D.C. vs. Heller (Supreme Court and the 2A) - Mega Thread

[Yellowfin]

Quite honestly I wish everyone who is on our side would drop the use of the H word and use sidearm, pistol, or carry gun instead. The H word has become politicized and is used as a pejorative in the rhetoric of the antis, particularly in the news. I see no good in it.

[Yellowfin]

I find the wording of that VERY favorable. It leaves extremely little room for any possible rational interpretation in the negative--it is impossible to argue to the contrary

[Garand Illusion]

Some Anti posts on this:

gunguys.com drivel and a neat reference to LASERS!!!

Lost in the legal arguments, as GunGuys has pointed out on numerous occasions, is the reality that even a ban on handguns does not restrict the right of a person to own other firearms. A resident in D.C. can own shotguns and rifles, for instance.

The NRA has been successful in equating the regulation of specific types of weapons and the commerce in those weapons as relating to a mythic all-embracing fantasy about the Second Amendment.

Clearly, if laser guns that could kill someone from a thousand yards away were to come on the market (and they will), it would not be in the interest of protecting our law enforcement officials and citizens to allow such firearms to be sold to civilians

Brady Campaign Optimism

The U.S. Supreme Court has announced it will consider D.C v. Heller this term. By agreeing to hear the appeal by the District of Columbia in the Parker/Heller case, the U.S. Supreme Court has the chance to reverse a clearly erroneous decision and make it clear that the Constitution does not prevent communities from having the gun laws they believe are needed to protect public safety.

The D.C. Court of Appeals' decision in the Parker (now Heller) case was an example of judicial activism at its worst. The Court of Appeals ignored longstanding Supreme Court precedent and substituted its policy preferences for those of the District's elected representatives.

If the Supreme Court does not reverse the Court of Appeals's decision, sensible gun laws could be at risk...from the long-standing machine gun ban...to the Brady criminal background check law...to local and state gun laws like the ones in California and New Jersey banning military-style assault weapons.

VPC Drivel

It's amazed me that the VPC can only support the ban with their "evidence" that it affects the suicide rate. Are they the VIOLENCE policy center, or the SUICIDE policy center?

The earlier split decision by the Court of Appeals to overturn the District of Columbia’s handgun ban was not only contrary to the overwhelming weight of legal authority, but would certainly increase gun death and injury among District residents while also increasing the risks faced by the law enforcement personnel who protect all residents and workers in Washington, DC.

"Washington, DC's ban on handguns in the home has long protected DC's residents as measured by the District of Columbia's firearm suicide and overall suicide rate. The District’s handgun ban provides compelling evidence of how strict gun laws save lives by keeping handguns out of homes. The District of Columbia ranks 51st (last) in the country for firearms suicide for 2004, the most recent year for which statistics are available. The District also ranks last for overall suicide. Maintaining the ban will ensure the health and safety of DC residents. [See http://www.vpc.org/dcsuicide.htm for data on DC suicide rates compared to the 10 states with the highest suicide, gun suicide, and gun ownership rates, as well as a full ranking of all 50 states by their firearm suicide rates and overall suicide rates for the year 2004.]

[Hal8000]

George Mason, in the Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788 stated;
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

So, do you think they are going to give us a modern interpretation or go with the old one?

[ExtremeDooty]

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

I love the way people talked back in the "olden days." They were able to put so much meaning and wit in just a couple of sentences. These days, public officials seem able to speak for minutes at a time without ever saying anything.

BOT. I hope the SCOTUS gets this one right. I am a little worried that they won't and we'll end up with a bunch of "little DC's" all over the country, or worse.

[SteelCore]

Of course I'll be watching the case with interest, but ultimately it doesn't matter what the Supreme Court decides.

The Constitution doesn't give rights -- at least not in a practical sense. People ONLY have the rights they're willing to personally fight for and, if need be, die for. So if gun owners bow low before their Almighty Rulers and meekly follow the "law" when it tells them to turn in their guns (of whatever sort), then they don't deserve to have those weapons. An armed sheep is still a sheep.

The Founders of America were willing to sacrifice everything for their freedom, and they got it. Today's Americans aren't willing to do more than beg for their rights and donate some money to the politically-correct NRA, so they'll almost certainly lose their rights. Everyone gets the rights his courage shows that he deserves.

[StevePVB]

You may be right. Sort of like there is no such thing as a rifle anymore. They are all "assault" rifles.

[JuanCarlos]

You may be right. Sort of like there is no such thing as a rifle anymore. They are all "assault" rifles.

