Heller only applies to handguns?
- Thread starter psyfly
- Start date
kilimanjaro
New member
That's the latest line of drivel from the left. Couple that with the Court saying 'dangerous and unusual weapons' were not part of Heller and you have the new antigun talking point, AR15s and such are not part of Heller, and can be banned by any jurisdiction.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
How are we supposed to comment on what he said when we don't know what he said? We don't have a transcript of his remarks. All we have is your report based on what you think he said. I have no way to assess whether you accurately understood him, nor whether your statement here accurately summarizes what he said.psyfly said:
It is true, however, that the decision in Heller was about the right to keep a handgun in the home for self defense. Those were the facts of the case.
Heller was about a particular resident of the District of Columbia who wanted to keep a handgun at home for self defense. He was prevented from doing so by a law of the District of Columbia, and the Court found that law to be invalid. That was the central substantive issue raised by the case, and it was the issue decided.
But in the course of deciding Heller (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (United States Supreme Court, 2008)) and McDonald (McDonald v. City of Chicago (Supreme Court, 2010, No. 08-1521)), the rulings made by the United States Supreme Court on matters of Constitutional Law, as necessary in making its decisions in those cases, are now binding precedent on all other courts. Now the Supreme Court has finally confirmed that (1) the Second Amendment describes an individual, and not a collective, right; and (2) that right is fundamental and applies against the States. This now lays the foundation for litigation to challenge other restrictions on the RKBA, and the rulings on matters of law necessarily made by the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald will need to be followed by other courts in those cases.
Are you without the means to find that clip and review it, yourself? Not being an officer of the court, as he freely admits, perhaps the OP didn't realize the importance of (or your inability to access) a verbatim recounting of what Toobin said. Would it not be more expeditious to try finding it than to berate the OP for what was likely an innocent oversight?
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Why should I bother to do that? Why should anyone be expected to do something like that?Kosh75287 said:
My comment has nothing to do with my being a lawyer. And it relates to something very basic which I think anyone should understand: There can be no meaningful discussion about reality without the facts.Kosh75287 said:
If we want to discuss an incident, we need to know what happened. If we want to discuss a statement, we need to know what was said. To the extent we don't have good information, we are relying on assumptions and guesses which may have nothing to do with reality. These are basic and fundamental concepts.
Let me answer you, Kosh, in a slightly different manner...
If you were to tell me so-and-so said something, and then you asked a question about what so-and-so said, it is up to you to give me the source of what was actually said, so I can answer your question or in the unlikely situation, correct your interpretation to what was said.
psyfly said he watched Jeffry Toobin remark something about the Heller case. He then solicited comments. According to you, Kosh, it is now up to me to find what Toobin said?
No. That is exactly backwards. You want me to comment (or anyone else)? Get me a link to what was said.
If you were to tell me so-and-so said something, and then you asked a question about what so-and-so said, it is up to you to give me the source of what was actually said, so I can answer your question or in the unlikely situation, correct your interpretation to what was said.
psyfly said he watched Jeffry Toobin remark something about the Heller case. He then solicited comments. According to you, Kosh, it is now up to me to find what Toobin said?
No. That is exactly backwards. You want me to comment (or anyone else)? Get me a link to what was said.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
As a member and not a moderator, I agree completely with Frank and Al. Anyone who wants to start a discussion of something has the responsibility of providing a link to or quotation of what it is they want to discuss. I find the same thing when people ask about the carry laws in their state. There's no citation, just something like, "I heard that it's not legal to carry a gun in a Burger King in my state. Is that true?"
It then falls on the readers to elicit what state the person is talking about, and what the law says. Only then can we begin to actually discuss the question. The OP could facilitate the discussion considerably by simply quoting the law, or citing a link to the law, so that everyone who participates in the discussion can be on the same page.
We're all just scrolling through these forums. I visit several every day. I have neither the time nor the inclination to fire up Google and try to search out information the OP should have provided in the opening post.
It then falls on the readers to elicit what state the person is talking about, and what the law says. Only then can we begin to actually discuss the question. The OP could facilitate the discussion considerably by simply quoting the law, or citing a link to the law, so that everyone who participates in the discussion can be on the same page.
We're all just scrolling through these forums. I visit several every day. I have neither the time nor the inclination to fire up Google and try to search out information the OP should have provided in the opening post.
