a little to close for my comfort. We also have to remember that whoever the next President is will probably appoint one of more Supreme Court Justices and could tip the scale the other way.

[G] This is a great decision for gun owners, but it’s not the end of wrangling over the meaning or application of the Second Amendment.
 
It is fundamental that courts (including the Supreme Court) decide cases. They do not make policy or propound philosophical propositions.
Click to expand...

I believe that most of what Justice Kennedy has written flies in the face of that statement.
 
Just because the Heller majority decision didn't say "zOMG they can has machinegunz!!!!111!!1!" doesn't mean our rights are in the peril presented by that piece of junk mail you got.

The decision addressed Mr. Heller's needs as a resident of Washington DC. Mr. Heller was represented by Alan Gura, and Alan Gura represented Mr. Heller AND ONLY MR. HELLER.

Gura didn't represent the NRA, JPFO, SAF, GOA, TFL, THR or www.zombiehunters.com.

As such, the SCOTUS ruled based on what Mr. Heller's legal representation argued. Their ruling was tailored to:
1. Heller's victory over DC law.
2. DC's violation of the 2A.
3. Justification as to WHY DC violated the 2A.

Gura didn't talk about machine guns, silencers, overly aggressive regulation, unjust NFA fees, magazine capacities or the appropriate wattage of a Phased Plasma Rifle for non-militia citizens.

So, the court didn't mention it.

This court's ruling is not the END of the road for the 2A and its protections. Remember, our government system grants POWERS to the government, and all other rights and priviledges are retained by the People unless expressly prohibited by a law.

This court said the DC violated the Constitution, and here is exactly how you did it.

It didn't care about how the State of California (for example) is violating the Constitution, because the question wasn't asked to the court by anyone with standing.
 
sasquatch said:
I believe that most of what Justice Kennedy has written flies in the face of that statement.
Click to expand...
Judges write a lot of stuff in their opinions, but under the proper application of stare decisis only what is necessary for the decision in the case that was decided is applicable in other cases.
 
That is typical fundraising propaganda.

Among other things, all the following anti-gun laws are A-OK according to the Supreme Court:
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court didn't say any of those things. In fact, they broadly hinted at (and precedent supports) that licensing of a fundamental right is unconstitutional; but they didn't address it in this case because Heller had already stipulated to licensing (part of a strategy to keep the question limited to the narrow issue of whether the Second protects an individual right).

All of those things COULD still come to pass if we lose future court battles; but the press release is mistaken in claiming that Heller said those laws were constitutional.
 
OK OK......

While I completely agree with you all about our rights not being immediately threatened. There is no denying that the Anti-gun activists now have a sure and stable platform to launch a very invasive and fear spreading campaign against the general gun rights of Americans. Including many of the regulations listed in the first post of this thread.

These folks have the money, ego's, and belief in their world changing self righteous legislation, to easily convince the "general public" that we need MORE gun control. Given enough time, these folks will have picked away at our rights to the point that we will only be allowed certain calibers, one gun purchase a month. Any type of public carry may become illegal, A special License may be required to own any type of firearm, even one handed down from our great generations before us, even for display purposes. The amount of room they have to work with is unbelievable. And the amount of sheepish and fearful minds they have to work with in our country is just as bad.

My point is this. what is now called the "gun culture" (it used to be a way of life) is under attack and being fazed out by people who believe a defenseless society is a safe society. And we all know where being defenseless leaves you, it leaves you vulnerable, and well, defenseless. Fear is very powerful, especially when it's teamed up with the "logic of the right mind". People will hold on to it. And unless there are folks who know better, and speak out for our rights, we may find our selfs missing one of our favorite sports, and most importaint basic rights. The right to defend yourself with equal means of force. Criminals and Government will ALWAYS have guns.

As far as Bartholomew Roberts post goes. It's true that any new gun control will have to be approved. But how easy will it be for the general fear of firearms to gain control of the public and leaders of our country. To the point where the constitution will be changed, ignored, or violated... for "our own safety". The answer is, Very easily. Unless there is a substantial opposition and continuation of tradition within our own people.
 
The ink isn't dry and we need to let it dry, before screaming starts in any form. That's hysteria, it exists on the extremes of any question.But what the Heller Decision finally did is start to take the hysteria out of everything, by defining the basic right. And it began to align the law to what the huge majority of Americans desire relative to guns: that it be an individual right, and that, like all rights, it have restrictions. This is mid-ground and the decision provides the basis, the benchmark, for future cases, legislation etc. to continue to define.

No, not every detail has been worked out, but that's not the function of SCOTUS, and what would you expect in two weeks in any case? And not every person is going to like every future decision, but slowly the country will move from the present chaos of wildly different gun laws determined by geography -to a more rationale system of gun ownership and use that stresses freedom and responsibility. I think it's a very good start. Let it alone for a bit.
 
Re-reading the press release, I see that it is way over the top. Who the heck is the National Association for Gun Rights? What have they ever done for the RKBA, and why should we give them any money?

I would agree that there is much left to do to sort out the many important issues the Heller didn't address, simply because they are beyond the scope of the issues presented by the case. I also agree that we are still vulnerable. In fact, we could still lose all the marbles if the composition of the Supreme Court changes significantly.

But those are no reasons to give money to every organization sending out some "hard sell" marketing screed calling itself pro-gun. But we do need to continue to support those organizations that have demonstrated significant contributions to the RKBA.
 
