Holtz v. State of New York

So where is the "Breaking News"....

The State has had two months to prepare, why was this matter postponed?

Since the provisions of law being challenged are already in effect, and the plaintiff is suffering losses and continuing harm from the law, in addition to the ongoing infringement of Constitutional Rights, it would seem that an injunction would be issued fairly quickly pending a trial on the merits. But apparently there is not much urgency in the mind of this judge, in issuing an injunction against enforcement of the law, pending the outcome of the case. I wonder if this speaks to the court's view of the merits of the case.
 
USG said:
I wonder if this speaks to the court's view of the merits of the case.
Click to expand...

Just my opinion, of course, but I think this is the steadily revealed rebellion of all the lower courts against the Heller/McDonald decisions.
 
I agree with Al, lower courts are outright refusing to administer the Heller/McDonald decisions in their rulings. Hell look at Kachalsky in the State Court opinion written by Seibel: pistols aren't covered under the 2A because they aren't used for hunting.
 
I have never been happy with Heller. Yes, the major holding gave us "individual right," which is not to be sneezed at. But Scalia's discussion and the almost gratuitous mention of how the 2nd Amendment is subject to "reasonable regulation" (when the language of the 2A itself says otherwise), and the sloppy statement about existing anti-gun regulations being "presumptively" lawful did not help us at all. I still try to convince myself that Mr. Scalia felt he had to include such drivel in order to keep Justice Kennedy with the majority, but we'll never know.

I think Justice Alito's discussion in McDonald provides a lot more meat for citation by our side in subsequent cases.
 
In regard to the 2nd ammendment,what do you consider "arms"?

Is it pistols,shotguns,rifle only?

Fully auto machine guns?

Shoulder fired missiles?

Howitzers?

Nuckear weapons?

Give me a line here please and why it stops there.
 
Since you'd like to set a limit, why don't you tell us where it should be?

Keep in mind, the most destructive weapons in the world at the time, cannons and all their wondrous shells, were all freely owned by private citizens.
 
Cannons are perfectly still legal to own. Saw one on the TV show Pawn Stars just the other day.

I asked a resonable question and if you do no want to answe/cant answerr,thats fine with me and I undestand. Maybe a lawyer will help me out here. Spats Mcgee or Frank Ettins.

I dont want to get off subject here or start a back and forth.
 
Point being that they (cannons and what not) were the most powerful "personal" arms of the day and they were entirely unrestricted.

However, you are right in that it should be the topic of another thread.
 
Plumbnot,
I think the crossing point is what is a reasonable arm for individual self-defense, which the the core of 2A.

So nukes are not there, unless you have launch and targeting resources to not take yourself and a lot of other people, besides the threat you are addressing, down. Nukes are at the far end of the bell curve (if you will), but illustrate that there are limits.

On the other hand, a full-auto M16 variant would be within the realm of an individual weapon, if the circumstances where it would be the difference between life and death of an individual might be very rare in modern life in this country. Any time studying the urban riots in Los Angeles and other cities from time to time, however, shows that an individual could face multiple aggressors, armed or not, which would find a full-auto rifle (and normal magazines) to be fairly essential to survival. So to me, auto weapons, if not belt-fed, should be "in".

Between nukes and an M16, there is a lot of gray. Hand grenades? The Mexican cartels use them, notably (to me) in the case of a Mexican rancher who was told to get out of the way or else. He took Door #2, and killed half a dozen of the cartel boyos who came to roust him. It took hand grenades and more fire from the rest of the heroes to complete the mission.

Forgive me, Admins, I have wandered off-topic.
 
Plumbnut said:
In regard to the 2nd ammendment,what do you consider "arms"?

Is it pistols,shotguns,rifle only?

Fully auto machine guns?

Shoulder fired missiles?

Howitzers?

Nuckear weapons?

Give me a line here please and why it stops there.
Click to expand...
For the context of what the 2nd Amendment meant to the Founders, we have to refer to contemporaneous writings (which, in fact, the SCOTUS did in discussing the decisions in Heller and McDonald). I frequently find myself encountering a quotation from Tench Coxe:

"The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for THE POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICA FROM SIXTEEN TO SIXTY. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. What clause in the state or federal constitution hath given away that important right.... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

So if "every other terrible implement of the soldier" is my birthright, then it seems to me that I am entitled to own (if I can afford it) a howitzer, an Abrahms tank, or an F-16 combat aircraft. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say "small" arms, it says "arms."

Read more: http://www.davekopel.com/2A/lawrev/hk-coxe.htm
 
HarrySchell said:
I think the crossing point is what is a reasonable arm for individual self-defense, which the the core of 2A.
Click to expand...
Actually, the notion of individual self-defense being "the core right" of the 2nd Amendment is brand new. That view came out of Mr. Scalia's decision in Heller, and God only knows where he came up with it. Mr. Scalia has to be smart enough and have read enough history on the 2nd Amendment to have known that the true "core right" of the 2nd Amendment was the right (and the ability) to throw off a tyrannical government, and to out-gun any standing army that supports a tyrannical government.

But I'm sure Mr. Scalia didn't want to write that ... so he "gave" us individual self-defense as the core right, instead. If you read the contemporaneous writings of the Founders (such as Tench Coxe), you'll find plenty of references to throwing off tyrannical governments, and precious little about individual self-defense.
 
And all of this has to do with the case at hand, ... How exactly?

This has all been a wonderful little excursion. it will get back on topic, however.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top