I am the OP and I also agree. Mea culpa.
I watched the referenced Toobin comment yesterday live on CNN and had no way of providing any link to same and, since, have not found any online reference to the comment.
In my rush to try to ameliorate my ignorance somewhat (one of the reasons I spend so much time here), I posted the question.
I particularly enjoy the comments and knowledge I receive from members and staff. I owe a lot to Mr. Ettin, for instance, for his many astute contributions toward my education.
I could, and should, have done something about said ignorance without wasting anyone's time on the site.
My apologies to all and best wishes for a safe and happy holiday season.
I watched the referenced Toobin comment yesterday live on CNN and had no way of providing any link to same and, since, have not found any online reference to the comment.
In my rush to try to ameliorate my ignorance somewhat (one of the reasons I spend so much time here), I posted the question.
I particularly enjoy the comments and knowledge I receive from members and staff. I owe a lot to Mr. Ettin, for instance, for his many astute contributions toward my education.
I could, and should, have done something about said ignorance without wasting anyone's time on the site.
My apologies to all and best wishes for a safe and happy holiday season.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
For future reference, one of the advantages we have in this "instant information" age is that most everything is nearly instantly available on the web.
I googled "toobin cnn transcript" and was immediately greeted by CNN's own transcript site. Here is a search of "Toobin" on that page. I'm not sure if one of those results is the story you are looking for.
Although, in this instance, I'm not sure that what Toobin said exactly is really the point, so much as "Was the Heller decision limited to handguns?"
I googled "toobin cnn transcript" and was immediately greeted by CNN's own transcript site. Here is a search of "Toobin" on that page. I'm not sure if one of those results is the story you are looking for.
Although, in this instance, I'm not sure that what Toobin said exactly is really the point, so much as "Was the Heller decision limited to handguns?"
Frank Ettin
Administrator
And if we want to discuss that (rather than "was Toobin right?"), let's look again at how I'd answer that --Brian Pfleuger said:
The decision in Heller was about the right to keep a handgun in the home for self defense. Those were the facts of the case.
Heller was about a particular resident of the District of Columbia who wanted to keep a handgun at home for self defense. He was prevented from doing so by a law of the District of Columbia, and the Court found that law to be invalid. That was the central substantive issue raised by the case, and it was the issue decided.
But in the course of deciding Heller (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (United States Supreme Court, 2008)) and McDonald (McDonald v. City of Chicago (Supreme Court, 2010, No. 08-1521)), the rulings made by the United States Supreme Court on matters of Constitutional Law, as necessary in making its decisions in those cases, are now binding precedent on all other courts. Now the Supreme Court has finally confirmed that (1) the Second Amendment describes an individual, and not a collective, right; and (2) that right is fundamental and applies against the States. This now lays the foundation for litigation to challenge other restrictions on the RKBA, and the rulings on matters of law necessarily made by the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald will need to be followed by other courts in those cases.
Thanks for the link, Brian, but no joy.
Toobin was guest commentator on Erin Burnett's CNN spot last night.
Searching his name did turn up an impressive number of frankly anti 2nd amendment opinions.
But, thanks to Frank Ettin, my question was answered anyway.
Another learning experience on TFL; I'll do it better next time.
Best,
W
Oops, Frank was posting while I was composing. Which gives me the opportunity to ask another perhaps silly question:
Are 2nd amendment rights "Civil Rights"?
Toobin was guest commentator on Erin Burnett's CNN spot last night.
Searching his name did turn up an impressive number of frankly anti 2nd amendment opinions.
But, thanks to Frank Ettin, my question was answered anyway.
Another learning experience on TFL; I'll do it better next time.
Best,
W
Oops, Frank was posting while I was composing. Which gives me the opportunity to ask another perhaps silly question:
Are 2nd amendment rights "Civil Rights"?
Frank Ettin
Administrator
I don't think that's necessarily clear yet -- as Second Amendment jurisprudence continues to evolve. I'm also not sure how legally significant the question is. Currently the right to keep and bear arms is not recognized as a right protected against private discrimination under any state or federal civil rights legislation of which I'm aware.psyfly said:
Characterizing the RKBA as a civil right possibly has some political and public relations value.