No, the ones that aren't semi-auto are "sniper" rifles.

But yes, control of language can be a very important tool in politics, and I think we've largely lost it.

[Yellowfin]

Which is why I suggest we reclaim it. Strip away a tool of fear used by our enemies AND wrestle control away from them. I personally prefer the term sidearm because 1) It specifically conveys and normalizes the idea of it being carried on the person 2) emphasizes its role as a tool 3) conveys as it does for those who carry one professional a sense of endowment of honor, responsibility, and respectability and 4) makes it much more negative to take it away. To take someone's sidearm from them is disgraceful, like castrating them or treating them as substandard. You can't as easily rhetorically say a person should be without their sidearm, whereas the antis can horrifyingly easily question anyone owning a... h word.

Ever since getting my CCW it has been sidearm or carry piece or carry gun to me, and my soon-to-be wife, brother, friends, and anyone else has not heard the h word come out of my mouth probably long before then.

[SteelCore]

I can tell you already that the Supreme Court will not proclaim the true meaning of the Second Amendment, which essentially affirms the right of a people to rebel against their own government just as the Founders did (see my signature). Even if they return a "pro-gun" interpretation, it will be significantly watered down to mean something like "the right to defend yourself against burglars" at best.

All true freedom-lovers know the REAL meaning of the Second Amendment and will NOT allow a bunch of jerk lawyers to "interpret" it for them. Of course all of us are right to be interested in this SC case, but we should not let a negative ruling be our defeat.

As I've said elsewhere, the Constitution does NOT give you your rights. Rights are determined by human moral instinct (or God, if you prefer), and they are guaranteed only by FORCE. If you personally are not willing to PHYSICALLY fight and sacrifice everything for your rights, then you don't have those rights -- Constitution or no Constitution. In the real world, as opposed to the legal or philosophical world, might makes right, and only force can counter force.

Thus, I know I have the right to own whatever weapons I choose, as I've granted that right to myself. If I have to die sooner rather than later to defend that right, then so be it. But at least I won't die a sheep and a slave, subject to the whims of legal "experts."

Gun owners will retain exactly those rights that their courage (or lack thereof) merits and no more -- whether that's the right to own belt-fed machine guns or the right to own no weapons at all.

When gun-owning sheep meekly obeyed the 1994 AWB, that was because they didn't deserve to have AWs. They were too cowardly to deserve to own those weapons. And when they turned in their guns to the JBTs without a fight after Katrina, they deserved to lose them (that one little old lady whom the criminal thugs brutally tackled showed more guts than just about everyone else). But when the Founders won their freedom from the Redcoats, they deserved to win it.

Don't rely on legal wrangling to protect your rights. Laws are made by men to control other men, and whatever man has made, man can destroy. The government doesn't have to obey its own laws. And if you're a coward who will obey the "law" no matter what, then you were born to be a slave, ruled by other men.

Sorry if all this sounds preachy, but it had to be said.

[mooreshawnm]

I agree with EVERY word you wrote Steel. Every word.

Shawn

[longeyes]

SteelCore, plaudits.

I know this: Disarmament is not an option.

[Bud Helms]

Topic under discussion here.

Threads merged.

[Tabsr]

Can i use your great phrase " Laws are made by men to control other men, and whatever man has made, man can destroy. The government doesn't have to obey its own laws. And if you're a coward who will obey the "law" no matter what, then you were born to be a slave, ruled by other men."

[JimR]

Fred Thompson has already posted a well-crafted statement on this case on his web site. Pretty quick work for someone so "lazy".

Second Amendment: A Citizen’s Right

[Al Norris]

Since I posted last, I've had a chance to read, review and reflect upon a whole lot of stuff that's been written in the last 10 or so hours.

One of the best analysis that I've read, comes from Buckeye Firearms Association, this article says a lot. But more, the post by their attorney, Ken Hanson, I think is the closest to what I now think will happen.

The Heller Decision - Some Initial Analysis

The following really amounts to nothing more than educated guessing at this point, and simply represents one person's musings.

The Supreme Court limited the case to the following issue:

Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?

This is completely reading tea leaves, but the particular issue that they limited this case to is one sentence packed with four important points:

1. "...violate the Second Amendment Right of individuals..."

2. "...who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia..."

3. "...handguns and other firearms..."

4. "...for private use in their homes."


