You're missing a BIG point. The individual rights part was only one third of the ruling; the equally if not more important parts are right of self defense (against no specified aggressor, so government can be included) and that impediments to intended use are unconstitutional. The latter two are key to emphasize as they can slay over 90% of the absurd gun laws of the oppressed states.
Heller...Did we really win?
- Thread starter cold dead hands
- Start date
We did not gain everything, but we lost nothing
And we did gain some very important things. One of the antis favorite arguments, and the basis of their viewpoint that guns should be restricted and regulated is that we did not have a right to own guns, except as militia members. That argument has (pardon the phrase) "been shot in the ass!"
One of the reasons the High Court has not had a 2nd Amendment case since the 1939 Miller case has been that progun forces have avoided it. We have avoided it because of the consequences if we lost, like we did in the Miller case. We fought against gun control laws in lower courts, and at the grass roots level.
Since 1968 we have lost much, against the constant and increasing tide of anti gun laws being proposed and often passed. We had few victories, but there were some. Unfortunately, even our victories often came wrapped up with a further loss, like the FOPA of 86. The past 40 years has seen more gun control legislation attempted than the entire previous history of our nation. And a lot of those laws passed.
Heller is a landmark decision, because of the basic clear ruling that gun ownership is an individual right, and complete outright prohibition of all guns is a violation of that right. Also important is the language that states that regulations are allowed, as long as they are not arbitrary and capriciously applied.
We are not going to get a gun law free nation ever again. Face it. But what the Heller ruling allows us is a legal basis for making the existing laws "reasonable". And reasonable not just by the anti gunners definitions, but by ours as well. Any compromise with the anti gunners has always been a distasteful thing because they only take, and never give, and nothing short of prohibition is reasonable to them. Well now the Supreme Court has said that prohibition is NOT reasonable. We have a long way to go to remove or reduce the most onerous restictions as much as humanly possible, but for the first time we have a clear legal statement that (as long as this court ruling stands) the US will not become as England has become today.
Just as the antis call each new restriction a necessary first step, so is the Heller decision a necessary first step. And thankfully, in the opposite direction!
And we did gain some very important things. One of the antis favorite arguments, and the basis of their viewpoint that guns should be restricted and regulated is that we did not have a right to own guns, except as militia members. That argument has (pardon the phrase) "been shot in the ass!"
One of the reasons the High Court has not had a 2nd Amendment case since the 1939 Miller case has been that progun forces have avoided it. We have avoided it because of the consequences if we lost, like we did in the Miller case. We fought against gun control laws in lower courts, and at the grass roots level.
Since 1968 we have lost much, against the constant and increasing tide of anti gun laws being proposed and often passed. We had few victories, but there were some. Unfortunately, even our victories often came wrapped up with a further loss, like the FOPA of 86. The past 40 years has seen more gun control legislation attempted than the entire previous history of our nation. And a lot of those laws passed.
Heller is a landmark decision, because of the basic clear ruling that gun ownership is an individual right, and complete outright prohibition of all guns is a violation of that right. Also important is the language that states that regulations are allowed, as long as they are not arbitrary and capriciously applied.
We are not going to get a gun law free nation ever again. Face it. But what the Heller ruling allows us is a legal basis for making the existing laws "reasonable". And reasonable not just by the anti gunners definitions, but by ours as well. Any compromise with the anti gunners has always been a distasteful thing because they only take, and never give, and nothing short of prohibition is reasonable to them. Well now the Supreme Court has said that prohibition is NOT reasonable. We have a long way to go to remove or reduce the most onerous restictions as much as humanly possible, but for the first time we have a clear legal statement that (as long as this court ruling stands) the US will not become as England has become today.
Just as the antis call each new restriction a necessary first step, so is the Heller decision a necessary first step. And thankfully, in the opposite direction!
It's a huge victory for us IMHO.
We no longer have to argue for individual rights. The most often used argument of the anti-gun movement was the collective rights only theory. That argument is gone.
With the Heller decision, the anti-gun movement has lost their "foundation" argument. Their arguments are now built on a "house of cards" IMHO.
The individual is now allowed to own a firearm for self-defense purposes. This individual right is protected by the 2nd Amendment.
Scalia also gave inklings that licensing schemes may go to far in many localities? Same for the 1986 defacto ban on full auto rifles.
HUGE victory for us pro-gunners IMHO.