Why are you getting worked up that the anti-gunners are doing what they've been doing all along, EXCEPT, we have a new tool to fight them? This case wasn't a panacea, but an important first victory.
 
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia
Click to expand...

Heller is good and bad... but that part is a huge victory. We can fight the small battles left over with this mixed decision, but we could not have possibly have recovered from a decision in this case which might have tied gun ownership to military service. So, Heller is a win..... sort of.
 
Doesn't it seem a little ironic that the mail piece takes what is clearly a victory for our side (how much a victory is yet to be determined) and states how the anti's are giddy and getting ready to launch more victories for themselves, while gun owners should be moping around like old hound dogs who can't find the last bone they buried?

The anti's are attempting to put a face saving spin on this whole thing. Many antis are downright PO'd about this loss for their side. There's plenty of op ed pieces which demonstrate their frustration. In the meantime, our side is launching new attacks in Chigaco, some of Chicago's suburbs, and San Fran. The city of Wilmette, IL has already put a halt on their gun ban, at least temporarily, until the city council can figure out how to react to the Heller decision. That wall has been breached.

We are on the offensive. That doesn't mean the anti's won't attack our flanks. We have to be ready for that. But they are now on the defensive. Their actions, their propoganda, and the tone of their rhetoric, tell us as much.

Just because Heller didn't overturn every handgun ban, assault weapon ban and machine gun ban in the country, doesn't mean we've lost. The anti's want everyone to think we've lost and they've won. They know better in their hearts. We need to keep the pressure on. Look at how many states have gone "shall issue". Look at how the democrats had to run candidates who are more on the pro gun rights side to take over congress. And now we have the Supreme Court finally showing how mistaken the reading in US vs. Miller has been for these 70 years and clearly defining, as a constitutional right, the individual right, vs a collective right, to keep and bear arms for self defense and other lawful purposes. This includes hunting and target shooting, so long as we don't let PETA help to implement hunting bans and the environmentalists close down gun ranges for noise and lead contamination. Those are also battles we need to continue to fight. Who said wars are fought and won on only one front? So far, in aggregate, we've won more than we've lost at the national level. The congress even let the AWB sunset. Hopefully, it won't rear its ugly head anytime soon because of Heller. :cool:
 
........you say they were soliciting a donation eh.......I'd think that raising a reason to worry might go toward that goal.

The better approach might be 'A victory in a decisive battle but the struggle continues" rather then doom and gloom. They feel that minimizing the significance was a better approach. A reflection on their character maybe.
 
IMHO huchahuchax has given the best summary of the reality of the situation. I'll admit, I did get a little over excited after reading that email from NAGR:o And in truth, it is more a victory for us, than an opening for the "bad guys". But thats no reason to let our guard down.
California has already put ammunition bans in effect for ammo containing lead in certain (national shooting) areas. Claiming that the Condors are eating the lead and dying from it. They did this without any evidence that the condors were actually ingesting lead ammunition. It was passed all based on assumptions and fear, and surly with the intention of reducing the ability for people to use those areas for shooting, and there by reducing their ability to shoot in general.... you guys know how this stuff goes.
I am a little worried about something like that happening where I shoot (National forest) And I know there have already been attempts to make shooting in national forests illegal. (I have signed a few petitions floating around to keep it from happening) And I would dread the day that the only way I can go shooting is to either have a whole bunch of private land, or to pay high range prices with major shooting restrictions.

All in all, it's nice to hear everyones opinions. and I agree with all of you in some way or another. Though, if I'm going to make any "Donations" It's going to be by becoming a life time member of the NRA.:D
 
This is probably the most important part of the decision...

Many current gun-control laws are likely to pass constitutional muster under the Heller doctrines, though further challenges to specific laws are likely. Roger Pilon, vice president for constitutional studies at the Cato Institute, pointed out to us that Justice Scalia's opinion included the stipulation that, in such cases, courts should not apply "rational basis," the lowest level of scrutiny, to such laws, since the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental enumerated constitutional right, requiring strict scrutiny when a legislative body seeks to limit it.

"The core issue of "judicial scrutiny" is now established -- better than we had dreamed -- in what will be known as Famous Footnote #27 (p56). Laws impinging on the Second Amendment can receive no lower level of review than any other "specific enumerated right" such as free speech, the guarantee against double jeopardy or the right to counsel (the Court's list of examples).

This is a tremendous win, and overlooked in all initial reviews I've seen. "Strict scrutiny," which many folks sought, is a term without formal definition that could prove problematic. I was hoping for a test of some sort and got more than I hoped for. By recognizing 2A as a "specific enumerated right" the majority ties 2A to the rigid standards and precedents of our most cherished rights. That's as strong as there is. Very clever indeed."
It would appear that we got a better deal than many realize...

Howard
 
Without question, Heller is a HUGE win for our side. The scare tactics used by that organization asking for a donation are way overblown IMHO.

It is the anti-gunners who are now "on the run". It appears Pelosi got it wrong! ;)

As hpj3 cited in the above post, the SCOTUS has ruled the 2nd Amendment is a fundamental, individual right. I'm still DIZZY with happiness over that MONUMENTAL conclusion.

I've had to pinch myself numerous times to make sure I'm not dreaming about that wonderful decision! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top