1. It appears the court has already indicated the Second Amendment is an individual right, and will rule as such. This has always been my reading of the prior Miller decision. The collective rights view will be summarily dismissed and the court doesn't want a bunch of time spent on whether the Second Amendment is an individual right versus a collective right. Being highly educated men and women, if they wanted a generalist brief on whether the Second Amendment was a collective right or an individual right, they would have asked for it. Words such as "Is the Second Amendment an individual right or a collective right of the states?" would have been used. Instead, they asked for whether the dc gun ban violates "the Second Amendment Right of individuals." That portion of Second Amendment argument appears to have been decided in favor of the individual rights view.

2. Lord, here we go again with the Militia. Their Order seems to be worded as the court not wanting to waste time arguing about who is or isn't in a militia, which necessarily means they don't view this issue as controlling. By saying they want the argument limited to people who are not affiliated with a militia, they indicate the being in the militia or not is immaterial. This case will not be decided under some obscure section of law defining militia membership, the Court seems to want to resolve the issue independent of the militia being material to the right or not. i.e. they don't want to revisit the issue if the definition of the militia changes, militia statues are withdrawn or something similar.

3. It appears that the Court wants to talk about firearms in general. This is important, because DC has been trying to say "we can ban handguns so long as we let you own rifles or shotguns." This appears to me to indicate that they aren't going to get into a Miller-type of analysis, a firearm is a firearm for the purposes of this Second Amendment decision.

4. This is the most problematic point as far as getting a broad pro-gun decision, but honestly it is one that the Plaintiffs asked for and welcome. This ruling will be restricted to use of a firearm in your own home. This is probably the cleanest, easiest route home for gun proponents. We aren't going to have to talk about guns in schools, guns in bars or whatever other sort of horror show the Bradys want to dream up while trying to determine whether or not this is a right and what it protects. The threshold issue will be determined (is it a right or isn't it) in the cleanest environment possible. Homes have always enjoyed the strongest presumption of protection and privacy, and this is the most secure environment to get the right established. My GUESS is that there is a majority of justices who are willing to rule for pro-gun advocates, perhaps even a unanimous group, but only if it is strictly limited to inside the home for the first round decision. The hardcore group of pro-gun justices want the camels nose in the tent as strong as possible, so the compromise that was made was that this case would be limited to just a nice, clean issue of in your own home, which they can all agree upon.

For even more fun, you might want to read this chain of posts from the Volokh Conspiracy blog.

[mvpel]

I think that analysis is dead-on.

Once we have a firmly-established individual right in the home, it's not going to be too much heavy lifting to vindicate open carry in New York City or Chicago..

[fossten]

Clearly, if laser guns that could kill someone from a thousand yards away were to come on the market (and they will), it would not be in the interest of protecting our law enforcement officials and citizens to allow such firearms to be sold to civilians

You mean like this?

[tatera]

A Layperson’s Guide to the “DC Gun Case”
(You have permission to re-print as a pocket reference)

1.) Is the NRA winning?
DC v. Heller is actually not an “NRA gun case” - They tried to help the Parker case by launching a similar case in hopes they would be merged, with them leading prosecution. Both cases were tossed but Parker got heard on appeal. The NRA was shut out, leaving Parker to win their case without the NRA’s well-intentioned intervention. Fortunately, the NRA continues to rightfully protect and promote their various markets - which traditionally exclude urban policy, the constitution, and sometimes cold dead hands.

2.) What is Regulated?
The term “…well regulated…” actually means “…well disciplined…”. This is mistakenly refered to as the commonly used term meaning - tightly constrained by helpful laws enacted to protect citizens from themselves.

3.) Who's Right?
Always remember: It’s not “…the right to keep and bear arms…” but rather “…, the right of the people to keep and bear arms…” This helps to avoid those embarassing but rare situations where the meaning of the second amendment appears particularly coherent even through two opposing interpretations.

4.) The Founding Fathers Had a Secret Hidden Meaning for the 2nd Amendment?
The most successfully gaurded secret from the founding of our nation is actually the Framers’ stern belief in a collective right to arms. They wisely concluded that arms controlled exclusively by a government situates the citizenry in the best possible arrangment for protecting democracy. Although this sounds like something from the movie "National Treasure", they amazingly hid their collectivist's beliefs behind voluminous writings espousing individual rights, penned in all their correspondence and publications on the matter. Thankfully, policy makers uncovered the truth behind the second amendment for us laypersons and citizens have never been more secure with the abundence of resulting legislation protecting them.