I have to admit though, I was very surprised that four of the Justices ruled for the militia rights only theory. I guess I was naive. I honestly thought it would go 6-3 to 8-1 with Stevens being the bulwark for militia rights only. (At least I got Stevens right.)
We no longer have to argue for individual rights. The most often used argument of the anti-gun movement was the collective rights only theory. That argument is gone.
With the Heller decision, the anti-gun movement has lost their "foundation" argument. Their arguments are now built on a "house of cards" IMHO.
The individual is now allowed to own a firearm for self-defense purposes. This individual right is protected by the 2nd Amendment.
Scalia also gave inklings that licensing schemes may go to far in many localities? Same for the 1986 defacto ban on full auto rifles.
HUGE victory for us pro-gunners IMHO.
I have to admit though, I was very surprised that four of the Justices ruled for the militia rights only theory. I guess I was naive. I honestly thought it would go 6-3 to 8-1 with Stevens being the bulwark for militia rights only. (At least I got Stevens right.)
I hope the conservatives in the Senate, if there are enough left, use this as a new litmus test for the confirmation of Supreme Court Justices. The left has been using "Roe vs. Wade" as their litmus test for many years. We can now use "Heller vs. Washington, D.C." for ours.
Mr. Supreme Court Justice nominee, do you believe in the pre existing right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms for self defense, community defense, and other lawful purposes? Would you vote to overturn legal precedent as it exists today under stare decisis, Heller vs. Washington, D.C.?
If our conservative US senators can have the brass "you-know-whats" to ask those questions, Heller vs. Washington, D.C. will play an even bigger role in protecting our god given, natural right, to keep and bear arms.
Mr. Supreme Court Justice nominee, do you believe in the pre existing right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms for self defense, community defense, and other lawful purposes? Would you vote to overturn legal precedent as it exists today under stare decisis, Heller vs. Washington, D.C.?
If our conservative US senators can have the brass "you-know-whats" to ask those questions, Heller vs. Washington, D.C. will play an even bigger role in protecting our god given, natural right, to keep and bear arms.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
You have to understand that before Heller, the regulations did not even have to be reasonable. If Congress thought that $40k side-by-side trap guns should be outlawed because they were the overwhelming choice of gang members in inner-city disputes, then they could have under the collective rights theory.
Heller is not just a win. It is the biggest win since the fight against federal gun control laws started. Of course the fight isn't over by a long shot - there is still some serious challenges ahead. The key thing though is that we have stopped playing defense and are finally in a position to play some offense.
Heller is not just a win. It is the biggest win since the fight against federal gun control laws started. Of course the fight isn't over by a long shot - there is still some serious challenges ahead. The key thing though is that we have stopped playing defense and are finally in a position to play some offense.
And we must avoid the urge to use a hail mary pass (overturning NFA34) as our first play from scrimmage. Several pro gun rights organizations are already attacking the middle of the defense in Chicago and San Fran. Wilmette, IL already buckled. I say that's a first down for our side. Chicago is going to be a tougher and ruffer fight, but if we have enough momentum, even they will be softened up. Paul Helmke already admitted that the Brady Bunch has lost on the meaning of the Second Amendment. He wants to shift to a legislative approach. Well, he just told us his plans, so we can adjust accordingly. It's amazing what people will tell you when they are in shock.
I think it would be more accurate to say that he has no choice but to switch to a legislative approach.
The reaction of the gungrabbers tells you more than anything else that we won big with Heller.Legislative battles must be fought, but it's pretty encouraging that Obama flipflopped into more or less supporting the Heller result. I can't wait to see him supporting the eventual end of Chicago's ban.
Won't that be delicious if and when it happens? Of course, following his MO, he'll come out and say that he never said he supported Chicago's ban because he believes the Second Amendment is an individual right.
What a spinner. He has changed his position so many times that someone should hang an electric generator on him. He could provide the power for some of Al Gore's mansion.
Now he says he agrees with and wants to expand GWB's faith based initiatives. Didn't that bring the wrath and scorn of the secular left down on GWB's head? I seem to recall they scoffed at GWB for that, at least many of them did, if not all of them. But now that Obama has taken the same side of the coin, do the lefties think he's as incompetent as they think Bush is?