That has been my thinking, and I have characterized it as such in casual conversation.
I have seen it produce some thoughtful pauses.
No one has called me on it yet, which is a good thing as I'm not sure how to respond.
Would it require (or result in) gun ownership becoming a proteced class?
What are the odds?
I have seen it produce some thoughtful pauses.
No one has called me on it yet, which is a good thing as I'm not sure how to respond.
Would it require (or result in) gun ownership becoming a proteced class?
What are the odds?
Straight from the Heller decision:
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.
[emphasis added]
Saying it's only about handguns is pure BS.
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.
[emphasis added]
Saying it's only about handguns is pure BS.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Actually, that's not from the opinion. It's from the syllabus -- written by Supreme Court staff. You'll see the following at the top of the first page, entitled "Syllabus", of the slip opinion in Hellernatman said:
Yes, and I've explained all that.natman said:
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
natman said:
Unfortunately, what exactly constitutes a "firearm" as defined by the court is likely not nearly as cut and dry as we'd all like it to be.
The Feds don't even have a single definition of what constitutes a "firearm".
18 U.S. 921(a)(3) states "The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm."
26 U.S. E53BPartI5845 (The infamous NFA) states " The term “firearm” means (1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (5) any other weapon, as defined in subsection (e); (6) a machinegun; (7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and (8) a destructive device."
26 U.S.861(a) states firearms is defined as “"a shot gun or rifle having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length, or any other weapon, except a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive if such weapon is capable of being concealed on the person, or a machine gun, and includes a muffler or silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within the foregoing definition." (emphasis mine)
I don't know how many other definitions there are but I'd bet there's a few (or more than a few) so when the court says "firearms", it doesn't necessarily mean what you and I mean and even if THEY mean it that way, the lawyers will interpret it in the way they most want to so as to advance their agenda through the courts.
Justice Alito went to great lengths to argue that the 2A protects a fundamental right in the McDonald decision. The implication is that the right to self-defense is a civil right, but the contours are still being hashed out.
As for Toobin's argument, yes...I'd like to see a direct quote. That said, I've heard it from other sources. Consider the anti-gun narrative over the last 8 years.
"The 2nd Amendment only protects the National Guard."
"OK, so maybe it protects some kind of individual...well, drat. Thanks to Scalia's 'reasonable' and 'longstanding' wording, we can still whittle it down to nothing."
"Hey, maybe the Founders only meant to protect muskets."
"No? Not just muskets. OK. Well, Heller only covered possession of handguns, so let's run with that."
They've been grasping at straws because they're not winning the debate in the public mind. It's a bit like their effort to redefine "mass shooting" to prove there's been a "mass shooting" every day this year.
I heard some talking head on TV the other day, say that there had been "over 300 mass shootings" this year. (sorry, no reference)
So I wondered at the time, how they defined mass shooting....am still wondering...
As to comment on what you say someone said, then it is expected that you show me (us /the jury, etc.,) what was said.
Show, not tell. Telling is hearsay. Not generally admissible in a law court, and not properly admissible in the court of public opinion, despite its constant use.
Comments on the general idea you say they said are another matter.
The 2nd Amendment a civil right?
I don't see how it could NOT be. It is NOT a right of the government, it is NOT a right of the military. It is a right of the PEOPLE. The civil population. Civilians... just like all the other enumerated rights of THE PEOPLE.
That being said, I understand how the use of English in our law system is NOT identical to the common use of English in our daily lives.
I say it is a Civil Right, though I recognize it is not treated the same as other civil rights.
So I wondered at the time, how they defined mass shooting....am still wondering...
As to comment on what you say someone said, then it is expected that you show me (us /the jury, etc.,) what was said.
Show, not tell. Telling is hearsay. Not generally admissible in a law court, and not properly admissible in the court of public opinion, despite its constant use.
Comments on the general idea you say they said are another matter.
The 2nd Amendment a civil right?
I don't see how it could NOT be. It is NOT a right of the government, it is NOT a right of the military. It is a right of the PEOPLE. The civil population. Civilians... just like all the other enumerated rights of THE PEOPLE.
That being said, I understand how the use of English in our law system is NOT identical to the common use of English in our daily lives.
I say it is a Civil Right, though I recognize it is not treated the same as other civil rights.