5.) Mr. Miller Went to Washington?
The oft cited and much revered “U.S v. Miller” has served dutifully as a thorough test of the Second Amendment right, being a landmark decision and becoming the touchstone precedent for almost 70 years. A very trival side-note: Miller was inconveniently deceased at the time of trial, prompting counsel for the defense to employ a very bold strategy of not presenting evidence or arguments. This was swiftly countered by an equally deft strategy by the prosecution, comprised chiefly of appearing before the court on the assigned date. Though these two approaches have very subtle legal distinctions not apparent to laypersons, the justices execised extreme discernment and ruled in favor of the prosecution. Americans have basked in the resulting benefits to public safety ever since.

[RDak]

This is it guys. After all these years we will FINALLY get a definitive decision regarding the most basic right we all feel the 2nd Amendment provides.

The question is worded well and I honestly feel the Brady type of anti-gunners are in DEEP, DEEP trouble.

My prediction is no less than 6-3 in favor of Heller.

We need this victory, so desperately, before the Democrats take control of the White House and Congress that it cannot be over emphasized IMHO.

It's about time SCOTUS answered this question once and for all.

My guess, with the make-up of SCOTUS, we'll win easily. Ginsburg and Stevens are the only justices I see going for the stupid collective right theory. And their reasons will not be based on historical fact but on political, liberal, anti-gun philosophies.

Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Souter, Kennedy, and probably Bryer, will go for the individual right theory. Not so sure about Bryer but he's surprised me sometimes.

Ginsburg probably doesn't know what end of a firearm the projectile exits from and Stevens is an extreme liberal who believes in the "collective right" theory on any subject you can think of IMHO. As far as Ginsburg, IMHO, she favors a communist sort of society rather than a democratic sort of society. Stevens not so bad IMHO but close. We don't have a chance with those two IMHO.

At worst, I see it at 6-3 in our favor and maybe 7-2.

Wouldn't that be something!?

I mean, come on, do any of you feel that the majority of SCOTUS justices will rule the individual does not have the right to own a firearm and keep it in his/her home for self-defense purposes? I don't, not for one minute. I'm about ready to break-open the champagne bottle for Godsakes!

Guys, I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict the ruling will be a slam-dunk for our side. (And that "limb" I'm going out on is a very thick, strong limb!!)

It's over, the way the question is worded, WE WIN easily IMHO!! FINALLY, after all these darn years. All my adult life for Godsakes.

[GoSlash27]

I think the analysis on the top of this page is spot-on.
Look at how they worded it; they are going into this with the assumption that the second is an individual right.
The question is does the ban violate it.

I'm not one for premature celebration, but I'm very, very confident about this one.

[RDak]

I'm not so sure about that GoSlash, (i.e., relative to SCOTUS conceding the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, for all of us, "right off the bat")?

To me, the question indicates SCOTUS concedes the 2nd Amendment gives individual militia members the right to own firearms.

Now, SCOTUS wants to answer that question relative to individual non-militia members owning firearms in their homes IMHO.

In answering this question, I believe SCOTUS will have to make some historical discussion of militias. I could be wrong but the question seems to indicate militia members are assumed to have the right to own firearms and keep them in their homes. That's the only concession I see "right off the bat".

Not as clear cut as the attorney Ken Hanson seems to opine IMHO.

[Hkmp5sd]

3. It appears that the Court wants to talk about firearms in general. This is important, because DC has been trying to say "we can ban handguns so long as we let you own rifles or shotguns." This appears to me to indicate that they aren't going to get into a Miller-type of analysis, a firearm is a firearm for the purposes of this Second Amendment decision.

I guess if SCOTUS rules a firearm is a firearm, ATF will have to counter rule that a machinegun isn't a firearm or SCOTUS will have overturned the 1986 ban (not to mention the 1968 "sporting clause" for imports).

[FirstFreedom]

I'm still somewhat afraid that they will punt it based on D.C. not being a state, and therefore not subject to incorporation of fundamental rights. I'm also quite cynical in general about the likely outcome. The SCOTUS in the last 40-50 years has a shameful history of ignoring precedent and weaseling their way to any outcome they want. It just comes down to, is there 5 or is there 4 who believe that the precedent means what it said? That being, U.S. v. Miller, which if read carefully, gives us the rule that: "If a firearm (arm) is proven *useful* to a military or para-military group, then keeping and bearing of said arm is protected as to the *individual*."

[mvpel]

If they came up with a "Constitution null and void in DC" ruling, then if I were a DC councilman I'd introduce an ordinance to establish a Censorship Board to illustrate the absurdity of the ruling.

But I don't think they're going to rule that way.