If there had been a fight against the federal laws when they started, we wouldn't have them now. If the depression, WWII, and the Cold War hadn't been back to back and the Cold War so long I'd venture to say people would have done a whole lot more to oppose government expansion instead of welcoming it with open arms.
mountainclmbr
New member
I just read the entire Heller majority opinion written by Justice Scalia. The opinion seemed very broad, addressing the fundamental meaning of the 2A, not just the DC law. I must say I was pleased! Anyone else have a comment on the majority opinion?
Most important part of Heller
One of the most important parts of the decision has gone almost un-noticed by most. In fact, many have stated that the issue of scrutiny was not addressed. However, it was - and in a most creative way:
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 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. Attorney Mike Anthony was the first to spot it, way to go Mike. "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."
Despite the critics, it appears that we have gained much more than many realize.
Howard
One of the most important parts of the decision has gone almost un-noticed by most. In fact, many have stated that the issue of scrutiny was not addressed. However, it was - and in a most creative way:
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 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. Attorney Mike Anthony was the first to spot it, way to go Mike. "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."
Despite the critics, it appears that we have gained much more than many realize.
Howard
I did not miss that hpj3, the opinion made the 2nd Amendment a fundamental right with the strong probability that strict scrutiny applies.
I assumed everyone knew about the footnote you quoted? I almost fell off my chair when I read that. I cried tears of joy!!
It's over hpj3 - the 2nd Amendment provides a fundamental individual right to keep and bear arms.
For me, a dream of a LIFETIME has become reality!! IMHO, the anti-gunners have lost big time, and they know it.
What still remains a mystery to me is how four of the Justices concluded, with all the evidence, that the 2nd Amendment affords only a collective right? I just don't understand their position.
Could someone please explain it to me? PLEASE?
(I'm such a strong proponent of individual gun rights that maybe my judgment is clouded on this one.)
I assumed everyone knew about the footnote you quoted? I almost fell off my chair when I read that. I cried tears of joy!!
It's over hpj3 - the 2nd Amendment provides a fundamental individual right to keep and bear arms.
For me, a dream of a LIFETIME has become reality!! IMHO, the anti-gunners have lost big time, and they know it.
What still remains a mystery to me is how four of the Justices concluded, with all the evidence, that the 2nd Amendment affords only a collective right? I just don't understand their position.
Could someone please explain it to me? PLEASE?
(I'm such a strong proponent of individual gun rights that maybe my judgment is clouded on this one.)Torontogunguy
New member
You will pardon the pun but "the jury is still out" on the effects that Heller will have on everyone.
I have a personal situation whereby I am unable to qualify for a CWP in several states that are critically important to me as their legislation says that one must be a resident of the states as they do not issue non resident permits to non residents of another state (i.e. U.S. Citizens living abroad at present).
I have already been asked to resubmit my application by one such state, by the supervisor of licensing, and am somewhat hopeful (although not holding my breath) that they will now issue that CWP permit to me as a citizen in consideration of the SCOTUS finding last week. I am part of "We the People" regardless of where I presently lay my head to sleep. And when I am at home in the good old USA am I not entitled to protect myself along with all other legitimate US Citizens? Of course I am. Are legal residents of the USA entitled to protect themselves by bearing arms? A gray area... but I say NO as they are not part of "We the People" (yet). Show me that U.S. passport indicating that you are a citizen and you are part of "We the People" and entitled to all the rights and privileges granted by the consitution.
So, it is beginning to make a difference but in the end will it be major? Only time will tell. The courts are governed by both legislated law and common law; both of which are so convoluted as to take a reasonably intelligent person several years of their life to get some sort of an idea of how things will be handled according to the law. (lawyers)
For those of us that are not lawyers? We need to sit back and observe the result of Heller. Hopefully, the decision will give some impetus to requests for consideration of what we perceive to be reasonable accomodations to our rights. Like "shall issue"?
Try living north of the 49th. for a while and you will see how important it is for one to have the tools and the rights to protect oneself. The situation here is appalling, with Mayor Miller of Toronto calling for an all out gun ban in response to the gang shootings that have taken place in his city recently, rather than addressing the problem.... the gangs themselves! It is only now that the gangs have gone after law enforcement officers directly in an effort to quell their thirst for justice that we might see the mud on Miller's face. If an armed and trained citizen LEO is afraid of being whacked by one of the local gangs "just for fun" or "to make his bones" then perhaps they will begin to put pressure on our politicians to take care of the problem. And to top this off you are several times more likely to be killed by a motor vehicle than by a handgun. Nevertheless, where politics is involved, reason and good manners fly out the window.
Heck, with so many people being killed by cars, buses and trains it is questionable, following Miller's logic, as to why these 'weapons' are not banned completely. Duh?
Heller, IMHO, is a biggie and gives us the opportunity to pursue legal standing(s) that we have had no way of pursuing up to now. What do I predict? Well, it depends on what "We the People" demand of our governments (federal, state, local). "Shall issue" with reasonable restrictions is certainly a first step. Let's get the bans in Chicago and suburbs, California, etc., tossed onto the scrap heap for starters. Let us never let up on the pressure to grant us our second amendment rights. We, our parents and grandparents fought and died for those rights and it is our solemn undertaking to ensure that their fight for our rights is not in vain.
Bravo Heller. Bravo SCOTUS. Now the ball is in our court and it is up to us what we do with it.
I have a personal situation whereby I am unable to qualify for a CWP in several states that are critically important to me as their legislation says that one must be a resident of the states as they do not issue non resident permits to non residents of another state (i.e. U.S. Citizens living abroad at present).
I have already been asked to resubmit my application by one such state, by the supervisor of licensing, and am somewhat hopeful (although not holding my breath) that they will now issue that CWP permit to me as a citizen in consideration of the SCOTUS finding last week. I am part of "We the People" regardless of where I presently lay my head to sleep. And when I am at home in the good old USA am I not entitled to protect myself along with all other legitimate US Citizens? Of course I am. Are legal residents of the USA entitled to protect themselves by bearing arms? A gray area... but I say NO as they are not part of "We the People" (yet). Show me that U.S. passport indicating that you are a citizen and you are part of "We the People" and entitled to all the rights and privileges granted by the consitution.
So, it is beginning to make a difference but in the end will it be major? Only time will tell. The courts are governed by both legislated law and common law; both of which are so convoluted as to take a reasonably intelligent person several years of their life to get some sort of an idea of how things will be handled according to the law. (lawyers)
For those of us that are not lawyers? We need to sit back and observe the result of Heller. Hopefully, the decision will give some impetus to requests for consideration of what we perceive to be reasonable accomodations to our rights. Like "shall issue"?
Try living north of the 49th. for a while and you will see how important it is for one to have the tools and the rights to protect oneself. The situation here is appalling, with Mayor Miller of Toronto calling for an all out gun ban in response to the gang shootings that have taken place in his city recently, rather than addressing the problem.... the gangs themselves! It is only now that the gangs have gone after law enforcement officers directly in an effort to quell their thirst for justice that we might see the mud on Miller's face. If an armed and trained citizen LEO is afraid of being whacked by one of the local gangs "just for fun" or "to make his bones" then perhaps they will begin to put pressure on our politicians to take care of the problem. And to top this off you are several times more likely to be killed by a motor vehicle than by a handgun. Nevertheless, where politics is involved, reason and good manners fly out the window.
Heck, with so many people being killed by cars, buses and trains it is questionable, following Miller's logic, as to why these 'weapons' are not banned completely. Duh?
Heller, IMHO, is a biggie and gives us the opportunity to pursue legal standing(s) that we have had no way of pursuing up to now. What do I predict? Well, it depends on what "We the People" demand of our governments (federal, state, local). "Shall issue" with reasonable restrictions is certainly a first step. Let's get the bans in Chicago and suburbs, California, etc., tossed onto the scrap heap for starters. Let us never let up on the pressure to grant us our second amendment rights. We, our parents and grandparents fought and died for those rights and it is our solemn undertaking to ensure that their fight for our rights is not in vain.
Bravo Heller. Bravo SCOTUS. Now the ball is in our court and it is up to us what we do with it.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
If I can't have an atomic cannon, the sky is falling.
That summarizes my view of the depressive cognitive mind set of some folks.
That summarizes my view of the depressive cognitive mind set of some folks.
While listening to the radio the other day, I heard an interview with Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
His opinion on Heller is that the issue is far from over, that the Supreme Court could one day overturn that decision. His goal is to see Obama elected President which could result in more justices like John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Mr. Helmke was very adamant that his group will never give up the fight.
Hopefully, none of us will let our guard down because we figure the battle is won.
His opinion on Heller is that the issue is far from over, that the Supreme Court could one day overturn that decision. His goal is to see Obama elected President which could result in more justices like John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Mr. Helmke was very adamant that his group will never give up the fight.
Hopefully, none of us will let our guard down because we figure the battle is won.